It works, but the poll suggests a misunderstanding about it - Moneyball does not exclude superstars. Morey himself has said on a few occasions that true superstars of this league (James, Durant, Howard, etc) are underpaid even at the max. His moneyball moves (Scola, Martin, Landry) have been first rate...but the superstar has been incredibly elusive.
Yeah. That's my fault. Moneyball (at least to me anyway) has a "low-risk, cheap players" connotation associated with it.
None of the above, methinks. DM wanted a better defensive team. To that goal, DM wanted to add an assistant coach to help out of the defensive end. Adelman didn't play that game.
As the great chess champion Gary Kasparov said after he beat the super computer, there is no substitute for human intuition. As in most sciences, the use of statistics are very useful but it is still human analysis and intuition that is the decisive factor. What those people say are applicable even in basketball and other sports. Moneyball and all statistical tools and analysis are very valuable tools to enable teams to have the edge over their opponents, however, in the end it is still the human intuition that correctly determines where the teams and players end up in the competitive world of sports. In other words, people who have a lot of basketball experience, either as team officials, players, scouts, etc., who have honed their basketball instincts over time and over so many basketball related situations, have better grasp of basketball decisions than relative newbies who utilize moneyball as the leading tool for decision making in basketball, or any other sports for that matter. Yes, moneyball works, but, as one of the earlier posters stated, if utilized and recognized properly as one of the tools among many.
Using primarily advanced statistical metrics to build a team (preferably maximizing on efficiency; low-rish, high reward)... rather than human intuition and intangible qualities that may go overlooked when using the moneyball approach? That's what I thought moneyball was anyway...
Actually, intangible qualities are exactly what the moneyball approach picks out. Battier for example, is your moneyball player. When he is on the court, his teammates are better and the opponent's are worse.
I think the reason it hasn't worked for us so far is two fold: 1) our superstars got hurt 2) Alexander refuses to tank More said on Simmons' podcast he thinks the NBA rewards losing more than any other sport. It could be that avoiding losing seasons and thus foregoing its rewards are not enough to offset the benefits of statistical analysis. Stats will help you see the real value/find the Kyle Lowrys, Aaron Brooks', Carl Landrys, etc. of the basketball world, but everyone knows Lebron James is Lebron James. To draft him you needed to lose, and be lucky enough to lose in a draft where he would available. Thus, moneyball is most effective when you luck into superstars, you have the ability to pick up supporting players other teams might have missed. The most tantalizing what could have been example for us is the season we almost beat the Lakers. Brooks, Lowry, Von Wafer, Landry, et. al did a much better than expected job in that series. It's too bad we didn't have T-Mac and Yao to lead them. At the end of the day, if by "believing in moneyball" you mean, do I believe in developing advanced metrics to measure performance, the answer is always yes, in any area of life. We have to be patient and give time for trial and error during development, and realize that stats are merely tools, that can be used correctly, incorrectly, or worse: not at all.
Mark Cuban does not use money ball. Maybe (Lots of Money) Ball. The mavs are consistantly one of the highest paid teams in the league.
I think MoneyBall is great at finding really good players regardless of draft position or free agency. The problem is that you can not win with out the super stars and money ball does nothing to help you get a super star.
Works as well as the BCS in college football; in other words, no, I hate it, too many intangibles in sports to objectify. Best team wins regardless of the statistics. Some players are overpriced but worth it. Superstars dominate the league.
I had to put no opinion. No reason really, but I cannot recall a team that has used this philosophy to win a championship. Sure it will get you in the playoffs and possibly a championship series but that will be about it. I do not see how this type of philosophy puts fans in the seats and makes the team money. In the NBA fans come to see superstars (i.e last night was a sell out for the rockets. Not necessarily to see the Rockets but to see CP3 and Blake Griffin). It will always be a sell out at TC when the Lakers show up, Miami, Dallas, Spurs, OKC, (now the LAC [yikes]). Morey would be the first to win a championship if he can actually make this work. He has done a phenomenal job at drafting nobodies in the draft and making them great role players. We just need a super star that we can go to in the clutch and fills up the seats and that will change all of it.
What approach allows you to readily find a superstar? Morey has already claimed that many superstars are producing at an even better rate than what they are paid. I really don't think moneyball has anything to do with it. We've tried to sign stars, but we live in Houston. These aren't the Yao Ming days. Are you suggesting its better to overpay players in an attempt to gain a star? More often then not you get Rashard Lewis, or you become the Pistons. I'm baffled as to how exactly the concept of moneyball would inhibit a team from landing a star.
Athletics never won. Boston with their 160 million dollar payroll should no be considered a money ball team. The mavs had like a 80 mil dollar payroll last year .
Its pretty clear, based on the number of responses similar to the one above, that people have no idea what moneyball is. Somehow people have equated moneyball to the idea that we don't need a superstar which is just wrong. The reason we don't have a superstar is because we haven't been able to get one, not that moneyball says we don't need one. SMH
I know people in this thread are saying that the Boston Red Sox and the Dallas Mavericks are championship teams who used the moneyball approach but how can you be considered a moneyball team if your franchise is throwing ridiculous amounts of money at these players? I thought that the reason moneyball was born was so that teams with financial constraint have a way of competing with the big dogs.
Moneyball is a tool to evaluate players. Thats it, thats all it is. It puts zero emphasis on how much total money is spent, zero, zilch, nada.
