I was personally excited about Stro.... though in the back of my mind, I was thinking "Why doesn't this guy rebound more?" I thought, like many, he'd be great once he got out of Memphis, but he basically stayed the same player he has always been. Right now, I'm neutral about him... wouldn't be sad if he was kept around, not too angry he is leaving. Just feel bad for him personally that he was shocked/sad about being traded by his childhood favorite team that he was so excited to sign with last season. Incidentally, is it just me or do the Rockets front office have a habit of breaking player's dreams? Jim Jackson thought he had a home, Mike James thought he had a home, Stro thought he had a home. See a pattern here?
There's no partucular approach that teams must use to be successful. Miami just won the championship, how many of the guys on their roster were drafted by them? Wade was a draft pick and Haslem was an undrafted free agent. Shaq, Jason Williams, Payton, Walker, Shandon Anderson, Derrick Anderson, Alonzo Mourning, Posey and Doleac all played for other teams prior to coming to the Heat. Hard to say that Miami built through the draft. They were lucky enough to draft a star player in Wade (much like Yao) and they were able to trade for an established star in Shaq (much like Mc Grady). They then started acquiring experienced veteran players to put around them (JWill, Walker, Posey, S. Anderson, D. Anderson, Mourning). Looks to me like we're using the same approach as Miami. Detroit falls into the same category. They traded for Hamilton, Billups, McDyess, Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace. Prince was their draft pick, but all of the other guys were acquired through trades.
This is an awesome thread. Very good analysis all around. And yes, the Rockets org. does seem to have a habit of breaking players dreams. Throw Rashard Lewis into that mix. I would imagine we have both a good and a bad reputation around the league.
My problem with the $Ball concept as it relates to basketball is that to get to the "Super Role Player" category means you have highly valued categories akin to "# of charges taken". This is minutia. IMHO, it's just as easy to over-value minutia as it is to over-value potential. Ultimately, at some point in the valuation there's a +/- factor which is affected by the quality of the other 4 players on the floor with you. If I'm getting bonus points for statistical minutia and one of my teammates is All Star caliber (Gasol for example) there is an easy tendency to over rate my skills. IMO, applying $Ball concepts to Battier doesn't account for the fact he was successful on a successful team. It's too easy to over-value Battier with this concept.
If I'm the GM of the Jazz, I'd at least think about it. It makes some sense since Boozer hasn't been a hit in Utah, and he's making upwards of $11 million per year. Getting Stro for half the price (along with guys in Deke or Sura who's contracts will come off in a year or two) might be right up their alley in terms of their payroll. I don't know if they would do it, but I think they would at least consider it.
Gater, In order for a moneyball strategy to be successful, you have to be able to identify and quantify which stats most effect winning and losing. If you can do that, then you should be successful. If you place emphisis on the wrong things, then you wont' be successful. You and others seem to believe that it's impossible to successfully identify those things. I personally don't believe that. To me the primary question is if Morey is using the correct "formula". The analysis that is used takes into account the combinations that are on the floor for both teams. I believe that there are trends there that can be used to our advantage, but there's no way we can know if Morey values the correct ones.
A couple things: 1. +/- is indeed greatly influenced by who you play with and against and who replaces you when you sit. Just because, say, Chuck Hayes has a better great +/- than Carmelo Anthony doesn't mean he's a better player than Melo. It's a stat you have to look in context. Some people try and do a "adjusted +/-" that tries to account for the difference in quality of the other 4 players on the floor. I haven't found it on the web, though. Maybe Daryl Morey has it since he probably has enough peons doing the math for him. He talked about this "floor truth" concept in an interview that very closely related to that. 2. I'm pretty sure Battier's high +/- was not simply a result of Gasol's greatness. In fact, in 2004-2005, Gasol missed a huge chunk of the season (played only 56, I think) and the team still managed to make the playoffs with Battier playing a big part of it. Battier's +/- was an impresive +11.6 for the season with Gasol missing all these games. This year, with Gasol healthy and quite a few different teammates, Battier +/- is still impressive at +10.6. Could be co-incidence but given that this lasted 2 years with two totally different cast of players getting minutes, it's pretty unlikely Battier himself doesn't have anything to do with it.
m_cable, I don't think I'd be interested in Boozer if I were running the Rockets. His contract is huge, injury history extensive, and his subpar D negates half of the good things he does on offense. Frankly, I'd much rather have Battier than Boozer.
You're argument against the Battier trade was that you thought that we should have gotten more, right? Ok, let's use your logic on this deal. Boozer gives you 16 to 17 pts/game and 8 to 9 rebounds. Utah papers have reported rumors of Boozer possibly being traded for Magloire or Troy Murphy. So, if you're the Utah GM, you think Swift + Sura is a better deal then those just because it saves you $3M or $4M after next season? I don't see too many GM's pulling the trigger on that deal. Heck, if you'll do that deal, then would you trade me Boozer for Juwan Howard and Sura? Howard makes close to the same salary as Swift and he gives you better production (especially in Utah's half court oriented offense). I'm sure the Rockets would gladly do that deal.
Gater, Here's a quote by Morey which mentions some of the factors that he looks at. Notice that he does take into account the combination of players that are on the floor together (on both teams). What are some of the statistics he studies? "Efficient use of possessions is an undervalued, under-appreciated thing relative to just a guy who scores," he said. "Is he using those possessions efficiently? That's a key thing that's undervalued." And? "The unit that is what I'd call 'ground truth' in the NBA is measured another way. There's a player on the floor with four other players, and he's facing an opposing group of five. While those 10 guys are on the floor, they're playing a mini-game for the time they're on the floor. Who won? "What created them winning and losing? Maybe they created extra possessions through turnovers or rebounding." Maybe it's one or two players being part of the varied lineups throughout an entire game that is more responsible for success than a box score would show. Maybe a player some people see as valuable really isn't. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/justice/rockets/3796565.html
aelliott - You've got it wrong. What I'm saying is this. Whatever the formula is...it contains a value judgement as to which variables receive a more significant weighting. By your own definition, we are attempting to determine and quantify those aspects of the game which more significantly affect wins and losses. But I propose that two different analysts can look at the same player and give them a different $Ball rating. And that would be IMHO because we are looking at things like "charges taken" and trying to correlate it to W's/L's. In addition to the value of the variables, I'm also leery of the fact that there are only 5 players on a basketball court and I think their success is more "tied" than in baseball. Battier played on a good MEM team. MEM had only 4 players with a negative +/-. The Rockets on the other hand had 13 players with a negative +/-. Had Battier been on the Rockets last year, his $Ball number would have been less than his $Ball number at MEM. IOW, it's hard to affect wins, when there aren't many...so the $Ball # is lower. Just as it is artificially inflated when you are on a good team.
Read each others posts on why Utah might do this deal, and why the Rockets might accept. As well as reasons why Utah doesn't do the deal and the Rockets wouldn't take it if offered. You're both on the same side of this battier trade, and yet sit on opposite ends this proposed boozer deal. Seems to be a pretty good indication that it's a trade that has enough pros and cons on both sides to make it worth discussing. I'm not saying that we do this deal if it's put on the table, or that this deal could possibly get floated by Utah or Houston's front office. I'm just using it as an example of something that has some merit in discussing which gives a gauge at Stromile's value.
Looks to me like Van Gundier said that if he were the Rockets GM, he wouldn't be interested in Boozer. He'd rather have Battier. Battier is much more efficient for a lot less money. I'm in total agreement. What Van Gundier didn't say was that he thought that Swift + Sura was the best deal that Utah could get for Boozer. So, how are we on opposite sides of the deal? My point was that you didn't realistically have a chance of Utah accepting a Swift + Sura for Boozer deal. You also didn't answer the question of if you thought Utah could have gotten better value than Swift + Sura for Boozer. Say...Magloire or Murphy ( http://webserver.desnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640188992,00.html ) ? If you do think that's the best Utah can do for Boozer, then do you also think Howard + Sura is fair? I personally think that Utah could easily get more for Boozer, so I find it interesting that you'd think that they'd realistically settle for a deal like that and at the same time you feel the Rockets should have gotten more for Swift.
Van Gundier gives reasons why he wouldn't take on Boozer for the deal I proposed, and you're giving reasons why it would a robbery on our part. Same smell. As for Howard, I've said on many an occasion that he's got three non-inconsequential years left (about 6-7 million a year), and he's only going to get older and slower. So no I wouldn't want Howard unless I couldn't get anything else. As for Magloire or Murphy, I'd be surprised if Magloire gets traded for Boozer straight up. Obviously the addition of Villanueva changes a lot of things. And that big contract of Boozer's would be a big concern for Milwaukee. And Murphy for Boozer is a lateral move in my mind. Their games are similar and they give similar amount of production. Murphy gives them a bit more range, but everything else is pretty equal. At least Stromile would give them a different look, and he's making a lot less than any of these other guys. I could see the appeal in having Stro next to AK-47. Putting a pair of forwards on the floor that can block shots from the weakside, doesn't sound like such a bad idea. To be honest I don't know if the Rockets could offer the best deal. There's no way to be sure of that for any of us. But I think the deal that I proposed has some merit and makes some kind of logical sense. Hell, I didn't even start out this tangent saying that "we can't trade Stro, we could have gotten Boozer". I only proposed a dozen different trades that we could possibly make that would elevate Stro's value above that of salary filler. If you'll look back to my first reply to Pat, you'll see that I was only trying to toss an approximation of Stro's value. And trades that I thought are somewhat plausible. If you don't think this is plausible then whatever. I'm not nearly as adamant on this point to make it worth arguing in circles over it.
I never said anything about whether I thought Jazz would do it. Personally, I think they'll look for someone other than a backup PF, more likely a defensive C or a sharp shooting SG, in return for Boozer. The only reason they would do it is to dump contract... and the financial relief from that probably isn't great enough to pull the trigger. There are deals, frankly, that are bad for both teams and neither team would be interested in doing. This is one of them. It's not like every player carries some absolute "trade value" and you "win" whenever you get the players with the biggest value tag. Value is subjective and changes depending on the circumstances-- personnell, financial, and otherwise-- of each team. Just because the perceived market value for Carlos Boozer is higher than that of the combined package of Stro and company doesn't meant the Rockets should be interested in doing this trade.
I haven't read every single post but I have to point out two things: 1) Stro brought 10 and 5 to this team. In fact, over the second half, I believe he brought 12 and 6 and a block. He was average. He is a player unable to create his own shot on a team starving for someone to be able to create.... Not surprisingly, he didn't perform well. But still, he was average. What he brought was decent. You know how much he makes? The MLE. Do you know how the MLE is calculated? The average NBA salary. Don't tell me we're glad to get rid of him. At his minutes, production, and salary, he's a player I'd keep even if it was just for backup minutes. 2) Why are we using the statistic that 20% of lotery picks become all stars? First off, tell me what percenteage of the top 8 become All Stars. Then, re-think your argument and understand this: - A lottery picks' chances of becoming an All Star: 20% - A top 8 player's chance of becoming an All Star: better than 20% - A player who drops to #8 unexpectedly becoming one: even better - A player who drops unexpectedly to become better than Battier: Way way way way..... WAY.... way better than 20%. Now once you've swallowed that, and realize the chances of Gay becoming as good as Battier is damn near cloe to a lock over the long-term, and highly likely in the short term... Then... ONLY THEN... can you sit and rationalize that... yes, we also threw in a decent player, who is not overpaid, and is athletic unlike anyone else on the roster.
Yes. It's the NBA. Jim Jackson has had a home with half the league. Oh, and don't forget to add Steve Francis and Rashard Lewis to your list.
1. You believed wrong... http://www.nba.com/playerfile/stromile_swift/season_splits.html Not that these stats mean all that much. Bottom line is that he just doesn't seem to fit. I wish he did, but honestly, I can't say objectively that he would get better all of a sudden. Like I said, I would not be too sad if he stayed on for another year, but if he is what it took for West to deal Gay for Battier, so be it. 2. About these probabilities, .. here's the article with all the picks from 1984-2003 http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm They don't have it broken down into "top 8 all stars" or "unexpectedly dropped to 8th" and I don't really agree with all of their classifications.. you can go form yoru own category and do the counting yourself. A quick counting revealed that 0% of 8th overall picks has turned into superstrs, 11.8% of the top 8 picks turn into superstars. 4% of picks 5-10 turned into Superstars. I don't know who unexpected dropped to 8th, but whoever they were, they didn't turn into superstars. Pierce was the ony "unexpected drop" guy who turned into an All Star as far as I could see. Caron Butler unexpected dropped, and he's nothing special. I'd take Battier over him, especially given the contract size. I did spot "#1 pick talent unexpectedly dropped to 7th" Eddie Griffin, though. If you found more let me know. 3. Again, people undervalue Battier, there are a few "All Stars" I would gladly take Battier over ("Vetran All Star" Antoine Walker, even back in his Celtic days, Wally Szerbiak, "Best PG of the League" Starbury, our own Stevie Franchise, Baron Davis, etc). Really, Battier is more valuable than 95% of player who are not "All Stars" and some who are, too.
I would go for post of the year. that was a fantastically logical and rational look at the defining event of this offseason. outstanding job man.
a step further how about this thread as one of the best reads in a long time in the GARM. reminds me a lot of when i first found this place.
