Reply With Quote
You might be right but I keep waiting for them to fall down the standings but Harden keeps them in and even Josh Smith is playing well since Dwight been injured.
no matter how much analytics is used in Houston
the eye test tells me the Rockets are 2nd round fodder tops
You might be right but I keep waiting for them to fall down the standings but Harden keeps them in and even Josh Smith is playing well since Dwight been injured.
Nice of you to think about me.
I hate dividing people into two camps (pro vs. anti analytics), and in this case, I actually think both sides have flaws.
I never thought Morey used analytics to get the Rockets better, I mean, does it take analytics to trade for Harden? Sign Dwight? What has he really done to justify the use of analytics?
IMHOThe use of analytics is best used to get value for money, and find the best fit for your team, generally with regards to role players. You identify the building blocks on your team, and then use the necessary analytics to find the complimentary players to fit under the salary cap, while allowing for contingencies and fall back plans, with the necessary cap flexibility to make things work. It's not there to tell you to trade for Harden or sign Dwight, because even an idiot would know that.
Since Morey became GM for the Rockets, the only players of note that the Rockets drafted were:
Jeremy Lamb - because of the trade
Terrence Jones - decent for an 18th pick
Chandler Parsons - lost in FA signing because he wasn't extended
Marcus Morris - not that great for a 14th pick, and played mostly for the Suns.
Mirotic - Never played a second with the Rockets
Patrick Patterson - Love his game, but did most of his work with Toronto
Batum - Never played a second with the Rockets
Brooks - Lost to Phoenix with Morey's obsession with somebody else's PG
As for Charles, I disagree that analytics have no place in the NBA. To go purely on instincts and ignore facts is to look at things blindly, it's not smart decision making, and is not defensible. There are some incredibly smart basketball minds like Jerry West that did that, but really, how many of those guys were there in the history of the league? More likely, you end up with guys like Isiah Thomas or Michael Jordan, or even James Dolan or worse.
Analytics is there to verify, or find those hidden gems. Without analytics and based purely on instincts, teams make million dollar decisions without any backup, which is dangerous and irresponsible. In the age of huge contracts and salary cap, a wrong decision can hinder a franchise for a long time.
On the other hand, I agree that the analytics guys are the geeks who couldn't get the gurls in school.
Agreed. Thing that's crazy harden would be even more deadly mid range because he is almost unguardable right now like Jam said. That handle range step back and hesitation game is a'll filthy
Love that closing line and I agree with a lot of what you said ...
I don't think anyone does. He does make good basketball points every now and again.
Its not so much the method of selecting players...its the flawed school of thought that ascribes to what is supposed to be the most "efficient" way of running an offense. I mean sure, you could chuck 3s and only take layups (completely eliminating midrange), thinking that is the best way to run an offense...but you grossly oversimplify the game by thinking you can eliminated 80% of the court space which is essentially midrange and allows for versatility. The rockets have taken Less midrange shots than any team in NBA history...and the team with the 2nd least attempts is FAR FAR behind them. Thats the reason we have Kevin Mchale...no other coach would follow an offensive philosophy dictated by the GM. So yes, he probably is the most analytics centered GM. The moves you brought up that contradict analytics are Les moves. He's the ing moron that thinks you buy big name stars and put them together on a team and win. Dude lucked into buying a championship team and hasn't done crap since.
Yeah, I agree with that as well. When the defense knows you will shoot nothing but layups and 3s, it's so much easier to defend.
Great article. On this
The author opines that Chuck might not like analytics but analytics love him. A couple of nuggets:
1. Chuck leads Duncan in BPM (box plus/minus) for ages 22-36 (years they both played in NBA
2. Leads Duncan in VORP (value over replacement) and winshares/48
3. Chuck does trail Duncan in PER 24.7 -24.6 but is ahead of Malone in most pther stats.
Just find it funny that he hates the movement that makes a case he is better than Tim and Karl.
LOL at analytics guys that would make that case and trust numbers only.
LOL that rings dont matter it's a team accomplishment argument.
RINGS and EYES will always matter. Stats should be used to support or explain not to end arguments.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 02-11-2015 at 04:20 PM.
I am not a believer of BPM, because it heavily depends on who is backing you up. It rewards players with horrible backups (think Barkley through most of his career), and conversely penalizes players with great backups (like Mark Price with Kevin Johnson).. VORP supposedly fixed this problem, but I don't understand the math and logic to comment on it.
As for WS/48. I normally sees it as the best way to look at a player's contribution to a team. that said, it depends on the system a player plays on (think Billups with Pistons), and to an extent penalizes great players with good teammates.
Barkley was an absolutely phenomenal player back in his day. He was in the same league as Jordan and Magic in his prime, the only difference is that he had horrible teams, and he is more difficult to build around because he is extremely ball dominant and can have a lot of defensive deficiencies.
To me, he is in the KG, Dirk, McHale level of players.
Believing in analytics is like believing in evolution, neither are proven.
Chuck and any other superstar ever in the league made their living off of stats. It was ok as long as they were getting paid for it. Players aren't getting paid for analytics though, and it's being used to determine matchups, tendencies and will eventually reshape the entire game of basketball (and all other sports). The more data they collect, the more accurate their analysis.
Once again you make contradicting statements.
1. Barkley was in the same league as Jordan and Magic. Obviously everyone in the NBA was in the same league, so you meant he was the same caliber player as those two.
2. He is in the KG, Dirk, McHale level of players.
You cannot have it both ways.
I think you have a better grasp on these stats than I do. But it's why I dont trust these fully tbh. Barkley was an amazing athlete and player. the things he did at his size are incredible a 6 foot 6 guy rebounding and scoring the way he did. And his vertical off two feet was amazing. But the rings are a big part of why Duncan is clearly considered better. Sure duncan is the greater two way player but Chuck was probably a greater scorer and was also a good passer when he put his mind to it. But 5-0 rings speaks louder to me than any of that and although many here hate PER (even I dont like it) it's one of the advanced metrics that matches what my eyes and the rings say that Duncan is greater than Chuck.
I just find the article interesting.
And although you do a great job Amb of explaining the problem with some of those metrics. A nerd could argue Duncan had better team-mates (like you said), a HOF coach no MJ etc. Point being stats can always be "juked". That is why you cant fully use them to end a debate because someone can always dig to find one that supports theirs. Even in this article they only focused on 22-36 when despite people on here saying 5 shouldnt have changed things. The last 2 seasons added more of gap between duncan and Karl and Chuck and Shaq/kobe for that matter.
I apologize your highness. I bow before you for forgiveness as I was unclear in using the term "in the same league". You,the almighty, provided great insights in clarify my statements that no other on this board can see.
However, I humbly ask how you cannot understand how Barkley's prime being equal to Magic and Jordan off prime, and Barkley having a shorter prime than either two would not allow him to be at the same level as KG, Dirk and McHale. Please bestow me of your knowledge and your infinite wisdom.
It's like saying Shaq in his prime is as good as Bird or Jordan during their primes, but Bird and Jordan > Shaq career wise.
wtf
Ever heard antibiotic resistance?
Ever heard of satire? I am an expert geneticist, Mr Bond.wtf
Ever heard antibiotic resistance?
I knew satire. You sir, are no satire.
They counted on Barkley being passive... they counted wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
