Baron Davis-Top Ten "moneyballer" (link)? http://csolution.typepad.com/cornersolutio...ball_for_b.html <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">As it turns out, Dan Rosenbaum, an economics professor at UNC Greensboro has been working on a modified approach and has generously presented his methodology and results at 82 Games. I've talked to Dan on a few occasions, and he's really on the cutting edge when it comes to this kind of analysis. He has managed, through combining several approaches, to eliminate some of the "strange" results of the pure winval method, such as the implication that Hedo Turkoglu might be the league's best player. Dan's Top 10: 1. Kevin Garnett 2. Tracy McGrady 3. Andrei Kirilenko 4. Tim Duncan 5. Shaquille O'Neal 6. Kobe Bryant 7. Dirk Nowitzki 8. Ray Allen 9. Baron Davis 10. Vince Carter </div> And on the topic of Moneyball, I wonder if Mully kicks it at all with Billy Beane and uses statistical analysis too.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting superder81:</div><div class="quote_post">http://csolution.typepad.com/cornersolutio...ball_for_b.html And on the topic of Moneyball, I wonder if Mully kicks it at all with Billy Beane and uses statistical analysis too.</div> I'm a big fan of Billy Beane, but basketball is one of those games where chemistry is something that isn't easily weighed based on statisical value if a team has never had the chance in history to play with one another. Also there's a lot more variables involved than baseball because it's a fast paced game where defensive assignments and plays can change easily. In baseball, you have players go to bat individually in various situations and on defense, the plays aren't something that vary like in Basketball and Football where you do have more room to be creative in how you play defense and score. Basketball, there's just too many situtations where you might have a player mismatch, you might have a guy that's out of position, you might have a poor help defender, and etc on your team that totally screws with who can play well with one another and outproduce the other team. There's simply no statistics for how let's say, Jason Richardson scores on a back to back game against a defender 6'8" or taller in the 4th quarter. I wish they did because that would rock. Some teams that look good on paper, never produce the results they are expected and that sort of thing goes beyond the realm of statistical analysis because basketball is such a team sport that relies on chemistry. The warriors have definitely had good players on the roster, but one player can cause the chemistry to be really different and basketball, like football, is a very team oriented sport, whereas baseball is more individual with emphasis on individual players needed to knock in runs when it comes to offense. When you're on the plate, you're all alone basically, whereas basketball you have other people to help you score more easily. One of these days I hope basketball statisticians collect all the information when it comes to how players behave when a certain defender is on them or when the game lead is X points ahead or behind, when they are hurt, or when they look to pass or how much time is left on the clock. That would definitely be helpful in guaging what team would most likely mesh well together, but again there's just so many variables. I mean Jrich's fg% I think would be higher if the team didn't defer to him a lot. He takes the majority of buzzer beaters unless Troy gets the ball.
Thanks for your thoughts custodian. I have just read Moneyball actually, so I've been kind of excited about it and whether it could relate to basketball. Apparently there is a book out called Basketball on Paper which supposedly tries to apply statistical analysis to basketball. I wonder if it brings up what you say about chemistry and all the variables inherent in the game. The Supersonics are said to be a team that actually uses "moneyball" to run the team, and I wouldn't be surprised. Everyone thought they were gonna be cellar dwellars this year, and they end up being at the top of the league. That's something akin to what's said in Moneyball the book about statistical analysists (aka sabrmetricians) who distrust what newswriters and broadcasters have to say. And I'd like to think they're right. As far as Mullin and moneyball, well, Mullin is actually giving out large contracts I guess because he can, as opposed to Billy Beane's budget...but on the topic of chemistry, he has pretty much assembled a team that can get along it seems. Let's see how Baron Davis adds or subtracts from that...But just seeing him in that top ten list above is kind of exciting. I know that this topic might be over the heads of those who haven't read moneyball, so sorry about that. A book that I've seen that evaluates teams for every upcoming season in the NBA using some sort of statistical analysis is the yearly Pro Basketball Prospectus. Also, here's a link to a four-part article on the Supersonics and this topic, from January: http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/moneyball050119.html.
Also, in the Billy Beane model, the General Manager pretty much calls the shots more than the on field manager-to paraphrase "Baseball is the only business where the middle manager runs the show". So perhaps that's what the idea was when Mullin became the Director Of Ops, while they hired a college coach who would possibly defer to the higher ups Mullin and Higgins. I know this is just speculation though, but I guess I'm just trying to find sense to what until the Davis trade was another lost season.
Yeah, I hear ya superder81. It's definitely interesting subject matter. I praise Billy Beane for what he has done with his smallish budget given to him by Schott and it's definitely to the success of being able to analyze baseball situational stats and fielding stats and also having a good farm system. As for Mullin at the beginning of the year, I think it was just poor judgement and poor leverage he had when dealing with other teams. He intended to change the culture of the Warriors by bringing in winners and players with a lot of heart. Unfortunately, talent is the one thing you need to win in addition to heart. So Mullin couldn't get that talent because of pieces we lack or the fact nobody wants to come to a losing team unless there's some incentives like: they like the bay area or they get lots of money or they get to be a starting player, etc. A lot of general management is like sales, you have to have a product and make it appealing to other GM's so you can convince others to buy it. That sometimes requires patience and making split decisions rather than none at all. Here's the thing: The W's have always had pieces nobody wanted because of either contract size and the fact we have to overpay to get decent free agents, the fact the W's always lost for the last 12 years, decreasing all the players value except the stars making the differences, and the fact just when players actually become good, they become free agents in the offseason. The Warriors had the reputation of never having franchise players and losing good players to other teams that other teams would try to take advantage and fool the GM's into making trades just to wind up with something rather than nothing. Jason Richardson was the closest to a franchise player as Jamison was, but Jason Richardson is probably the better player since he plays defense and hustles and passes. Even with Jason Richardson, though, look at the guys that feed off his play, you got a decent, fast point guard that needs to dominate the ball in order to be successful offensively because of lack of range and limited court vision/passing accuracy, and you got a small forward that is really a glue guy than a offensive stat producer (kind of like a Doug Christie/or Kerry Kittles without the defense), you got a jump shooting power forward that is constantly injured and pretty much one-dimensional on offense as of now and sometimes non-existant on the defensive end except for defensive rebounds. Then you got an inconsistent center which doesn't offer much scoring but makes up for that with hustle. Here's the thing, I would crave consistency on this squad and the most efficient fg%'s. JRich has become consistent with the number of shots he takes and he knows his role as the go-to scorer in the 4th. Baron Davis knows his job is to set up the other 4 players nad make them better. Troy Murphy's job is supposed to score inside because Foyle's level of finesse is just very inconsistent, but Troy takes lots of low percentage jumpers. Then you have Foyle, where you don't know what you're going to get on the defensive end. Sometimes he's too slow, sometimes he's clearly out matched because of his size and lack of coordination and sometimes he tries to demonstrate his "hidden" offense at inappropriate times. Then finally Dunleavy is one of these guys that isn't going to step up because he's too unselfish and is currently working on his entire game just to be successful at small forward. Plus it's observed that he's better with the ball in his hands versus being just a catch and shoot player. Without the offense, his value is diminished because he hasn't figured out how to play nba defense with such poor physical skills. So I guess moneyball for basketball could be just a mix of they play based on the stats they show combined with pulling up the situations during the game where they might have struggled or excelled. Take for instance Dunleavy playing so well with Murphy out of the lineup and him playing power forward and how well the rest of the team fared. Those two variables are definitely something to look at. Was it Murphy that was being a damper on the team's ability to play well? Or was it Dunleavy playing a position where it allowed him to use speed, ballhandling against an inside player and use that first step as his advantage to score or get to the line? It could be a mix of both. That is why I'm glad Monty is pulling up some weird subbing patterns at times just to experiment and see if it works. It will be good lessons to learn for next year, since this year doesn't count anyway.
