[HBR Blog] Success Comes From Better Data, Not Better Analysis

Or you just hope you get lucky in the draft and get a player in the middle of the first round that develops into that superstar....ala Dirk Nowitski etc...

Or, the least likely scenario, you are able to trade for one.

DD

 

For better or worse, this is our plan. As Morey said, no team has become great without first being bad, but Les does not want to tank. So it will be hard.

But anyways, that's a discussion for a different thread.

 

It is easy, as a fan, to sit back and want your team to tank for a high draft pick.
It would be a horrible business model to willingly go this route when you are a borderline-playoff team. It was easy for the Astros to make their decision to start over because they were already horrible. That is not the case for the Rockets; and I do not see that anytime in the near-future.

 

We all understand that in order to win big in the NBA a superstar is needed. However, acquiring a superstar is more luck than skill, whether through the draft, through trade, or FA. The questions is, once you have that superstar, what sets you apart from the other teams also with superstars? What gives you an edge? Data, as oppose to analysis, is the point here.

 

Yes, that's all Morey is saying. It's kinda funny people find this so controversial. Reading too much into it.

 

No doubt, he is right on, the question becomes can he deliver that superstar player?

It may be that his way is the best ever devised, yet if he doesn't get one in a year or two, Les will probably fire him and go a different direction.

Morey has been put in a tough spot, for sure.

DD

 

People find it controversial because they want to tie it to the current state of the Rockets: "All this data mining still hasn't gotten us a superstar!!!"

No, it hasn't. Of course that is ignoring the fact that we have only been without a superstar for 2 years, and really 1 year since we were still giving Yao one last shot last season. And more importantly, we would be no closer to a superstar WITHOUT all the data mining.

 

No, that is not the question. Delivering a superstar has nothing to do with data or analysis. It has to do with luck.

No, Les probably won't fire him if he decides to change directions, since the current direction was set not by Morey, but by Les himself. If he decides to change course, maybe he will give Morey full rein instead.

 

No, that is just not true. There is data involved in scouting players and projecting their growth etc.

Luck is certainly a factor, but it is not the only factor.

I doubt Les ever gives up control, his history suggests otherwise.

DD

 

Of course data is involved in scouting and the draft in general, that is why we are so good at it. But when it comes to superstars, you don't need anything to tell them apart, since most of the time everyone can see them already. And when it comes to trades and FA that is even moreso the case. Whether you have a chance to draft them in the first place, or if they decide to sign with you, is mostly luck.

 

We have acquired a lot of "Hopefuls" from the 2009 class in a hope that they develop.....Flynn, Hill, TWill, Thabeet.......I guess if one of them develop would you consider that luck, or preperation?

I agree that data doesn't give people much of an advantage in finding the star player, that is something the eyeballs see, at least once they are in the league....

Before then.....before the draft......is just a crap shoot.....I guess that is where you are saying it is luck........

If that is the case, let's hope we get lucky...somewhere....

1. Draft
2. Trade
3. Retreads
4. Development.

At least Morey has his bases covered, the dude is out there turning over stones like crazy.

DD

 

Kinda sucks for Morey that doing his job SO well is what’s put him in this tough predicament. He found such good players to put around our stars that we continued being a competitive, winning team even after we lost them -- thus, the mediocrity.

What Morey definitely needs now is some luck to get a new star. Either:

a) Someone like Marcus Morris greatly exceeds the expectations of a 14th pick like some posters here think he will.
b) A superstar actually wants to come here with the capspace Morey has prudently planned for in 2012.
c) Some of our young assets appreciate in big increments at the right time to trade for a star. (As opposed to last season when Brooks, Budinger, and Hill’s values actually decreased, a lot of it due to bad luck).
d) McHale happens to suck a lot and gets us a pretty high pick in a loaded 2012 draft. (That’s the only way we can hope for good luck in the draft since Leslie won’t allow a full rebuild).

In sumnmary, poor Morey.

 

That's not in the scope of the argument. We're a mediocre team with no stars, and we aren't allowed to tank. Should we deliberately pick bad role players? No, because that goes against Alexanders philosophy. So we do the best we can with the limits that have ben set and we use anything possible to get a step ahead of the other teams. Stats.

I think tanking is by far the most effective way of increasing the value of our player assets, bit with an owner who won't, what other option is there?

 

Agreed, that is why I do not like Les as the owner.

DD

 

Post an article written by Morey and you attract yet another round of the tired tanking discussion even though the article has nothing to do with it.

 

THAT is why stats are so valuable? To show that Lebron is more clutch than Bryant? You just made stats look not so valuable, my friend, if that is your "perfect example". Try to give the ball to Lebron in the clutch and he treats it like a hot potato, if you saw the Finals. And his fear of going to the foul line in the clutch is already a tired topic. Chris Paul doesn't want to shoot with the game on the line, he'd rather pass. So no, I don't want him with the ball in the clutch (in the post-season) unless he's got other clutch players to pass to.

 

So where is that getting us? At the end of the day, Morey is going to trade these players he's been "valued" so highly with the quickness at even a Chris Bosh.

It's not like Morey hasn't failed in his analysis of certain players--the biggest one being Ariza. And CBud regressed in his 2nd year, along with AB last year.

A big reason why we have great role players is b/c we are giving these role players "ample opportunity" to show what they are capable of (something a guy like Lowry didn't have in Memphis), b/c we LACK stars (due to injuries for the most part). I mean, did Detroit have ample advanced stats at their disposal when they traded for Billups? Or the Suns with Grant Hill and Gortat?

Or it's been a fact in his entire career that Timmy is notorious for shooting a lot of 3s. Since he was their best perimeter player, Riley, like JVG, has been known to cater to his stars on offense. So I don't think it's more that a stat geek told him to shoot a lot of 3s, but he knows that is one of Hardaway's strength on offense--3pt shooting.

 

I agree for the most part. Only 5 positions on the basketball court. Put the ball in the hands of your best player and everyone clamp down on defense is still a simple effective formula for success.

This isnt about football but since I mentioned it, the comparsion to NFL and NBA is - you say in NFL you DON'T need a quarterback. In the NBA, data can show you DON'T need an elite point guard (as the triangle offense indicates). Itd be SENSIBLE to use data to support your conclusion, instead of just solely depending on a comment Phil Jackson said in an interview in the Chicago Tribune back in '92.

Just to be on the same page, we say 'stats' like its boxscore stats. But really its more DATA based on certain measurables. PER and "win shares" and all that stuff, whatever. Its more other physical measurables of game action you CAN measure like if players are out of position in certain sets, measuring if their rebounding box-outs, the "hockey assist", that kinda thing.

 

The biggest benefit for "Moneyball" is so teams don't overpay for REPUTATION. That doesnt help us fans out who want to get behind stars, but you don't want an all stats fake star who won't lead you nowhere. Juwan Howard didnt deserve a $100 million dollar deal.

Ricky Davis could get his own shot. But his teams lost. So if you wanted to bring in a high profile but losing player, you better find ways to justify adding him and make an EDUCATED guess. A wrong move by overpaying for players you THOUGHT you needed but really DONT can set you back a few years.

This might actually be a strength of Morey. If the Trevor Ariza type moves don't work, he'll send them out SOONER rather than clinging onto him.

 

In the NBA nowadays, perimeter positions are interchangeable. The QB isn't interchangeable with any other position; it is THE MOST IMPORTANT position on a football team.

I don't disagree with you that stats don't help assessing players/teams to an extent, but I don't think it is that big in basketball. In the NBA, the playbook isn't that huge. When you enter a playoff game, a good coach will know every play of the opposing team. EVERY play. But since superstars are so good, you can't even stop them even if you know they run a bajillion pick and rolls down your throat.

For instance, take the Bulls' gameplan. It's very basic: defend, rebound, and run. If fall fails, give it to Rose. That's all there is to it.

I think advanced stats would play a bigger role in a sports like football, where an offensive coordinator may have like 300-400 plays at his disposal. And advanced data may play a huge role in the playcalling there. Because unlike the NBA, if you run the same route every play, the opposing team WILL stop it, no matter if it's a prime Randy Moss or Jerry Rice.

Bingo. I think that is the MAIN strength of Morey: understand the market and a player's asking price, and negotiate from there. But even then he admits failure, as you brought up Ariza, but he knows how to quickly fix it.

He's unlike other GMs who goes with the market, and pays players accordingly.

But everybody overpays for a superstar, as Morey was willing for Bosh last summer.