About a week ago in the comments section of one of our posts, JM made the following comment: “According to espn.com’s player rater averaging one steal is equivalent to 16 pts, one 3pt = 7 rebs, and one blk = 4 asts.” I thought this was a pretty interesting statement, and I thought it deserved a closer look.
Before I do, though, I’d like to point out to some of our more casual readers that there’s a lot of great stuff going on in the comments section, often better than whatever junk we’re spouting out here in the blog posts. For the full FBB experience, check out what some of our more talkative readers are discussing down there. It’s pretty impressive.
Anyhow, is one steal really worth 16 points? The answer: Yes … but no. Let me explain:
First, let’s discuss how (I would guess) JM came up with this statement, and then back it up a little bit. In order to have roughly no effect on their fantasy value (as in, it’s not a strength nor a weakness, and the player rater gives you a score of 0.0), a player has to have 16 points, or 1 steal. Other quick stat checks seem to back this up. There are 57 guys averaging 16 ppg, but that goes up to 78 if you go down just a bit, to 14 ppg. Meanwhile, 81 players have 1 steal or better. Additionally, if you look at your league’s standings, there is about a 16:1 ratio for most teams’ points and steals – some higher, some lower, but 16:1 is about right.
Of course, there are differences. For example, 25 times this year, a player has snagged 6 or more steals in a game. Nobody has scored 96 points in a game (16 times 6) – in fact, the hell nearly froze over when Kobe scored 81. But nonetheless, I think it’s fair to say that the value of one steal is of about the same value as 16 points, give or take a point or two.
However, here’s where I think the two stats really break apart from each other: Their predictability. When making a move in fantasy basketball, it’s not what have you done … or even what have you done for me lately. The question is, “what are you going to do for me next?” The fantasy owners who are best able to answer this question are going to be the ones on the top of the standings come the end of the year. And while points are pretty predictable, value in steals goes all over the place. Let me prove it to you:
I took last year’s steals leaders (by average), and compared their numbers to how they’re doing this year. The change was all over the board. Larry Hughes, Mike Bibby, Lebron James and Ruben Patterson were the biggest droppers, losing 1.39, 0.65, 0.61 and 0.61 steals per game, respectively. The biggest gains to be had were by Gerald Wallace (0.73), Brevin Knight (0.48) and Dwyane Wade (0.39). Now keep in mind, we’ve said that one steal is equal in value to sixteen points. So, Mike Bibby’s 0.65 drop in steals is really the equivalent of dropping 10.4 points, which is a pretty improbable number. What’s so confounding with steals is that other than Hughes, none of these guys switched teams in the offseason. None of them have seen drastic changes in minutes, either. Steals are just quite simply a stat that is tough to predict. In fact, the top 20 in steals last year saw their per-game numbers change (either going higher or lower) by an average of 0.39 steals (the equivalent of 6.25 “points”) from last year to this.
On the other side of the spectrum, we’ve got points. The top 20 in points last year (with the exception of Amare Stoudamire) have been remarkably consistent. The biggest changes have been Kobe Bryant (+7.6), Carmelo Anthony (+5.1), and Steve Francis (-4.9). What’s more, you can explain most of the changes: Kobe went crazy, and so did Stevie, just in opposite directions. On a whole, the top 20 in points saw their numbers change by an average of 2.56 points, just about a third of the variability of steals.
So what have we learned here today? In past value, sure, a steal is worth 16 points. But if you’re looking forward to what a guy will do in future games, steals are just SO much harder to predict that you can’t really count on them, where as scorers will find their points, one way or another. But I think this could be a major reason why points are “overvalued” while defensive numbers are slightly undervalued - their consistency from one year (heck, even one month) to the next. Thoughts?