[Annoyed] NBA player measurements are still a joke

[leolozon]

they should be measured in shoes. they play in shoes. when we watch them they are wearing shoes. how tall they are when they stand next to their bedroom door in his bare feet is irrelevant. when i watch a guy standing on a basketball court, i want to know how tall the guy i am seeing is - i want to know how tall he is when he's competing on the basketball court. iow, when he's wearing shoes.

I agree with you but the only thing is shoe size can vary. Some give you 1 inch of height while others give up to 1.75 inches.

Most people are working in shoes, does that mean we can all say we are 1-2 inch taller?... That's not the definition of height. Your height is from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head, that's what the word means.

It's also more accurate for comparison sake and it makes more sense for people watching at home.

[Eric Bieniemy]

Hakeem Olajuwon was listed as a seven-footer, but was much closer to Ben Wallace's height (shorter than Dwight Howard).

[Wolveswin]

All measurements should be without shoes and redone every year. These kids enter league young enough they can still grow from year to year.

If league were to entertain using with shoes, don’t actually measure with shoes. Measure without shoes, then add a inch or 1.5 inches to everyone. Standardize what is considered “with shoes.” Need to take away the 2”+ shoe.

I will add, also need to standardize how a team “rounds up” in height. Either follow traditional, anything .5 or more listed at next inch, or for entertainment purposes, probably should be anything over inch mark is rounded up. 6’11 1/4 becomes 7 foot. So does 6’11 3/4.

[scrabbarista]

Does it really matter? Listed heights and weights have always been inaccurate or downright fictional to a greater or lesser extent from player to player. So they're not only inaccurate, but not even inaccurate in a consistent way.

So what?

Maybe for the draft, where guys are less familiar and have no NBA track record, teams would want as much information as possible. But as fan, what possible difference does it make?

How tall would a player be if you didn't know how tall he is?

It matters if you betting dimes and nickles...
It matters if the rent/mortgage/car note/baby formula is at risk

Information is power as they say

If they shoving gambling down the publics throat to the point its every other commercial... the gamblers their trying to exploit deserve all the information available to be accurate

a 1% edge is still an edge

Well, I would argue that knowing accurate player dimensions provides zero advantage for gambling. When would you place or not place a bet, based on "player X is actually an inch shorter than his listed height"? First, this probably isn't secret information that isn't obvious to other bettors or oddsmakers. Second, a player's impact is apparent in all kinds of other ways that are much more significant than a player's height (which is largely insignificant).

Information is not power, and that isn't the saying. KNOWLEDGE is power.

More often than not, data is a distraction, unless you have a clear understanding of WHAT data is significant, and HOW it is significant. IMO, knowing a player's height is largely irrelevant.

You like Nassim Nicholas Taleb?

[Pantsman]

Nba height is about as legit as wwe height

[scrabbarista]

I second the guy who said measure everyone on the same three days a year: height and weight. Or even add bodyfat to make it more fun.

I'm not sure it would really make any difference in gambling, but I would want it just for the entertainment value. NBA players are basically superheroes/action figures. Knowing how tall and heavy they are - and how it changes over time - would just make being a fan that much more fun. I mean, when I was in elementary school, I knew all of the players heights, numbers, and colleges from their basketball cards. Discovering their heights "aren't real" is like discovering Santa Claus isn't real. It just takes some of the fun out of the NBA/Christmas experience.

[Cavsfansince84]

Hakeem Olajuwon was listed as a seven-footer, but was much closer to Ben Wallace's height (shorter than Dwight Howard).

He was at first then got downgraded to 6-10 in the 90's. I think people just have a hard time understanding that the league simply doesn't see listed heights as the least bit important.

[Eric Bieniemy]

Hakeem Olajuwon was listed as a seven-footer, but was much closer to Ben Wallace's height (shorter than Dwight Howard).

He was at first then got downgraded to 6-10 in the 90's. I think people just have a hard time understanding that the league simply doesn't see listed heights as the least bit important.

The rule for me is to take the height without shoes and add 1.5 inches. This is a player's listed height.

Michael Jordan is 6'4 and a half without shoes. Same with Charles Barkley. Both are aptly listed at 6'6.

Typically when guys are a quarter of an inch under or over a given height they round up. When a player is at half an inch, they pick either or. I am 6'2 barefooted. If I were in the NBA, they'd list me at 6'3 or 6'4.

There are always exceptions, but this is the rule. Shane Battier was listed at 6'8 at Duke and in the pros (at Memphis). In reality he was 6'8 and a quarter barefooted which means, comparatively speaking, Battier was actually 6'9 and three quarters in shoes. In normal circumstances, he'd easily be listed at 6'10, but for some reason he wasn't.

The same goes for Westbrook. He is 6'2 and a quarter barefooted, but he is listed at 6'2. Normally, a player of his size (who is 6'3 and three quarters in shoes) would be listed at 6'4. That is his NBA height. The eyetest bares that out, as he's larger (in height) than both Irving and Westbrook.

[Harry Garris]

Rockets published updated roster measurements and it's obvious players are being measured in shoes again.

Read on Twitter

You have guys like Nwaba, Burke, Chriss who didn't get new measurements, so they have their without shoe measurements posted alongside players listed in shoes which irritates the hell out of me. Eric Gordon gets weight updated from 215 to 238 despite looking exactly the same, showing his real weight hasn't been updated in years.

I don't know how unfeasible it is, but with such a wealthy league, and with them promoting gambling these days amongst other things, would be nice to have the NBA send people to the training camps to do measurements with actual standards.

People joke about this kind of thing but yeah you're right. It takes 20 seconds to step on a scale and stand next to a ruler, it's pretty ridiculous how for some of these veteran players they can just go for years and years with the incorrect height and weight listed.

[Harry Garris]

Jalen Green is not 6'6 lol

That's what OP is saying, it's clearly his height with shoes on. He's probably around 6'4 1/2" barefoot.

Some players are listed at their natural height barefoot, some guys are measured with shoes on that add an inch and a half. The NBA doesn't regulate this stuff.

[Uncle Mxy]

Hakeem Olajuwon was listed as a seven-footer, but was much closer to Ben Wallace's height (shorter than Dwight Howard).

Hakeem as a 7 footer has more to do with the Twin Towers marketing with Sampson. He's "only" about 6'10". But, that's still a bit taller than Big Ben, who's generously 6'7".

[ellobo]

It matters if you betting dimes and nickles...
It matters if the rent/mortgage/car note/baby formula is at risk

Information is power as they say

If they shoving gambling down the publics throat to the point its every other commercial... the gamblers their trying to exploit deserve all the information available to be accurate

a 1% edge is still an edge

Well, I would argue that knowing accurate player dimensions provides zero advantage for gambling. When would you place or not place a bet, based on "player X is actually an inch shorter than his listed height"? First, this probably isn't secret information that isn't obvious to other bettors or oddsmakers. Second, a player's impact is apparent in all kinds of other ways that are much more significant than a player's height (which is largely insignificant).

Information is not power, and that isn't the saying. KNOWLEDGE is power.

More often than not, data is a distraction, unless you have a clear understanding of WHAT data is significant, and HOW it is significant. IMO, knowing a player's height is largely irrelevant.

You like Nassim Nicholas Taleb?

I know of him, but have never actually read him. I have stumbled upon a couple of quotations of his that I like a lot:

A good book gets better at the second reading. A great book at the third. Any book not worth rereading isn't worth reading.

We are built to be dupes for theories. But theories come and go; experience stays. Explanations change all the time, and have changed all the time in history (because of causal opacity, the invisibility of causes) with people involved in the incremental development of ideas thinking they always had a definitive theory; experience remains constant.

"Data is a distraction" is a phrase that I coined myself (or at least arrived at independently) that I use frequently in opposition to all kinds of nonsensical, but nominally "data-driven" initiatives in my profession.

[Eric Bieniemy]

Jalen Green is not 6'6 lol

That's what OP is saying, it's clearly his height with shoes on. He's probably around 6'4 1/2" barefoot.

Some players are listed at their natural height barefoot, some guys are measured with shoes on that add an inch and a half. The NBA doesn't regulate this stuff.

You don't get. If he were actually 6'4 and a half, his NBA height would be 6'6.

Michael Jordan is 6'4 1/2 without shoes. Jalen Green is 6'4 barefooted which means he's about 6'5 1/2 with shoes.

I have no problem with them rounding up.

[FeatheryTouch]

NBA heights and weights are clearly a farce.

Standard measuring protocols would be preferable.

That said NBA teams don't worry that much about it because it's not about how big the player might have measured in the locker room, it's about how big the player "plays" on the court. Wingspan, quickness, strength, IQ all factor in to how functional that height and weight are for a player. Guys like PJ Tucker or Draymond can play much bigger than their actual height and weight might suggest. There are plenty of "big" players that don't use their size effectively.

The things you are able to do successfully do on the court vs. NBA competition are what matters most, and size is just one part of that much larger equation.

On court functionality > accurate measurements for NBA teams.

[NoBias]

It’s weird that some of the tallest guys in the world need to lie about their height. Acting like they’re a 5’10 single guy on a dating site saying he’s 6 foot.

Way to call me out

[ken6199]

Eric Gordon weighs 238 pounds?!?! That is way too heavy for a shooting guard

At the 2008 draft combine, a 19-year-old Gordon weighed in at 222 lbs. He's always been an absolute bowling ball. Before all those injuries, he was a bowling ball with hops. 238 doesn't sound unrealistic at all, since it's just 16 lbs. more than he weighed as a teenager! He's always had a pretty unique body in the NBA.

and especially face

[scrabbarista]

Well, I would argue that knowing accurate player dimensions provides zero advantage for gambling. When would you place or not place a bet, based on "player X is actually an inch shorter than his listed height"? First, this probably isn't secret information that isn't obvious to other bettors or oddsmakers. Second, a player's impact is apparent in all kinds of other ways that are much more significant than a player's height (which is largely insignificant).

Information is not power, and that isn't the saying. KNOWLEDGE is power.

More often than not, data is a distraction, unless you have a clear understanding of WHAT data is significant, and HOW it is significant. IMO, knowing a player's height is largely irrelevant.

You like Nassim Nicholas Taleb?

I know of him, but have never actually read him. I have stumbled upon a couple of quotations of his that I like a lot:

A good book gets better at the second reading. A great book at the third. Any book not worth rereading isn't worth reading.

We are built to be dupes for theories. But theories come and go; experience stays. Explanations change all the time, and have changed all the time in history (because of causal opacity, the invisibility of causes) with people involved in the incremental development of ideas thinking they always had a definitive theory; experience remains constant.

"Data is a distraction" is a phrase that I coined myself (or at least arrived at independently) that I use frequently in opposition to all kinds of nonsensical, but nominally "data-driven" initiatives in my profession.

His book The Black Swan was revelatory for me when I read it in 2009. There's a quote of his I like that says something to this effect:

It's true that our knowledge increases, but our confidence in our knowledge increases exponentially faster, and this is where we get f-----d.

Haha, my paraphrase.

[scrabbarista]

You like Nassim Nicholas Taleb?

I know of him, but have never actually read him. I have stumbled upon a couple of quotations of his that I like a lot:

A good book gets better at the second reading. A great book at the third. Any book not worth rereading isn't worth reading.

We are built to be dupes for theories. But theories come and go; experience stays. Explanations change all the time, and have changed all the time in history (because of causal opacity, the invisibility of causes) with people involved in the incremental development of ideas thinking they always had a definitive theory; experience remains constant.

"Data is a distraction" is a phrase that I coined myself (or at least arrived at independently) that I use frequently in opposition to all kinds of nonsensical, but nominally "data-driven" initiatives in my profession.

His book The Black Swan was revelatory for me when I read it in 2009. There's a quote of his I like that says something to this effect:

It's true that our knowledge increases, but our confidence in our knowledge increases exponentially faster, and this is where we get f-----d.

Haha, my paraphrase.

That book was in large part about the danger of piles of data and not knowing what to do with any of it.

It was also about how extremely impactful, rare, almost one-off outliers account for most of the change or variation in so many fields, but because they are rare and unexpected (and because we have so much data about things that aren't them, and human nature tempts us to overrate our own knowledge), we tend to underrate them and not plan or account for them.

[scrabbarista]

I know of him, but have never actually read him. I have stumbled upon a couple of quotations of his that I like a lot:




"Data is a distraction" is a phrase that I coined myself (or at least arrived at independently) that I use frequently in opposition to all kinds of nonsensical, but nominally "data-driven" initiatives in my profession.

His book The Black Swan was revelatory for me when I read it in 2009. There's a quote of his I like that says something to this effect:

It's true that our knowledge increases, but our confidence in our knowledge increases exponentially faster, and this is where we get f-----d.

Haha, my paraphrase.

That book was in large part about the danger of piles of data and not knowing what to do with any of it.

It was also about how extremely impactful, rare, almost one-off outliers account for most of the change or variation in so many fields, but because they are rare and unexpected (and because we have so much data about things that aren't them, and human nature tempts us to overrate our own knowledge), we tend to underrate them and not plan or account for them.

I think he was also saying, It's not that these black swans (extreme outlier events) are unpredictable. They're often imminently predictable. But because there's so much data and we're so bad at identifying the data that matters, we often don't recognize the relevant data until after the event.

[ReasonablySober]

Better question… why is it continually so difficult for the NBA to be honest.

Best question: why does anyone here care if a guy is listed at 6'11" or 7'0"?