Monday, July 7, 2025

The Rise of Analytics in Basketball: The Good, The Bad, The Unwatchable

 Basketball has always been a game of heart, hustle, and highlight-reel dunks. But over the past two decades, a new player has entered the court: data analytics. From the NBA to college hoops, teams, coaches, and even fans are diving deep into numbers to gain an edge. Whether it’s tracking three-point efficiency or optimizing defensive matchups, analytics has reshaped how basketball is played, coached, and consumed. But is this data-driven revolution all slam dunks, or are there airballs in the mix? Let’s break down the good, the bad, and the downright unwatchable aspects of analytics in basketball.

The Good: How Analytics Elevates the Game

Analytics has brought a new level of precision to basketball, turning gut instincts into calculated strategies. Here’s why the numbers game is a win for hoops:

  • Smarter Strategies: Teams like the Houston Rockets under Daryl Morey pioneered the “Moreyball” approach, prioritizing three-pointers and layups over mid-range shots. Data showed that three-point shots (worth 1.5 times a two-pointer) and high-percentage layups maximize points per possession. According to Basketball-Reference, the NBA’s three-point attempt rate has skyrocketed from 22.2% of shots in the 2010–11 season to 39.2% in the 2022–23 season, indicating that teams are leaning heavily into analytics-driven offense. These developments led to the emergence of new breeds of players or adjustments to the existing ones.

  • Player Development: Analytics helps players refine their skills. For example, tools like SportVU cameras and Catapult wearables track player movements, revealing inefficiencies(There is a reason those ridiculous long two pointers are almost extinct today). LeBron James reportedly uses data to optimize his positioning on defense, saving energy for clutch moments. Wearable tech also monitors fatigue, helping teams manage player health, crucial in an 82-game season.

Lebron James's inhumane longevity is partially due to his use of analytics 

  • Fan Engagement: Fans now have access to advanced stats like Player Efficiency Rating (PER) or True Shooting Percentage (TS%) via sites like ESPN and FiveThirtyEight. This lets casual fans geek out over data, sparking debates like whether Nikola Jokić’s playmaking stats make him the ultimate center. Social media platforms like X buzz with fans analyzing stats, with posts like “Jokić’s assist-to-turnover ratio is unreal!” driving engagement.

  • Some stats derived through analytics from nba.com


  • Underdog Success: Analytics levels the playing field. Small-market teams like the Memphis Grizzlies use data to find undervalued players (e.g., Desmond Bane, a steal in the 2020 draft). By focusing on metrics like effective field goal percentage (eFG%), teams can build competitive rosters without breaking the bank.


The Bad: When Numbers Miss the Mark

While analytics has its highlights, it’s not always a fast break to success. Here are some pitfalls:

  • Overreliance on Data: Teams sometimes prioritize numbers over intangibles like chemistry or leadership. The 2018–19 Philadelphia 76ers, stacked with talent, struggled with cohesion despite strong analytics. Data can’t always predict how players gel or handle pressure in the playoffs.

  • Player Burnout: The push for efficiency can lead to repetitive playstyles. Players like James Harden faced criticism for iso-heavy, analytics-driven plays (e.g., step-back threes), which some coaches argue limit creativity. Per NBA.com, Harden’s isolation possessions peaked at 15.2 per game in 2018–19, leading to fan fatigue over predictable offense.

  • Injury Risks: Analytics-driven load management (resting stars to optimize playoff performance) frustrates fans and ticket buyers. Kawhi Leonard’s frequent rest games with the Clippers sparked debates on X, with fans posting, “Why pay $200 for a ticket if Kawhi’s sitting out?” Data may save players’ bodies, but it risks alienating the audience.

  • Bias in Models: Not all analytics are created equal. Models can overvalue certain stats (e.g., three-point volume) while undervaluing defense or hustle plays. For example, Draymond Green’s defensive impact is hard to quantify, yet his role in the Warriors’ dynasty is undeniable.

The Unwatchable: When Analytics Kills the Vibe

Analytics has made basketball smarter, but sometimes it makes it less fun to watch. Here’s where the numbers game crosses into “unwatchable” territory:

  • Three-Point Overload: The analytics obsession with three-pointers has led to games where teams jack up 40+ threes, often at the expense of variety. In the 2022–23 season, the Golden State Warriors attempted 3,947 threes (48.2 per game), per Basketball-Reference. Fans on X have complained, “It’s just chucking threes now—no mid-range, no post play.”

  • Hack-a-Shaq Redux: Analytics encourages fouling poor free-throw shooters (e.g., Ben Simmons, who shot 59.7% from the line in 2020–21). This slows games to a crawl, with fans booing as teams trade free throws for possessions. It’s strategic but painful to watch.

  • Monotonous Playstyles: Teams copying the Warriors’ or Rockets’ three-heavy systems can make games feel formulaic. When every team runs the same pick-and-roll-to-three play, the artistry of players like Kyrie Irving gets sidelined. X posts often lament, “Where’s the creativity in today’s NBA?”

  • Fan Disconnect: Casual fans don’t care about “points per 100 possessions” or “defensive rating.” Overloading broadcasts with jargon alienates viewers who just want to enjoy the game. A 2023 X poll showed 62% of fans prefer highlight plays over stat breakdowns on TV.

Balancing the Court: The Future of Analytics

The rise of analytics in basketball is a double-edged sword. It’s given us smarter strategies, unearthed hidden talent, and empowered fans with data. But it’s also led to repetitive playstyles, fan frustration, and a loss of the game’s soul at times. We don't want to just see layups and three-pointers. The challenge is balance—using analytics to enhance, not dominate, the sport. Teams like the 2023 Denver Nuggets, blending Jokić’s versatile play with data-driven efficiency, show it’s possible to marry both and be successful with it.

Jokic and the Nuggets have had a lot of success, partially thanks to analytics



What’s Next?

  • Teams should prioritize hybrid strategies, combining analytics with traditional scouting to value intangibles.

  • Broadcasters could simplify stats for casual fans, focusing on storytelling over numbers.

  • Players and coaches need freedom to deviate from data-driven plays to keep games dynamic.

As a fan, I love diving into stats, but I also crave those unquantifiable moments—a clutch dunk or block, a no-look pass, a streetball move, a game-winning buzzer-beater, heck, even a long two-pointer sometimes. We don't watch stats, we watch the game. Let’s keep the numbers in the background and the magic on the court.

What do you think? Are analytics making basketball better or worse? Drop your thoughts in the comments or join the conversation on X!

Monday, March 29, 2021

'If Beckham missed his free-kick v Greece, England would have won the 2002 World Cup'

England fans will never forget October 6th, 2001.

In front of a packed Old Trafford, Three Lions captain David Beckham fired his nation to the 2002 World Cup finals with a stunning 93rd-minute free-kick against Greece.

The strike from 'Golden Balls' is still one of the most iconic in English history, despite the fact Sven Goran Eriksson's side were eliminated at the quarter-final stage out in Japan and South Korea.

But those events in 2002 could have been very, very different.

One football fan has a theory that England would have won the World Cup that year if - wait for it - Beckham had MISSED his famous free-kick against Greece.

It may sound like an utterly bizarre thing to say, but when it's explained in full, there is some decent reasoning behind it.

Below, you can check out Tom's theory in full, courtesy of one of GIVEMESPORT's 'unpopular opinion' videos.

Interesting...

Had Beckham missed, England would likely have qualified for the 2002 World Cup by beating Ukraine in a play-off game.


Reaching the tournament in that manner would have handed the Three Lions a far easier run to the final - on paper at least.

As Tom mentions, England would likely have beaten Paraguay in the last-16, USA in the quarters and host nation South Korea at the semi-final stage.


In the final, they'd have met Brazil and this is where Tom believes Beckham would have performed his magic trick from a set-piece situation in the final minutes of the game.

Beckham vs Greece
If we're being honest, the final part of the theory is a tad farfetched, as Brazil's class of 2002 is still revered as one of the greatest teams in history.

Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos, Cafu, the South American nation's side was ridiculously strong over 18 years ago.

England's wasn't bad either, but the Three Lions' array of players was a level below those possessed by the Selecao.

So while it's entirely plausible that Eriksson's side would have reached the final if Beckham had skied his effort against Greece, triumphing at the 2002 tournament is a bit of a strech.

To read more of this type of article go to givemesports on opera news

The Rise of Analytics in Basketball: The Good, The Bad, The Unwatchable

 Basketball has always been a game of heart, hustle, and highlight-reel dunks. But over the past two decades, a new player has entered the c...