Re:Losing the best player on a team can improve it
by dkarl on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @06:15PM
(#771569)
Unlike the Braess Effect for drivers, this is a phenomenon that a team can collectively understand and overcome. After all, if all the players pretended that the star was just an average player, the result would be better than if he really was an average player.
And that isn't even the optimum way to handle it. In the pathological case, a team is like a codependent spouse that obsesses over the star and contrives ways to be dependent on him even in situations where he shouldn't be involved. In the healthy case, a team collaborates to exploit their best player by not depending on him. When the defense adapts to shut down their best scorer, his teammates get more openings. Trivial example: when the defense double-teams the best offensive player, the remaining offensive players get to play 4-on-3. The presence of a stellar offensive player makes it easier for his teammates to score. The Chicago Bulls with Jordan were a great example. If it didn't work for the Knicks with Ewing, don't blame the presence of the star. Blame the coach and the players for not using him effectively.
Why a pro team would be unable to do this is perhaps a more interesting problem. Properly coached high school teams understand this and can execute it. Establish that Joe is an inside threat, then exploit the defensive adaptation by scoring from the outside. A pro team with a thoroughly scouted star gets to skip the "establish the threat" step and skip straight to exploitation. Why can't they do it? Maybe it has something to do with the Shane Battier article that appeared on HN several months ago -- if NBA teams and players are obsessed with individual statistics, perhaps they think like drivers in the Braess Paradox instead of thinking like a team.
And that isn't even the optimum way to handle it. In the pathological case, a team is like a codependent spouse that obsesses over the star and contrives ways to be dependent on him even in situations where he shouldn't be involved. In the healthy case, a team collaborates to exploit their best player by not depending on him. When the defense adapts to shut down their best scorer, his teammates get more openings. Trivial example: when the defense double-teams the best offensive player, the remaining offensive players get to play 4-on-3. The presence of a stellar offensive player makes it easier for his teammates to score. The Chicago Bulls with Jordan were a great example. If it didn't work for the Knicks with Ewing, don't blame the presence of the star. Blame the coach and the players for not using him effectively.
Why a pro team would be unable to do this is perhaps a more interesting problem. Properly coached high school teams understand this and can execute it. Establish that Joe is an inside threat, then exploit the defensive adaptation by scoring from the outside. A pro team with a thoroughly scouted star gets to skip the "establish the threat" step and skip straight to exploitation. Why can't they do it? Maybe it has something to do with the Shane Battier article that appeared on HN several months ago -- if NBA teams and players are obsessed with individual statistics, perhaps they think like drivers in the Braess Paradox instead of thinking like a team.