Read this excellent article from BlazersEdge about how KP & Co. are at the head of the pack in terms of quantitative evaluation. Some great insight into KP's moves and workings. It's long, but it's most definitely worth it (just read it while eating lunch).
Really should not be a surprise that KP is into this. Remember that in his brief "between NBA jobs" era he was an investment specialist dealing with assessing risk/reward.
It was a good thing. That team went up with that trade - because, wait for it, Lamarcus Aldridge who actually plays both sides of the floor is a better player than Zach. There is a good reason Zach has not reached the playoffs since he was backing up Rasheed Wallace - and is going to miss again this year.
No offense, but give me a break. KP knows math and statistics like I know basketball, which is to say "not much". He was hired as a stockbroker because it's a lucrative field for ex-jocks. The job is calling wealthy people who would know who he was, take them out to lunch to talk hoops and then to introduce those people to the folks who do the real investing. What separates KP is that he knows is what he doesn't know. He decides what the important metrics are and lets the stat boys run the numbers.
ZBO = All Star. He's played like one this year and we could use a player like him right now. We got zilch for him and Aldridge has not improved THAT much. ZBO is more valuable because he can rebound and has much better low post game. And the Reason ZBO has not reached the playoffs is he's been on bad teams, he is not the cause of the bad teams.
Definitely. He's having a far better season than LA this year. If we were playing this way back in 06, we wouldn't have traded him for that $30 mil void.
Offense was never the problem for Zach. It was his defense, which is still subpar at best. I for one do not wish for one second that Zach was back with the team. That move was addition by subtraction.
Interesting article. I feel like the Zach Randolph dump was made for squishy reasons that'll never be quantifiable (or justifiable) in any statistic, so it's not terribly relevant in the current discussion. (I hated the trade then and now, fwiw.) If I could sit down and have a beer with KP, though, the thing I'd ask him about is, "What the fuck were you thinking with Hedo Turkoglu?" He was overpriced, his stats didn't merit the salary we offered, and there sure as fuck weren't any defensive intangibles that made up for it. And he had (at the time) Batum looking ready to really take over the SF spot. KP looks like a genius right now because he failed to do the thing he wanted to do, which happened to be really fucking stupid. I'd love to see the metrics that justify the blunder of that contract offer.
I think you are underestimating him. He was selected to the all-big-8 academic team 3 times. I remember hearing him talking about his past as someone doing risk analysis and saying he left because he missed the human element that he got in basketball. Seems contrary to this statement. I have no personal knowledge of him - but the fact that he seems to be a frequent visitor to this conference and these other nuggets of information suggest to me that he knows a bit more about it that you expect.
That's like finishing first in the Special Olympics. It's doubtful he even knows how to calculate n1 in Black-Scholes, much less any intermediate quantitative analysis. Ask him about "The Greeks" and he's likely to talk about fraternaties at KU. Nothing I've ever heard him say tells me he understands much about statistics. But I don't need him to be Daryl Morey or Theo Epstein; he knows which metrics matter and does a good job of utilizing the sausage without worrying about how the sausage is made.
All-star is much more of an individual achievement measure - ZBo's great year this year (very similar in output as his '06-'07 season, he actually had a higher PER in Portland that year) again bring you exactly the same team success as we had in '06-'07 - lottery. Give me a freaking break. Anytime you run a guy that is as big of a black-hole as this guy is and plays miserable defense - you are going to be in trouble. Portland, as a team, wins at a .569 rate, with Aldridge on the court, Portland wins at a .583 rate - the team wins more when he plays. Memphis, as a team, wins at a .516 rate, but with Zach on the court they only win at a .475 rate - it's the same old, same old. His All-star achievement this year is nothing more than a "good to see you stay out of trouble off-court" award for Zach - he is the same player he was before, one that is really nice to have as a backup player, but you lose more than you win if he is a starter/big usage player.
I do not think so. This requires a GPA of 3.0+ - which means that he was, at worst, a B student for 3 years. But, this is really a worthless argument - since there is no data we are privileged to.
So you think LMA is playing better than ZBo this season? Try to answer without some kind of obscure stat. Just watch the game. I guess I'm just anti-stat-geek. More times than not, someone like Charles Barkely who just shoots from the mouth is probably better than some stat-nerd calculating PER win share or whatever.
Yeah. I think that ZBo is still awful on defense - and LMA is far from it. He is no KG in his prime - but he is one of our best defensive players - especially with the Blazer's rather pathetic perimeter defense before Batum came back. I would take LMA and his 2-way game over ZBo any time. Again, why is win% an obscure stat? Why is overall wins an obscure stat? I say that points and rebounds that do not lead to wins are an obscure stat. If you play fantasy basketball - they are great, if you play real basketball team wins and team losses are the most important stat. Anything else is secondary. I am sorry, you just told me we need someone that scores and rebounds like ZBo. These are stats. You are a stat-geek, you just choose the individual stats over the team stats. For entertainment purposes, sure. Kevin McHale is a fantastic TV personality as well. Did not do very well building winning teams, however. I enjoy watching Charles Barkley and his antics on TV as well - but a good person to analyze basketball players or teams he is not. "He will never score 20 in an NBA game" about Yao is about as classic as they get.
People know what Rebounds and Points are. Win Share per 36 minutes...wtf is that. A non-stat geek will say something like: They shoot too many jumpshots, they need to attack the rim more as a casual observation. A stat geek will go off on a long tangential about non-related numbers pulled out of their ass that just confuses.
I would say that Blazers rebounding and points in the paint is a lot worse than having a slight advantage defensively at the PF position. I mean how many times have players still just attack the rim at will, even with Aldridge in there, the "defensive stopper" he is.
Don't "they" usually say that point differential is a better indicator of team performance than just straight win%? If that's the case, then let's look at LA and Zach's on/off court numbers. When LA is on the court, the team is 3.6 points better than opponents (per 100 possessions). When he's off the court, the team is 3.7 points better. Overall, his presence has virtually no impact on team point differential. When Zach is on the court, his team is 0.4 points better than their opponents. When he's off the court, his team is 3.8 points worse. Without him, the Grizz are not good; with him, they're at least mediocre.
