Critics of Kobe Bryant often claim that he is a selfish player. They note with glee that the Lakers lose a higher percentage of their games when he takes more than thirty shots than when he shoots less. The same thing was said about Michael Jordan. Reporters claimed that he scored a lot of points before he learned to be a team player, then he won championships.
I offer this hypothesis for your consideration; I believe that have reversed causality. Bryant and Jordan took a more shoots when their teammates couldn't score, and fewer when they could. Their games did not improve, their teammates did.
Reverse causality is a problem that plagues economists. Kevin Grier gives a good example in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, in "Empirics of Economic Growth," and writes,
[W]e are seldom sure whether the variables expected to cause growth actually do so or are themselves caused by growth. For example, some economists claim that financial development helps growth, but others argue that economic growth itself causes financial development.
Posts
I think that you make a good point about how Kobe only shoots more when his teammates are not shooting enough. I think it is a great example of reverse causality. The problm is not Kobe, but the blame is put on him because people can not see the larger picture. I think that certain parts of the economy also face the same fate.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a great point about Kobe and MJ's impact on their team. I also believe that Kobe wouldn't have had the chance the three-peat with L.A. withouth Shaquille O'Neal and Phil Jackson on his side. Same situation with the Bulls. I think Michael Jordan was blessed to have good teammates in Scottie Pippen and believe it or not Dennis Rodman, oh and Phil Jackson.
ReplyDeleteI think the reverse causality principle also applies to the game of baseball too. People make such a big deal about the success of closers in the game today. They say that Jonathan Papelbon is the most valuable pitcher to the Red Sox' because he pitches in just about every game that they win. Of course he's going to pitch in most of their wins because he is their 8th and 9th inning go to guy, and most of the time he should be able to get three outs before giving up three runs. I think people should start to say that Papelbon does well becuase the Red Sox spend a lot of money to aquire big name pitchers who eat up 2/3 of the game and allow the Red Sox to do well.