Modernization of Basketball Positions
Potential Statistical Benefits of Redefining Player Skillsets
Since basketball was created over 100 years ago, position titles of players have remained largely unchanged. They are:
- Point Guard (PG)
- Shooting Guard (SG)
- Small Forward (SF)
- Power Forward (PF)
- Center (C)
Basketball has come a long way since then. Pacing, spacing, and player development have changed dramatically over the years. Inspired by Tal Wanish’s 2017 ‘Rethinking Basketball Positions with Machine Learning,’ this study aims to determine potential statistical benefits of updating player positions for the modern era. Many basketball statisticians feel traditional player position classifications are too simple for today’s game, and could benefit from an upgrade.
As noted in Wanish’s study, the five traditional basketball positions can be redefined with eight modernized positions:
- Floor General
- Combo Guard
- Scoring Wing
- Shooting Wing
- 3/D Wing (3-Point & Defensive Specialist)
- Versatile Forward
- Scoring Center
- Supporting Center
This study will focus on the shooting statistics for these new positions. NBA Player statistics from 2012–2017 were averaged and graphed by traditional vs. modernized position for the following categories:
- Average Shot Distance From Basket — how far away a player is from the basket when they attempt a field goal
- Free-Throw Percentage —player’s accuracy from the free throw line
- Shot Selection Breakdown — measure of the percentage of a player’s 2PT shot attempts vs. 3PT shot attempts
- Field Goal Percentages — breakdown of player’s field goal percentage at various distances away from the basket
Averages for traditional and modernized positions were then graphed to find potential differences, and some modernized positional classifications overlap with traditional classifications.
Point Guards
The traditional point guard position can be broken down into three modern sub-positions:
- PG Combo Guard
- PG Scoring Wing
- PG Floor General
PG shooting data takeaways:
-Average Shot Distance From Basket — floor general PGs shoot from a foot closer to the basket than the traditional PG average
-Free-Throw Percentage — combo guard PGs shoot 1% better from the free throw line than the traditional PG average, while floor general PGs shoot 1% worse
-Shot-Selection Breakdown — again we see a visible difference between floor general PGs and the rest of the pack, who shoot about 8% more of their shots from two-point range than any other point guard type
-Field Goal Percentages — floor general PGs generate higher field goal percentages from all areas of the court than other PG types
Although modest, the breakdown of the traditional point guard position into combo guards, scoring wings, and floor generals yielded some statistical insight.
Shooting Guards
The traditional shooting guard position can be broken down into three modern sub-positions:
- SG Shooting Wing
- SG Scoring Wing
- SG 3/D Wing
SG shooting data takeaways:
-Average Shot Distance From Basket — scoring wing SGs shoot from a foot closer to the basket than other modern SG types
-Free-Throw Percentage —3/D wing SGs shoot 4% worse from the free throw line than the traditional PG average, while scoring wing SGs shoot 1.6% better
-Shot-Selection Breakdown — logically, 3/D SGs shoot a much higher percentage of their shots from three point range than other SGs
-Field Goal Percentages —shooting wing SGs generally shoot higher field goal percentages from all areas of the court than other SG types
Although modest, the breakdown of the traditional shooting guard position into scoring wings, shooting wings and 3/D wings yielded some statistical insight.
Small Forwards
The traditional small forward position can be broken down into three modern sub-positions:
- SF Shooting Wing
- SF Versatile Forward
- SF 3/D Wing
SF shooting data takeaways:
-Average Shot Distance From Basket — versatile forward SFs shoot from much closer to the basket than other small forwards
-Free-Throw Percentage — shooting wing SFs are slightly better free throw shooters than other SFs
-Shot-Selection Breakdown —versatile forward SFs shoot almost all of their shots from 2 point range, a 20% higher rate than any other SF position
-Field Goal Percentages — versatile forward SFs shoot better overall, but not as well as the distance from the basket increases
The breakdown of the traditional small forward position into shooting wings, versatile forwards, and 3/D wings yielded some statistical insights.
Power Forwards
The traditional power forward position can be broken down into four modern sub-positions:
- PF Scoring Center
- PF Supporting Center
- PF Versatile Forward
- PF 3/D Wing
PF shooting data takeaways:
-Average Shot Distance From Basket — supporting center PFs shoot from much closer to the basket than other PFs
-Free-Throw Percentage — scoring center and supporting center PFs are slightly worse free throw shooters than other PFs
-Shot-Selection Breakdown — supporting center PFs shoot almost none of their shots from three point range
-Field Goal Percentages — supporting center PFs shoot a much lower percentage the further away they get from the basket
The breakdown of the traditional power forward position into scoring centers, supporting centers, versatile forwards, and 3/D wings yielded some significant statistical insights.
Centers
The traditional center position can be broken down into three modern sub-positions:
- C Scoring Center
- C Supporting Center
- C Versatile Forward
C shooting data takeaways:
-Average Shot Distance From Basket — versatile forward Cs shoot from a much further distance than other Cs
-Free-Throw Percentage — versatile forward Cs shoot a higher free throw percentage than other Cs
-Shot-Selection Breakdown — versatile forward Cs shoot about 15% more three pointers than other centers
-Field Goal Percentages — supporting center and scoring center Cs shoot better than versatile forward Cs overall, but versatile forward Cs are much better shooters from range
The breakdown of the traditional center position into scoring centers, supporting centers, and versatile forwards yielded some very significant statistical insights.
Conclusion
The visualizations above indicate a need for deeper statistical analysis of positional data. Some shooting statistics had slight variances amongst positions, while others were quite large.Either way, this study indicates a need for further exploration of the value of modernized basketball positions.
In today’s game, teams don’t just need a ‘center.’ They need ‘a center who can shoot and space the floor’ or ‘a center that’s a defensive stopper.’ Using statistics to properly classify player skillsets is a means to this end.
