I am going to come out of the closet and admit that I have developed a crush on Money Ball. It was difficult at first... accepting this corporatizing movement, measuring of marginal differences, knowing players by their numbers instead of their names. But I slowly realized there is a large comfort and security when a team you cheer for uses a system of analysis in the category. Some positives: - players are acquired producing more than their salary. If a player produces less than expected, the probabilty that they trend towards their fair salary is more likely than towards a negative value. - accumulation and hoarding of assets for later transactions means easier mobility and negotation in future deals. Trading for bigger name assets, dumping salaries, and in general having more leverage and position are more fruitful. Advantages develop not just financially and statistically but often psychologically - by having a commanding position, as analgous in poker. - good adjustment to stay competitive with other front offices that seem to be having success with similar strategies (Dallas, Phoenix). Furthermore, those who at least pursue Money Ball have another perspective to analyze things. Some change of philosophy is a good idea, because there are current franchises negligient of it that can be taken advantage of and there are a few franchises employing it that we can now defend better against. - hopefully this means the end of Moochies, Juwans, and Mo Taylors. Some negatives: - I have not heard of a Money Ball system extended to NCAA/foreign league statistics. Likewise it has no affect on scouting or player development. Speculatively, this means less risks and development of potential. Such was the case of Rudy Gay but nonetheless, Battier is a great commodity. Money Ball loses the chance of Gay becoming a star but avoids him being a bust. (Where I subjectively think that trade failed was assigning Swift non-postive trade value). - Corporatization. I think I'm a young guy with old generation values. Our GM will have to inform you that you are being traded because your P/E ratio is the worst on the team. The trend will move further away from ideas that I hear in stories about the Boston Celtics and dynasty and mentorship. A bit of dramatization on my part, but I still can't help but feel there will be less emphasis on loyalties, intangibles, attachment to players etc... but a bit more "play for your worth." - basketball is still more of a dynamic/chaotic game unlike baseball. Perceived value is still a big factor and Money Ball deemphasizes this aspect. Sometimes you need a Charles Oakley or a Gary Payton and sometimes a negative rated player is a better commodity because of how non-Money Ball organizations perceieve him. And at other times, Money Ball has no idea what a playoff and championship basketball player is. It'll be interesting to see how Money Ball plays out vs. JVG's "basketball culture" and hopefully it wont diminish the scouting and developmental importance in finding new players. But rationally, I can't help but love Money Ball and how it's like accruing stock and continuously trading low and selling high. What hurts the most to me isn't when we don't make the fantastic move for a star; it's when we make a move that burdens our financial situation so much, that we're screwed with no mobility for years. Yes, playoff exits are impactively crushing, but it's more painful to me to know there's little an organization can do with no flexibility in their roster and financial situation. Maybe I'm just a little high on it right now... but Battier and Snyder aren't just players, they're assets that make me feel like no matter what, we're going to be able to keep trading up and up and up. So to Morey and Money Ball, here's to you. Makes me feel like each trading season is going to be bright.
I'm not a big fan of this "Money Ball" concept so far. I think it comes down to how well you evaluate talent. We'll see how this strategy turns out over the course of the season though.
I have my doubts as well, but one thing I do like about a system like this is the possiblity to find and aquire good players that are saddled on some team's bench. If statistical measure really could identify guys that could produce with bigger minutes, it would be worth it's weight in calculators, gold calculators.
It's 3-1 against Moneyball, ie. CD, JVG, Lindsey. I'm not convinced Morey is calling the shots this early. Battier, Snyder and even going after James all seem to point to JVG.
JVG? That's a pretty baffling conclusion. Didn't you see the game where JVG went ape **** over Snyder taunting the bench, or that he was at James's hoise at the very beginning of free-agency. If anything the Snyder trade shows me that, at the very least, Morey has a big say in what the Rockets are doing right now.
i love... carpet. 40 year old virgin? come one you know you guys saw it! anyway, i really like the idea of money ball. sure we're only 2 moves into the deal (one of them upset us for the whole summer) but we'll see as we go along how it works out.
With Moneyball the reason for not speculating on potential isn't neccessarily to reduce risk, but instead because most other teams overvalue potential. One of the basic ideas of Moneyball is to acquire players who other teams undervalue and sell players that other teams over value. In the early days of Billy Beane's tenure in Oakland, they had determined that the most undervalued statistic was on-base percentage. They went out and were able to load up on high OBP guys and routinely led the league in that category. After their success, other teams started valuing OBP, so the market for that skill changed. i.e. teams started to overvalue the same skill they use to undervalue. That meant that OBP wasn't a good buy anymore. If you look at today's Oakland A's, they're in the bottom half of the league in OBP. That's the point that alot of people miss. They try to simplify Moneyball to where all you do is identify a statistic and go out and acquire players that fit that profile. The problem is that there is much more to it. You absolutely do have to evaluate all of those obscure stats and determine how each of those things effects winning. If you can't do that well, then your system won't work. An equally important part of the analysis is to determine how the rest of the league values those stats. So, you could have two stats A and B, where A effects winning by 5% more than B, but if the league is tending to overpay for A and underpay for B, then B is the better buy. Equally important is identifying which stats have little effect on winning. With the A's they determined that speed, relief pitching and defense were over valued by the rest of baseball. That allowed them to acquire guys that were say great OBP guys, but were slow or played poor defense. Even though those guys were very good at OBP (the #1 stat), they were undervalued because they didn't possess certain traits (speed , defense , etc...) that other teams over valued. Because of that, Oakland would use young pitchers as relievers and then once they became established closers (and were therefore overvalued), they would trade them off for other assets. There's nothing inherently wrong with potential. If you can get a player with potential for a good price, then that's a good deal. Realistically though, since teams overvalue potential, you can usually turn that player with potential into other assets with an even better value. It's different from both sides nowdays. The Celtics dynasty wasn't worried about a guy that had a good season leaving via FA. The Celtics never had to deal with journeyman players wanting extra years on a deal and trade kickers. As I said earlier, Moneyball is all about analyzing the stats and determining how each stat effects winning (or not winning). If any particular person's version of Moneyball can't determine the things that support winning (playoffs included), then the system won't work.
So uh why did we still get screwed on the Gay deal if West overvalues potential? Oh yeah, we overvalue undervalued middle of the pack veterans.....
I absolutely hate the "$ball" moniker. . Using data to evaluate performance, impact, or for decision making is a broad discipline and I'm glad it's making it's way into basketball. But $ball connotes the idea that it's some clearly defined approach to this when that's so far from the truth it's not even funny. Off my soap box now. Data driven analysis is being done for the NCAA. People just don't know about it. Here's a great site with more more data than you can shake a stick at. http://www.kenpom.com/ Incidently I know that there have been some analysis that indicate college PER numbers translate well into projecting impact into the NBA.
Nice site. I looked up Novak and three amazing statistics jumped out. His effective FG% was 13th overall. This entire category has names that were on obscure teams or didn't declare or didn't make the NBA (gansey is notable). The only draft pick in the top 20 eFg% was Steve Novak. His Turnover % also ranked 13th overall. Some other notable names with decent TO% are Pittsnoggle and Morrison and Gansey again. But the most amazing statistic is ORtg or Offensive rating. He ranked an incredible #1 throughout the nation (albeit, in the category of using less than 20% of his possessions). Even the drafting of Novak seems to have more credence behind it being a MoreyBall decision; at pick 32, he definitely statistically scores as a passing, low turnover, high offensive efficiency machine. It's kind of interesting how Gansey, with similar high ranked categories went undrafted (and then was immediately gobbled up by the Miami Heat).
crossover - very interesting on the Novak stats! I hadn't even spent any time looking over the NCAA stats. Novak might be a diamond in the rough at #32. Very interesting indeed.
Because we didn't. At least not yet. It's pretty difficult to get screwed when we haven't seen Gay play for a single second on an NBA floor. Now, yes, most of us think we should've gotten something back from Memphis along with Battier. But, we're essentially armchair GMs, and while we can guess relative value of players, the only people who really know and set that are the actual general managers. Morey's approach is right, assuming that's what it is. The fact that so many people are disappointed about getting a legit 35 mpg starter from the #8 pick in the draft astounds me. My expectations, when we got the pick, were maybe 20 mpg from that player next year... and ultimately hope for some luck and get a top 7 or 8 rotation player for the next decade. It's not the NFL draft... pick 8 in an NBA draft is far from guaranteed success... we might even be talking 50/50. So, when you turn an asset like that into a 35 mpg starter still in the prime of his career... I'm not going to complain too much.
"Money ball" doesn't result in "players" being accumulated...it results in a roster being filled. That roster is typically stocked with affordable and mediocre athletes. That roster is then hyped to make it appear as if it is strong and legitimate. Wins are highlighted and glory exagerated. Failure and losses are downplayed. "Money Ball" results in coaches losing their jobs. Fans being disappointed and owners selling their teams for high profit. The high profit is a result of the owner lowering his costs for a few years. That is what is going to happen here. The Rockets will lose as a result of the inability of "moneyball" to truly acquire talent. Stats don't show diddly. JVG will be sacrificed before mid-season. Fans will be disappointed by failure. Even though the team will play hard and have moral victories, they will lose consistently. And Les A. will sell the Rockets in less than 3 years. In turn, he will make a huge profit as a result of low costs. Someone else will come in and clean up the mess. Rockets may be in the hunt for a championship in 2010. But not before.
I think this might be the most intelligent post I have ever read on this board. "...your P/E ratio is the worst on the team..." Classic!
Moneyball is about finding a simple equation to solve a complex issue I hate it When it makes it to Football . . . I will then know that CYBERBALL is a real game seems like they won't be happy until they replace players with TRUE ROBOTS and that will suck Rocket RIver
I' am not completely sold. With our 2 superstars inline, Moneybal will probably do us good but I don't know about the long run. In basketball, individuality weighs more than any other sport. All superstars are overvalued, but you have to have them to win. Other wise, like someone mentioned, you end up having a team with mediocre players. There is more than just stats in basketball.
Rocket River's post is exactly one of the reason I hate the $Ball moniker. He's assumed that there's some fixed method of doing this. There isn't. No one is trying to create a simplified equation to solve a complex issue. That statement in itself also points to a misunderstanding of how math & statistics are used for very complex real-world issues. Data driven analytics is about taking things you can measure and then looking at them in different ways to identify key patterns that give you insight that you intuitively would not have recognized. And if you think that there are some things that are unmeasurable then you need to realize that there are usually proxies that exist that can be used to give you insight into the unmeasurable. Here's a classic one. Love is unmeasurable right? But proxies exist that may indicate how much someone loves another such as how much time people spend together, how much someone spends on someone else, how often they talk, how big or how many sacrifices someone makes for another etc. Data driven analytics has been around for decades if not centuries now and is continually getting more sophisticated. It's applied in all walks of life and ways that folks don't even know on very organic and dynamic things and fields of knowledge.
Tango: I agree. Even the book "Moneyball" didn't describe one single universal stat for player ranking. Data analysis involves much more and has a much longer history in all kinds of activities. (Speaking of history of data analysis... anyone saw "Fog of War" with Robert McNamara. Very interesting story about how he began using data driven analysis in the car business) Morey and Bill James co-taught a course in data-driven analysis in sports at MIT. If people think the process is that simplistic, why do you think it takes a whole class term to discuss the material? What do they do, talk for one day and sit around for the rest of the semester? As for the Rockets moves being looked at through the basic 82games.com stats, these stats are seriously flawed when used out of context. However, they provide set of interesting information that's more useful than traditional PPG, RPG, APG type stats.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Dallas does not actually fit MONEYBALL with their bloated salary and huge luxury taxes. Giving Keith Van Horn a maxed out deal is never taught in Moneyball 101. Also moneyball has never won championships, the best example of moneyball in pro sports today are the Oakland As and they always get good players through the system but seem to fail towards the end of the season. Moneyball as of now is only a quick-fixer scheme but not very successful in the long run unless the Rockets change all that. *prays*
