Pass the Ball, Not the Buck
Share Responsibility to Improve Team Performance
Derek Fisher isn’t a household name but he was Kobe Bryant’s “all time favorite teammate.” You won’t find Fisher ranked in the top point guards on most lists. Yet fellow Lakers teammate Pau Gasol attributed their championship wins in part to Fisher, who “..did his part by being that emotional and vocal leader. [His] [i]ncredible work ethic and how he was so determined at such an incredible level at crunch time. He felt so reliable and brought that toughness.”
Both Fisher and Bryant joined the Los Angeles Lakers in 1996. Although they originally butted heads, and Fisher thought Bryant was “selfish or self centered” at times, they developed a deep respect for each other. “Our bond was strengthened as we endured failure,” writes Fisher about the years before they started winning championships. Over their 12 years playing together for the Lakers, their relationship shifted from “strictly business” to friendship. Fisher describes Bryant as the pilot of the team, while he was his “trusty navigator.” It was a shared leadership style that worked. Together, with their fellow teammates, they went on to win the 2010 NBA championships. The fifth championship win for both Fisher and Bryant. They won all five of those championship rings together.
Researchers Fewell, Armbruster, Ingraham, Petersen and Waters studied the 2010 NBA playoffs to evaluate the basketball teams as networks. They wanted to know if patterns would emerge in the 16 teams’ offensive strategies. Fewell et al studied over 1000 ball movements and more than 100 sequences per team. Based on how often the ball was passed to each player, the researchers could see how each team was clustered and who were the dominant players. These dominant players had a leadership role in how the game would be played. With a few exceptions, most teams’ point guard controlled the ball most often. When a point guard controlled the ball more often, those teams had a higher centrality value. The researchers also looked at team entropy. To what degree could ball passing be predicted. Low entropy means it was easier to predict where the ball would go, likely to the point guard. High entropy means low predictability — players shared the ball.
Fisher’s position as point guard is traditionally the position that controls where the ball goes. They are the decision makers. You might’ve heard of Magic Johnson or Stephen Curry. Point guards. But because of the Laker’s triangle strategy, the ball flows more evenly between the players. Per NBA rules, there’s only five players on the court from each team at any one time. With triangle strategy, three players are set up on one side of the court while the other two are balanced on the other side
(Figure 3. Weighted graphs of ball transitions across two games for the (a) Bulls, (b) Cavaliers, © Celtics and (d) Lakers, Fewell et al)
Instead of Fisher deciding where the ball goes the majority of the time, he shared that responsibility more equally with Kobe Bryant, the shooting guard (see team D in Figure 3). And so on to the other three players. When a team passed the ball to more players, their entropy score increased in the study. Entropy is a measurement of a system’s randomness or uncertainty. When a team predictably used their point guard to dictate ball flow, they had a lower entropy level. It was easier to predict how their plays would go. The Bulls had one of the three lowest entropy levels of all the teams. They didn’t make it past their first match up. While the Celtics and the Lakers both had the highest two entropy levels. It was less predictable where the ball would go. Therefore, it was harder to defend against the Lakers’ and the Celtics’ offensive strategy. Both made it to the finals and faced off against each other.
Although Fewell et al recognize that their sample size is too small to be predictive outside of the 2010 play-offs, within that specific context there were meaningful findings. The more connected, or clustered, players were, the more likely their team would advance. So too does the right kind of randomness, or entropy link with team success. Basketball teams with higher unpredictability in ball passing advanced further than more predictable teams. Perhaps it requires a higher degree of creativity to share the ball amongst players too. Adapting and shifting to each other’s decisions in an on court performance, that at times, looks like a dance.
Fisher is still not a household name, even though he was integral in the Lakers’ 2010 NBA championship win. While he does have talent, more important were his bonds with teammates. Fisher appreciated his teammate Bryant for his complete dedication to helping the team win. Even when Bryant wasn’t shooting well, he still committed to doing whatever he could to contribute. Fisher celebrated Bryant for “doing what is necessary, what is hard, what no one gives you credit for.” Those relationships created a team of interdependent players that passed the ball and shared responsibility.
Fewell et al found that teams who had more than one leader advanced further. When players engaged with each other, not just with the team leader, they had a higher chance of winning. This finding reinforces Pentland’s team building research. Pentland found that communication is the key factor that influences a team’s productivity. Individual talent or reasoning matters far less than how effectively teams communicate. The research team mapped out communication amongst a team of Americans and Japanese workers who were brainstorming a new design together in Japan. Their communication maps look similar to Fewell et al’s ball transition graphs:
At first, due to various factors, the team wasn’t communicating well between all members. A few people contributed most to the conversation, just like point guards controlling most of the ball play on lower performing teams. Pentland’s research team offered tips for how to improve their communication, like ensuring that everyone actively and equally contributes. Over a few days, the group of American and Japanese workers shifted their communication patterns so that energy was distributed better, more evenly. “Dominators” in the Day 1 graph became less so by Day 7, which allowed room for other members to engage and contribute. Pentland found that teams with more even energy distribution performed better than lopsided teams. From the basketball court to the office, communication and relationships determine success rather than talent alone.
Do you pass the ball evenly on your team? Have you seen how relationships are more important than talent for your group’s overall performance? Let us know in the comments.
