http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings#!nba This is a link to the NBA, but they have a breakdown of all the major sports. Rockets in the "all in" section for basketball with Philly, Dallas and San Antonio
Also just noticed they have an overall top and bottom 10 ranking for all sports. Astros and Rockets All in and on top of the list. Texans are in the skeptics group for football Top 10 1- Philadelphia 76ers 2- Houston Astros 3- Houston Rockets 4- Tampa Bay Rays 5- Boston Red Sox 6- New York Yankees 7- San Antonio Spurs 8- Dallas Mavericks 9- Oakland Athletics 10- Chicago BlackHawks Bottom 10 113- LA Lakers 114- New York Jets 115- Miami Marlins 116- Tennessee Titans 117- Colorado Avalanche 118- Brooklyn Nets 119- San Diego Chargers 120- Washington Redskins 121- New York Knicks 122- Philadelphia Phillies
It's obvious that Maury is in complete control now. No more excuses. Either get the job done or admit that the methodology is a failure and move on.
The same use of analytics that 6 times NBA champs San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks used to win titles? (You are right about Le$)
Spurs are fortunate in that their "big 3" accepts less than market value to play in SA, which affords them the opportunity to bring in better role players. Dallas had a payroll that was over $100 million.
Context is everything. If we had better shooters the offense would look so much better. We miss so many wide open 3s.
But both rely highly on "analytics". The only difference is that they have had future hall of famers on their teams and top coaches. They certainly trust and had success with the "methodology". However, the Spurs more resemble the Roxs with their generally good drafting, picking up unknown role players, and staying flexibile with their cap space and contracts.
Didn't Kwame used to always bring up Rudy Gay as a huge morey failing? Until Gay proved Morey right, of course
You can rely on whatever methodology you want, but when you have all-stars taking much less than market value or have a payroll exceeding $100 million, it really doesn't matter what you call it. Then why implement a methodology when you don't have the personnel to execute it? Wouldn't the "analytics" tell you that's a bad idea?
I will never understand how someone is against having more information. Would much rather have someone use information and be smart than their "gut" or their "faith"
Eight seasons of having more information hasn't done much for winning in the playoffs for Morey and his staff of geniuses.
I can't believe the guy still posts here, to be honest. He has pretty much been wrong on everything, but hides behind his trollishness. Someone should really go back dig up all the stupid **** he has said, so we can all have some laughs.
Coming from the ultimate homer this is a compliment. Yeah, go look through tHe NBA gambling thread, my ZBO thread, and the one I made about DJ just to name a few and you'll see how "wrong" I've been. You, on the other hand, can't produce a rational thought if your life depended on it as a result of your blind homerism. You lose.
After reading through all the write ups for every team I thought the stat thrown in about the Spurs was the most telling. No team has taken more corner 3s in the last 10 years than San Antonio. Also mentioning that the reason one of the best coaches NBA history started to get interested in the data analytics was showing were the concepts that he was implementing that were against the NBA norm were shown to be the most efficient. Sounds awfully familiar to what's happening here. We may be the extreme example now, but it wouldn't surprise me if in 10 years the norm is close to what we are doing now with 3 point attempts. I feel like people are ignoring that, despite our below average 3 point shooting, we have been one of the better offenses in the league recently. There is a reason for this. The analytics kooks actually know what they are talking about. You hit your 3s at even a below average rate and you can produce an above average, even top 10 offense. I understand the variance it causes in limited sample sizes such as a playoff series and am defintely open to the argument that this strategy is much better suited to the regular season, but I don't see how people can look at the results this system has produced and find a huge problem with it. Our system would be amazing with better 3 point shooters, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is something we could do with the talent we have differently that would produce better results than what we are getting with what we are doing.
