PDA

View Full Version : Will Hollinger create the NBA's version of Moneyball?



mrblisterdundee
12-14-2012, 06:23 PM
So the Grizzlies hired John Hollinger (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8745158/espn-columnist-john-hollinger-join-memphis-grizzlies-front-office) into its basketball department. He's not the GM, but he'll still have a reasonable amount of influence.
How do you think he'll play it? Could we see John Hollinger playing the Moneyball numbers game in a small market team that can't spend the same money as the big cities?
Of course, the Grizzlies are already a contender.

ChiSox219
12-14-2012, 06:29 PM
Teams have been using analytics for years. Hollinger is probably behind but brings something tradition front office people don't and I think he'll be successful.

Ebbs
12-14-2012, 06:55 PM
Nah. Hollinger is behind the times. Also the Grizzlies are already contenders.

If he went to the Raptors and they won the championship somehow that be something else.

el hidalgo
12-14-2012, 07:04 PM
no. this is basketball, not baseball...

TrueFan420
12-14-2012, 07:44 PM
No... He's not that smart.

spreadeagle
12-14-2012, 07:46 PM
it must be every NBA writers wet dream to get hired by a team

Ebbs
12-14-2012, 07:54 PM
Yea no kidding

nickdymez
12-14-2012, 08:15 PM
No! Contrary to what the advanced stat crew believe, basketball is much more a team sport than baseball and advanced stats are dumb in basketball. No matter how smart these advanced stats nerds believe they are

KingPosey
12-14-2012, 08:36 PM
This is a completely different game, its not going to work like that.

Not too mention, just like in the movie Moneyball, youre completely ignoring the gluteny of all star level talent that already actually on the team.

Robbw241
12-14-2012, 08:37 PM
More like Jonah Hill than Brad Pitt.

RonE Coleman
12-14-2012, 08:39 PM
No, this is basketball not baseball. Although its a team sport its much more individual reliant.

Take Lebron, Melo, Durant, Chris Paul off there respective teams and over a number of games youll notice how much they drop off.

Take Robinson Cano, Hamilton, Pujols, etc off there teams and you can still win without a huge dropoff.

There is no money ball in basketball really, if your good your good and you will get payed.

Quinnsanity
12-14-2012, 08:41 PM
Morey worked for the Celtics before becoming a GM. I'd imagine Hollinger's on the same track. If he works out in Memphis he'll be a GM within 5 years. THEN we can ask this question, but honestly if Morey can't do it I'm not sure anyone can.

abe_froman
12-14-2012, 09:01 PM
its a bit different as there's a salary cap,and that cap isnt out of reach for any owner.so it depends on how much the owner is willing to spend.but as for "moneyball" meaning taking advantage of market inefficiencies? most def he will

jmoney85
12-14-2012, 10:23 PM
No, this is basketball not baseball. Although its a team sport its much more individual reliant.

Take Lebron, Melo, Durant, Chris Paul off there respective teams and over a number of games youll notice how much they drop off.

Take Robinson Cano, Hamilton, Pujols, etc off there teams and you can still win without a huge dropoff.

There is no money ball in basketball really, if your good your good and you will get payed.


you didnt prove any type of point with this post

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 12:02 AM
People still don't understand what "moneyball" is.

It is NOT using advanced stats.

It is smart economics. You buy things that the market undervalues because the price is lower. If the market undervalues efficiency you get players with high eff, if the market undervalues great defense then you get players who play great defense, if the market undervalues low turnovers you get players who won't turn the ball over. Need I go on?

ManRam
12-15-2012, 12:07 AM
Yeah, people don't get moneyball.


Nor do they get what Hollinger does.

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 12:08 AM
People still don't understand what "moneyball" is.

It is NOT using advanced stats.

It is smart economics. You buy things that the market undervalues because the price is lower. If the market undervalues efficiency you get players with high eff, if the market undervalues great defense then you get players who play great defense, if the market undervalues low turnovers you get players who won't turn the ball over. Need I go on?

Except you use advanced stats to predict where the market inefficiencies are. You have to "know" something that no one else knows. If everyone knows it, then no one is going to undervalue that aspect of the game, and you will not be able to exploit it.

sharqstealth
12-15-2012, 12:09 AM
They hired a clown

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 12:26 AM
No! Contrary to what the advanced stat crew believe, basketball is much more a team sport than baseball and advanced stats are dumb in basketball. No matter how smart these advanced stats nerds believe they are

There's more noise, it doesn't make it less useful.

And like baseball, in basketball people tend to focus on one "spectacular" aspect of the game and trivialize everything else. In baseball, they focus on the pitch and swing, which is why people think it's an individualized sport. They marginalize or completely ignore the effect of quality catchers, outfielders, and 1st basemen. Numbers for pitchers vary widely from year to year, because so much of their performance is dependent on the rest of the defense. Yet people ignore that and say that baseball is basically one on one.

In basketball, people tend to focus on scoring. Not efficient scoring, mind you, but raw points per game. Because that's what shows up on Sportscenter. Yet, from year to year, basketball stats are in fact the most consistent of all the major sports. Why? Because most of the work is relatively individual. A shot taken, or a rebound, or a block, is less dependent on teammates than a pitch is in baseball. Or a quarterback's pass completion %. Not all, but most of what a basketball player does can be attributed to him, rather than to his teammates.

Saying basketball is more of a team sport than baseball also completely ignores the Pareto principle. There's a reason teams shoot for a "big 3", and if you don't know what the Pareto principle is, you should probably look it up before passing judgement on economics-based sports analysis.

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 12:27 AM
Except you use advanced stats to predict where the market inefficiencies are. You have to "know" something that no one else knows. If everyone knows it, then no one is going to undervalue that aspect of the game, and you will not be able to exploit it.

You don't HAVE to use advanced stats to find market inefficiencies. The market inefficiencies may be that other teams are overvaluing advanced stats. You just have to outsmart the other teams. It may be as simple as not going with the trend of overpaying players. Two 7mil/year players that are worth more to your team than a fringe MAX player plus a MIN salary guy for example.

Gritz
12-15-2012, 12:27 AM
People still don't understand what "moneyball" is.

It is NOT using advanced stats.

It is smart economics. You buy things that the market undervalues because the price is lower. If the market undervalues efficiency you get players with high eff, if the market undervalues great defense then you get players who play great defense, if the market undervalues low turnovers you get players who won't turn the ball over. Need I go on?

And here I was just sitting here thinking it was a movie, thanks for clearing that up

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 12:30 AM
And here I was just sitting here thinking it was a movie, thanks for clearing that up

I was referring to the first 12 or so comments.

Don't watch then?

John Walls Era
12-15-2012, 01:01 AM
:laugh: no way. Hollinger didn't do anything revolutionary. He basically looked under a rock thats never been looked under before. Advance metrics are great as another tool to analyze the game, don't get me wrong.

IIRC MoneyBall is spending money smart and they did use "other" stats to determine players that could be good for that team, but that is way more revolutionary than what Hollinger has done.

goalie
12-15-2012, 01:06 AM
impossible.

there are no undervalued assets in hoops. big men that can just play post D and have no other skills can make a few mil a year (kwame).

in baseball, you can get a small skillset for cheap. but even thats different now because you'll pay through the nose for someone that "just gets on base"

the key to moneyball isnt actually money. it identifying skills that are undervalued, thus buying that skill for cheap because no one else values it or is willing to pay for it.

what can you get for cheap in the nba? a good ball handler? thats about it. a good defender? royal ivey?

on top of that, theres a minimum cap number. theres not really a great divide between smaller market payroll and big market.

the challenge in the nba is keeping divas in cities that arent sparkly enough. cant determine that with statistics or analysis. the only thing small markets can do is interview and do background checks to find the type of guys that will stay in their city. all small markets can afford max deals, theres no need for what people perceive as moneyball in hoops.

Quinnsanity
12-15-2012, 02:07 AM
impossible.

there are no undervalued assets in hoops. big men that can just play post D and have no other skills can make a few mil a year (kwame).

in baseball, you can get a small skillset for cheap. but even thats different now because you'll pay through the nose for someone that "just gets on base"

the key to moneyball isnt actually money. it identifying skills that are undervalued, thus buying that skill for cheap because no one else values it or is willing to pay for it.

what can you get for cheap in the nba? a good ball handler? thats about it. a good defender? royal ivey?

on top of that, theres a minimum cap number. theres not really a great divide between smaller market payroll and big market.

the challenge in the nba is keeping divas in cities that arent sparkly enough. cant determine that with statistics or analysis. the only thing small markets can do is interview and do background checks to find the type of guys that will stay in their city. all small markets can afford max deals, theres no need for what people perceive as moneyball in hoops.

Yes and no. I think it's useful for identifying guys to fit specific roles, but you can't win in the NBA without a star, so first and foremost you have to find one.

goalie
12-15-2012, 02:34 AM
Roles cost money in the NBA. If you find a guy that will take the league min, he isn't going to have some great undervalued skill. Hes going to be Royal Ivey.

Ivey doesn't have value to an nba team like scott hatteberg did for the a's

The only way you could do this is to draft really well in the 2nd round and sign a bunch of undervalued undrafteds or d leaguers. Even then, those guys are free agents after a year and you get the gilbert arenas situation in gsw.

But theres a limit on the amount of those guys you can get because again there is a league min for a teams salary cap. Teams have to spend a certain amount every year.

Chronz
12-15-2012, 03:00 AM
No! Contrary to what the advanced stat crew believe, basketball is much more a team sport than baseball and advanced stats are dumb in basketball. No matter how smart these advanced stats nerds believe they are

Strawmam arguments are your thing. Show me a single person who thinks basketball is as easy to quantify as baseball is

KingPosey
12-15-2012, 03:04 AM
People still don't understand what "moneyball" is.

It is NOT using advanced stats.

It is smart economics. You buy things that the market undervalues because the price is lower. If the market undervalues efficiency you get players with high eff, if the market undervalues great defense then you get players who play great defense, if the market undervalues low turnovers you get players who won't turn the ball over. Need I go on?

I hate when people say this like you have some grasp on the concept that no one else can comprehend. They find the "hidden" market value through statistics one way or another. There is absolutely no other way to argue that.

Silent
12-15-2012, 03:16 AM
No, this is basketball not baseball. Although its a team sport its much more individual reliant.

Take Lebron, Melo, Durant, Chris Paul off there respective teams and over a number of games youll notice how much they drop off.

Take Robinson Cano, Hamilton, Pujols, etc off there teams and you can still win without a huge dropoff.

There is no money ball in basketball really, if your good your good and you will get payed.

your logic is way off

albertajaysfan
12-15-2012, 03:19 AM
No! Contrary to what the advanced stat crew believe, basketball is much more a team sport than baseball and advanced stats are dumb in basketball. No matter how smart these advanced stats nerds believe they are

puff puff pass brother...

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 03:51 AM
You don't HAVE to use advanced stats to find market inefficiencies. The market inefficiencies may be that other teams are overvaluing advanced stats. You just have to outsmart the other teams. It may be as simple as not going with the trend of overpaying players. Two 7mil/year players that are worth more to your team than a fringe MAX player plus a MIN salary guy for example.

That's not really a market inefficiency. Playing one GM for a sucker isn't the same as the market being inefficient, or being able to find those efficiencies. A GM's ability to judge talent will be on the Bell Curve, just like everything else. A rare few will be really, really good at it. A rare few will be horrible. Most will be in between. That's not an inefficient market, that's a normal one.

The point of the story was that one organization was able to target players that NO ONE thought was valuable by conventional wisdom. To hold true to the essence of the story, the scenario would be some form of "I know something about this group of players that no one else understands. I'm going to collect these players and steamroll the league." While that doesn't necessarily imply advanced metrics, that seems the most likely course.

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 04:07 AM
impossible.

there are no undervalued assets in hoops. big men that can just play post D and have no other skills can make a few mil a year (kwame).

in baseball, you can get a small skillset for cheap. but even thats different now because you'll pay through the nose for someone that "just gets on base"

the key to moneyball isnt actually money. it identifying skills that are undervalued, thus buying that skill for cheap because no one else values it or is willing to pay for it.

what can you get for cheap in the nba? a good ball handler? thats about it. a good defender? royal ivey?

on top of that, theres a minimum cap number. theres not really a great divide between smaller market payroll and big market.

the challenge in the nba is keeping divas in cities that arent sparkly enough. cant determine that with statistics or analysis. the only thing small markets can do is interview and do background checks to find the type of guys that will stay in their city. all small markets can afford max deals, theres no need for what people perceive as moneyball in hoops.

Kenneth Faried was a 20ish pick. Kawhi Leonard was #15. Andre Drummond is a beast and didn't get picked until 10 (?). There are plenty of undervalued and overvalued skills in the NBA. If you can identify those imbalances, you can exploit them. Like the Rockets trading Rudy Gay for Shane Battier. Because what Rudy does (volume scoring) is drastically overvalued while what Shane does (positional defense) is undervalued. Gay's turned out alright, but Shane was by most measures a more productive player. And cheaper.

What if you knew, KNEW, that OJ Mayo was going to break out this year, and no one else did? You could have signed him to a 4yr deal that no one would have risked on him. What if you KNEW that DeJuan Blair could play effectively with no tendons in his knees? You could have beaten San Antonio to the punch with the #29 or #30 pick.

NYKNYGNYY
12-15-2012, 05:27 AM
Nope

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 11:04 AM
That's not really a market inefficiency. Playing one GM for a sucker isn't the same as the market being inefficient, or being able to find those efficiencies. A GM's ability to judge talent will be on the Bell Curve, just like everything else. A rare few will be really, really good at it. A rare few will be horrible. Most will be in between. That's not an inefficient market, that's a normal one.

The point of the story was that one organization was able to target players that NO ONE thought was valuable by conventional wisdom. To hold true to the essence of the story, the scenario would be some form of "I know something about this group of players that no one else understands. I'm going to collect these players and steamroll the league." While that doesn't necessarily imply advanced metrics, that seems the most likely course.

How can you say that only a few GM's are really horrible at handing out money when nearly every team nears the salary cap or is over it yet there are many really bad teams and really bad contracts?

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 11:10 AM
I hate when people say this like you have some grasp on the concept that no one else can comprehend. They find the "hidden" market value through statistics one way or another. There is absolutely no other way to argue that.

First of all, I was responding to the first 12 or so posters. Secondly, how can you say that the only way to find undervalued skills is through statistics? People still put some guys on the All-Defense team based steals and blocks. Many of us who WATCHED Omer Asik play the last two years aren't at all surprised by his performance this season. Many of us who WATCHED Jeremy Lin play last year aren't surprised by his poor performance this year. Do you think that Javale McGee is not worth a big contract? If you do its not based on his stats, its because you have watched him play and know he is garbage. "There is absolutely no other way to argue that." give me a break.

KingPosey
12-15-2012, 12:04 PM
First of all, I was responding to the first 12 or so posters. Secondly, how can you say that the only way to find undervalued skills is through statistics? People still put some guys on the All-Defense team based steals and blocks. Many of us who WATCHED Omer Asik play the last two years aren't at all surprised by his performance this season. Many of us who WATCHED Jeremy Lin play last year aren't surprised by his poor performance this year. Do you think that Javale McGee is not worth a big contract? If you do its not based on his stats, its because you have watched him play and know he is garbage. "There is absolutely no other way to argue that." give me a break.

Ok genius, show me the value of any single player in baseball and argue it without any statistics in any way. You're left with the eye test at that point.

No matter what way you try and spin it, there has to be something the player does on the field that creates a value, I don't know how you can grasp that concept, it's mind boggling

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 01:49 PM
Ok genius, show me the value of any single player in baseball and argue it without any statistics in any way. You're left with the eye test at that point.

No matter what way you try and spin it, there has to be something the player does on the field that creates a value, I don't know how you can grasp that concept, it's mind boggling

Who's talking about baseball?

FOXHOUND
12-15-2012, 04:13 PM
So, his hiring will probably ensure the trading of Rudy Gay, no? I wonder what they will get. I think a SF like Danny Granger would fit them terrifically, but I don't see a trade there because then you have Gay and George who are way too similar.

If analytics is going to be their main driving force on moves from here on out, what replacement SF would work? Maybe it's not even a current player, maybe they address it in the draft.

Any ideas, that fit into what would make sense in Hollinger's PER driven world?

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 05:01 PM
How can you say that only a few GM's are really horrible at handing out money when nearly every team nears the salary cap or is over it yet there are many really bad teams and really bad contracts?

Because it depends on the baseline. What is an "average" GM? An average GM is a former player who got into a front office by knowing other former players/coaches turned executives. He then worked his way up the ranks through other personal relationships and the weight of his name as a former player, until eventually someone decided it'd be a good idea to pay him millions of dollars to do a job he's not qualified for. The average GM was probably pretty good at playing basketball at one point, which does not qualify him to run a multi-million dollar business or competently evaluate basketball talent.

There are so many really bad teams and contracts out there because the average GM isn't good at his job. He doesn't have the background or inclination to understand things like *gasp* advanced metrics.

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 05:04 PM
So, his hiring will probably ensure the trading of Rudy Gay, no? I wonder what they will get. I think a SF like Danny Granger would fit them terrifically, but I don't see a trade there because then you have Gay and George who are way too similar.

If analytics is going to be their main driving force on moves from here on out, what replacement SF would work? Maybe it's not even a current player, maybe they address it in the draft.

Any ideas, that fit into what would make sense in Hollinger's PER driven world?

Granger and George are probably more similar than Gay and George.

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 05:17 PM
Because it depends on the baseline. What is an "average" GM? An average GM is a former player who got into a front office by knowing other former players/coaches turned executives. He then worked his way up the ranks through other personal relationships and the weight of his name as a former player, until eventually someone decided it'd be a good idea to pay him millions of dollars to do a job he's not qualified for. The average GM was probably pretty good at playing basketball at one point, which does not qualify him to run a multi-million dollar business or competently evaluate basketball talent.

There are so many really bad teams and contracts out there because the average GM isn't good at his job. He doesn't have the background or inclination to understand things like *gasp* advanced metrics.

I agree whole heartedly. I would add that there is much they don't understand beyond sabermetrics. But doesn't what you just said support my argument? If there are so many terrible gm's that don't understand how to use their money correctly then a good GM can find an advantage by buying low on undervalued skills (aka "moneyball")?

PS - at no point in this thread am I arguing that Hollinger will "create the NBA's version of Moneyball"

PPS - I actually believe that Mark Cuban and Don Nelson are creating the NBA's version of "Moneyball". Though the results aren't very good right now lol.

FOXHOUND
12-15-2012, 05:27 PM
Granger and George are probably more similar than Gay and George.

Well both Gay and George both have that long, lanky slashers who are athletic, good defenders, get some steals, can throw it down, are limited handling the ball thing going on. George is a much better shoooter, though, where as Gay is a good scorer in the clutch.

Granger can do more off ball work, and isn't as reliant on slashing as those two.

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 05:46 PM
Well both Gay and George both have that long, lanky slashers who are athletic, good defenders, get some steals, can throw it down, are limited handling the ball thing going on. George is a much better shoooter, though, where as Gay is a good scorer in the clutch.

Granger can do more off ball work, and isn't as reliant on slashing as those two.

George isn't much of a slasher at this point. He has some highlights, but it's not at all consistent. He's very much a spot up shooter. But I can see the comparison.

mightybosstone
12-15-2012, 05:51 PM
No! Contrary to what the advanced stat crew believe, basketball is much more a team sport than baseball and advanced stats are dumb in basketball. No matter how smart these advanced stats nerds believe they are

Tell that to Sam Presti, who took the Thunder to the Finals last season using advanced stats and analytics as a basis for his franchise's foundation. And he's not the only one. Daryl Morey clearly has a love for numbers and there are other guys out there who are the same way. Give me one of the "advanced stats nerds" over someone like MJ, who may know the game of basketball, but has no ****ing clue how to build a basketball team and drives his franchise into the ground every chance he gets.

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 06:11 PM
I agree whole heartedly. I would add that there is much they don't understand beyond sabermetrics. But doesn't what you just said support my argument? If there are so many terrible gm's that don't understand how to use their money correctly then a good GM can find an advantage by buying low on undervalued skills (aka "moneyball")?

PS - at no point in this thread am I arguing that Hollinger will "create the NBA's version of Moneyball"

PPS - I actually believe that Mark Cuban and Don Nelson are creating the NBA's version of "Moneyball". Though the results aren't very good right now lol.

Being better than someone else at the job isn't really the premise of Moneyball. Moneyball completely changed the paradigm in baseball. It's not about targeting an undervalued asset, there are always undervalued assets. It's about a complete shift in how people looked at the game.

If you were attacking the notion that "the ball is about putting the ball in the hoop" or "defense wins championships" and instead about controlling possessions, then you'd be approaching something on the Moneyball level. The most recent example I can give would be the Nash led Suns. Several teams, including my Pacers, tried to copy the up tempo attack of SSOL. Had they won a championship or two, people would be writing books about how D'Antoni changed the game of basketball. Another example could be Miami's "positionless" basketball, i.e. having Lebron James on your team.

What you're talking about is, "Hey that organzation is stupid. I'm gonna trade them Melo for half their team...."

IndyRealist
12-15-2012, 06:12 PM
Tell that to Sam Presti, who took the Thunder to the Finals last season using advanced stats and analytics as a basis for his franchise's foundation. And he's not the only one. Daryl Morey clearly has a love for numbers and there are other guys out there who are the same way. Give me one of the "advanced stats nerds" over someone like MJ, who may know the game of basketball, but has no ****ing clue how to build a basketball team and drives his franchise into the ground every chance he gets.

There's a reason MJ brought in Rich Cho. And what did Cho do? Draft the least Jordan-like pick, MKG.

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 06:39 PM
Being better than someone else at the job isn't really the premise of Moneyball. Moneyball completely changed the paradigm in baseball. It's not about targeting an undervalued asset, there are always undervalued assets. It's about a complete shift in how people looked at the game.

If you were attacking the notion that "the ball is about putting the ball in the hoop" or "defense wins championships" and instead about controlling possessions, then you'd be approaching something on the Moneyball level. The most recent example I can give would be the Nash led Suns. Several teams, including my Pacers, tried to copy the up tempo attack of SSOL. Had they won a championship or two, people would be writing books about how D'Antoni changed the game of basketball. Another example could be Miami's "positionless" basketball, i.e. having Lebron James on your team.

What you're talking about is, "Hey that organzation is stupid. I'm gonna trade them Melo for half their team...."

Moneyball is a term describing baseball operations in which a team endeavors to analyze the market for baseball players and buy what is undervalued and sell what is overvalued. Unlike a common misconception, it is not about OBP, but whatever is undervalued at that time. It is most commonly used to refer to the strategy used by the front office of the Oakland Athletics. It derives its name from a Michael Lewis book of the same name.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moneyball

When it comes to that team-building, perhaps the most common misconception is that "Moneyball" is about filling a lineup with plodding sluggers who draw lots of walks and play little defense. During the time portrayed in the book, the A's were indeed targeting those types of players, but that was simply a function of their perceiving those specific skill sets as being undervalued within the overall scheme of Major League Baseball.
http://www.minnpost.com/sports/2011/09/meaning-moneyball

The book also touches on Oakland's underlying economic need to stay ahead of the curve; as other teams begin mirroring Beane's strategies to evaluate offensive talent, diminishing the Athletics' advantage, Oakland begins looking for other undervalued baseball skills such as defensive capabilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

ThuglifeJ
12-15-2012, 06:39 PM
I dont think I trust many advanced basketball stats especially Hollinger's. Think about how in basketball it truly matters A LOT your system, teammates, age, whatever. A player could have just gone through a divorce and become a different player because distractions can change the entire feel they have on their shot, creativity, etc.

Jamison's career numbers are beast all the way around. Is he good? No not really at all. And hes not going to do the same thing on a different team.
That's why Stats piss me off in argument, it's more important what you actually see and study through tape then numbers.


Melo's back on track but he was no where near the same player the first year he got to NY. Ive seen it so many times. Sure they adjust but never the same. Tmac, Carter, Iverson are ones that Ill always remember the frustration of how much they changed on diff teams diff system. I mean anyone who's gone to Orlando (Rashard Lewis, Jason Richardson, Gilbert Arenas) have all completely sucked in that system

nickdymez
12-15-2012, 06:42 PM
I dont think I trust many advanced basketball stats especially Hollinger's. Think about how in basketball it truly matters A LOT your system, teammates, age, whatever. A player could have just gone through a divorce and become a different player because distractions can change the entire feel they have on their shot, creativity, etc.

Jamison's career numbers are beast all the way around. Is he good? No not really at all. And hes not going to do the same thing on a different team.
That's why Stats piss me off in argument, it's more important what you actually see and study through tape then numbers.

A lot of the advanced stats nerds dont wanna hear this

LongWayFromHome
12-15-2012, 06:47 PM
Being better than someone else at the job isn't really the premise of Moneyball. Moneyball completely changed the paradigm in baseball. It's not about targeting an undervalued asset, there are always undervalued assets. It's about a complete shift in how people looked at the game.

If you were attacking the notion that "the ball is about putting the ball in the hoop" or "defense wins championships" and instead about controlling possessions, then you'd be approaching something on the Moneyball level. The most recent example I can give would be the Nash led Suns. Several teams, including my Pacers, tried to copy the up tempo attack of SSOL. Had they won a championship or two, people would be writing books about how D'Antoni changed the game of basketball. Another example could be Miami's "positionless" basketball, i.e. having Lebron James on your team.

What you're talking about is, "Hey that organzation is stupid. I'm gonna trade them Melo for half their team...."

I think you are referring to the story of Moneyball like as in the movie. I am referring to the actual concept of Moneyball. The concept is not about changing the game.

FOXHOUND
12-15-2012, 07:12 PM
George isn't much of a slasher at this point. He has some highlights, but it's not at all consistent. He's very much a spot up shooter. But I can see the comparison.

Ah I see, thanks for the insight. I think he's going to turn into a really good player.

FOXHOUND
12-15-2012, 07:30 PM
Tell that to Sam Presti, who took the Thunder to the Finals last season using advanced stats and analytics as a basis for his franchise's foundation. And he's not the only one. Daryl Morey clearly has a love for numbers and there are other guys out there who are the same way. Give me one of the "advanced stats nerds" over someone like MJ, who may know the game of basketball, but has no ****ing clue how to build a basketball team and drives his franchise into the ground every chance he gets.

I think Presti's love of advanced stats is purely secondary in his work as a GM. Russell Westbrook was a SG in college who couldn't shoot consistently and didn't do much playmaking. Yet Presti drafted him to be his PG, never flinching once. By advanced metrics Westbrook doesn't fit the PG mold, at all. Yet there he is, years later, as the starting PG. Serge Ibaka is another one. He was some extremely raw player playing in the Congo. There were no advanced stats that could have possibly led to that drafting.

Then there are his trades. Kendrick Perkins is not an advanced stat kind of player, not in the slightest. Jeff Green was providing them good scoring work off th bench, but that wasn't enough. This past offseason, when it came time to cut out a core player due to money, it was James Harden that was the odd man out.

Harden was an advanced stats mans wet dream for OKC. They could have easily moved Westbrook, who's efficiency is very inconsistent, who struggles at time as a PG and who has had very real clashes with his role as the #2 man next to Durant. They could have swapped Westbrook for Rondo, made a Harden a starter and had a more traditional team. He also chose Ibaka over Harden, who by advanced stats wasn't as valuable to OKC last year.

Presti obviously likes advanced stats, but I don't think they drive his decisions. I do think he liked Martin because of his advanced stat efficiency as a scorer, and that was probably something that made him feel OK in giving up Harden as he could replace his scoring impact for them. But I wouldn't say that's the first thing he looks at, in the slightest. He seems to put character above almost everything else, and has a great appreciation for athletic advantages and creating mismatches on the court.

1-800-STFU
12-15-2012, 08:27 PM
People still don't understand what "moneyball" is.

It is NOT using advanced stats.

It is smart economics. You buy things that the market undervalues because the price is lower. If the market undervalues efficiency you get players with high eff, if the market undervalues great defense then you get players who play great defense, if the market undervalues low turnovers you get players who won't turn the ball over. Need I go on?

Yeah....moneyball is exploiting market inefficiencies, not saber.

1-800-STFU
12-15-2012, 08:31 PM
I think Presti's love of advanced stats is purely secondary in his work as a GM. Russell Westbrook was a SG in college who couldn't shoot consistently and didn't do much playmaking. Yet Presti drafted him to be his PG, never flinching once. By advanced metrics Westbrook doesn't fit the PG mold, at all. Yet there he is, years later, as the starting PG. Serge Ibaka is another one. He was some extremely raw player playing in the Congo. There were no advanced stats that could have possibly led to that drafting.

Then there are his trades. Kendrick Perkins is not an advanced stat kind of player, not in the slightest. Jeff Green was providing them good scoring work off th bench, but that wasn't enough. This past offseason, when it came time to cut out a core player due to money, it was James Harden that was the odd man out.

Harden was an advanced stats mans wet dream for OKC. They could have easily moved Westbrook, who's efficiency is very inconsistent, who struggles at time as a PG and who has had very real clashes with his role as the #2 man next to Durant. They could have swapped Westbrook for Rondo, made a Harden a starter and had a more traditional team. He also chose Ibaka over Harden, who by advanced stats wasn't as valuable to OKC last year.

Presti obviously likes advanced stats, but I don't think they drive his decisions. I do think he liked Martin because of his advanced stat efficiency as a scorer, and that was probably something that made him feel OK in giving up Harden as he could replace his scoring impact for them. But I wouldn't say that's the first thing he looks at, in the slightest. He seems to put character above almost everything else, and has a great appreciation for athletic advantages and creating mismatches on the court.

In an ideal world that is how it should be.

Advanced stats are a TOOL for analyzing a player. A proper GM should use all the TOOLS at his disposal to make educated decisions.

Completely disregarding advanced stats is just as dumb as using them as the be all and end all. Balance is key.

FOXHOUND
12-15-2012, 09:17 PM
In an ideal world that is how it should be.

Advanced stats are a TOOL for analyzing a player. A proper GM should use all the TOOLS at his disposal to make educated decisions.

Completely disregarding advanced stats is just as dumb as using them as the be all and end all. Balance is key.

Yes, I agree balance is the key. His point was not one of balance, however. I don't see how one can look at OKC's roster and think that advanced stats are the basis for it's foundation.

You have Durant and now Martin, who are great advanced stats players. You have Ibaka, who is becoming a great advanced stat player, but when drafted was nothing of the sort and had no legitimate playing history being in the Congo. You have Westbrook, who is as inconsistent in his advanced stats as he is on the court. By some metrics he fares good, others horrible. He was a SG in college, playing next to Darren Collison. At the time of his drafting his ability to play PG was very iffy, and was killed in any advanced stat analysis.

The rest of the roster doesn't fare well in advanced stats. No other player on the roster has a PER of 15 this season, which is considered average. In fact no other steady rotation player has a PER above 12, except for Nick Collison who has a 14.5.

Not only are advanced stats not the basis of foundation for the OKC franchise, but the roster would suggest it doesn't really play that big a role at all. That is the point I was trying to make, as he was using them as the basis of how advanced metrics are currently being used in the NBA.

If you want to point to one franchise as the pioneer for advanced stats I think you would have to look at the Dallas Mavericks first and foremost.

Chronz
12-15-2012, 09:45 PM
Yes, I agree balance is the key. His point was not one of balance, however. I don't see how one can look at OKC's roster and think that advanced stats are the basis for it's foundation.

You have Durant and now Martin, who are great advanced stats players. You have Ibaka, who is becoming a great advanced stat player, but when drafted was nothing of the sort and had no legitimate playing history being in the Congo. You have Westbrook, who is as inconsistent in his advanced stats as he is on the court. By some metrics he fares good, others horrible. He was a SG in college, playing next to Darren Collison. At the time of his drafting his ability to play PG was very iffy, and was killed in any advanced stat analysis.

The rest of the roster doesn't fare well in advanced stats. No other player on the roster has a PER of 15 this season, which is considered average. In fact no other steady rotation player has a PER above 12, except for Nick Collison who has a 14.5.

Not only are advanced stats not the basis of foundation for the OKC franchise, but the roster would suggest it doesn't really play that big a role at all. That is the point I was trying to make, as he was using them as the basis of how advanced metrics are currently being used in the NBA.

If you want to point to one franchise as the pioneer for advanced stats I think you would have to look at the Dallas Mavericks first and foremost.

What numbers are you talking about with regards to draft evaluations?

Westbrook rated as the highest PG in his draft, higher than D-Rose from what I've seen.

JNA17
12-15-2012, 10:14 PM
In order for that to happen, Hollinger would require a brain...

Which he currently does not have.

jscotty8
12-15-2012, 10:41 PM
Sure... He can produce a winner every 5 to 6 years, and then be called genius when he does.

Guppyfighter
12-16-2012, 06:41 AM
Sure... He can produce a winner every 5 to 6 years, and then be called genius when he does.

A's have had the fifth most amount of wins in the league since 2000 and they average the playoffs once every three years.

jscotty8
12-16-2012, 07:20 AM
A's have had the fifth most amount of wins in the league since 2000 and they average the playoffs once every three years.

Yes in the early 2000s the A's were successful, but you are really using math to tell a lie here. Sense 2005 they have only made the playoffs twice, and Billy Beane has made more wrong then right moves. In fact 2012 seems more luck and great manager than seccess because of Beane or moneyball.
Not to mention that AL west was a very bad Divison in the early 2000. With the unevan schulde it's easy to make teams seem better than they are.

Heatcheck
12-16-2012, 10:58 AM
they already tried all this moneyball ****...its called the Rockets, and look how that's worked out.