These are two excellent opposing points, as I fall in the middle. You sort of need work out all possible angles, such as having a good eye for talent yet also be willing to pay for it, even if it is a little expensive or overpriced. Again, if it is an exceptional or player who can yield great changes (not necessarily a super star). Sometimes, metrics doesn't tell the whole story, especially with defense (I've seen defensive metrics that can be misleading). IF we went purely on metrics, there are some players who would be hall of fame worthy, when they actually aren't, while there are other players who are very capable of being hall of famer through not reaching particular benchmark might leave them. Based on pure metrics, a player, like Stephon Marbury would stack up well against alot of point guards (all-star) - like a Rajon Rondo. Though, metrics wouldn't necessarily quantify his selfish ball-hog tendencies or his inability to carry teams to more wins. They both are the type of players you have to watch to really get a good sense of their games. On the other hand, metrics does measure things like a player's production value in raw numbers, while it can point out their flaws and short comings. Measure certain attributes of a player's game that you might question a little bit or not focus on much, while you could confirm some skills or qualities that a player masters well or struggles with often. In Morey's case, I do not necessarily think he's purely Moneyball- coldly driven by metrics and sound spending, as people often portray. I do not envision the Rockets being the equivalent to the Oakland A's, given the type of moves that he has tried to make. I do not think he is immune to making high risk-high reward moves over low risk-higher reward type deals (Do whatever it takes to win). Most GMs aren't immune to that philosophy, since their jobs are not lifetime appointments and does require flexibility. A Moneyball person works in situations, because they are good at trimming fat and acquiring more quality players or assets in the deal. Morey actually does have a good eye for finding talent, and its not entirely related to statistics. He'd had to have a good eye on players, like Scola, Landry, Brooks, or Montiejunas to draft them. Of course, he's a bigger moneyball GM than most NBA GMs, but in the right scenario. I'm sure he would probably yield to overspending (esp. if the owner demanded it) to put a high-powered team on the floor versus a modest one with a much lower salary cap who is equivalent to the Oakland As or current Rockets. IF a team has championship aspirations, then I think there becomes a little less emphasis on moneyball, even Morey.
As several others in this thread have already stated "Moneyball" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with total payroll. It is nothing more than using statistical analysis to find players that are undervalued by other teams and help you spend your money in a smarter manner (regardless of your payroll). Can you use "Moneyball" to help a team with a rock bottom payroll be more competitive than they should be? Sure, that's what Billy Beane did but that doesn't mean that's the only way that you can use it. Moneyball also helped Theo Epstein spend his massive payroll in the smartest manner possible. Lot's of teams in the NBA use moneyball/statistical analysis. The Spurs use it heavily. Sam Presti took it from the Spurs to OKC. Mark Cuban is a huge proponent of statistical analysis. He has hired the founder of 82games.com and he has an army of "stats geeks" to rival Morey's. My confusion comes from those who view Moneyball as meaning rock bottom costs. If that's your scenario then the Rockets are obviously not a moneyball team. The Rockets have had one of the highest payrolls in the league for most of Morey's tenure. How many times have we been under the cap during Morey's tenure, let alone massively under as a Billy Beane approach would dictate? If your view of Moneyball is what Billy Beane did, then how can you call the Rockets a moneyball team when Morey has chased (and continues to chase) numerous Max money players? Billy Beane would never even consider doing that in Oakland. Statistical Analysis helped Billy Beane take a incredibly low payroll and have much success but ultimately he couldn't get past the team with the $200M payroll. Does that mean that that approach can't work? Well, it does mean that if a team is outspending you by almost an order of magnitude then you'll probably lose but it also doesn't mean that it won't work under other scenarios. The Red Sox hired Billy Beane to apply those same concepts to their huge budget. Ultimately Beane decided to stay in Oakland so Boston brought in Theo Epstein to do that very thing. Moneyball with a $30M budget might not have been able to beat a team with a $200 budget but moneyball without the salary restictions overcame that same $200M payroll. All you need to do is to google some of Cuban's quotes from the Sloan conference regarding statistical analysis, he is very much a proponent.
someone missed the point of the brad pitt movie, billy beane adopted sabremetrics as a method to compensate for the athletics inability to financially compete with the payrolls of the yankees & redsox. it has nothing to do with winning with the lowest payroll and everything to do with using statistics to incorporate players that can produce and fit into your teams system.. thats why the A's were competitive despite having a team of unknowns and cast-offs.. that and steroids...
Couldn't you have a team which uses statistical analysis heavily to select which players they want to pursue, but they aren't necessarily looking for players who are "undervalued" by the rest of the league? If such a thing is possible, can we still call it "moneyball"?
You can certainly do analysis and determine that Lebron or Kobe will help you win but I don't think that's moneyball. I don't think that type of statistical analysis is meant to prove what everyone already knows. Moneyball tells me a player like say Battier really effects winning and that is something that most of the rest of the league didn't know at the time. That made him undervalued. Now that doesn't mean that he's making minimum money, it just means that the demand for him isn't as high as it should be. While moneyball isn't tied to any particular payroll it is tied to the idea of players value which is a combination of their skillset and salary. Teams use particular stats to value players, moneyball is about finding additional stats that other teams don't have and therefore undervalue players who possess those traits. At the time of Billy Beane's A's MBL was buying homeruns and batting averages...that's what they were paying for. Billy Beane determined that on base percentage was equally important but was not highly valued ( at the time ) by other teams.
Are you even listening to yourself? Its not 'Moneyball' anymore if you're using all these resources and money. Sure, they might be using moneyball techniques, but can a 'true' moneyball (ie small market, low income team) expend that much money? Cuban probably incorporates moneyball techniques to find efficient and underrated players but it doesn't seem like he tries to save money on acquiring said players. To refine my thoughts, moneyball + small market = probably not a championship team. moneyball + big market = highly likely a championship team. In the end, you still need some brawn with all that brain and analytics. You can amplify the positive effects of moneyball when, ironically, you have a lot money.
Aren't the wolves rated better at defense than the rockets? I don't knowif its moneyball,moreyball,lesball or whatever ball you want to call it. Whatever strategy he's using is good at finding value. The value is good so that the picks are bust proof. The downside is with caution, yields low results. Let me explain. I don't know,based on his track record if morey would've ever drafted a guy like garnett,kobe,tracy,westbrook, and guys of that ilk. Those guys seem to havethe most upside,but the most bust potential. He will take risk like with the 09 ers,but that's low risk. When your drafting in the top 10, you want a high reward guy. Most of the high reward guys aren't safe picks. I don't know if its in him to put his neck out on the line for a young and mostly unproven high lotto pick. He seems to err on the side of caution mostly.
When did Morey skip any player in the draft who ended up being on the caliber of Kobe, KG, Westbrook, or T-Mac?
Not really a fan of the poll. The poll basically implies that because we haven't won a championship yet under Morey, "Moreyball" is therefore a failure. Would anyone argue that Billy Beane has been a failure in Oakland? The fact that an Athletics team that was consistently one of the cheaper franchises in MLB was even in a position to contend for a World Series at all was an incredible accomplishment and a definite sign of success for Moneyball. What the Rockets have been able to accomplish recently despite being hamstrung by large contracts is also admirable. Is this "Moreyball" anything resembling Moneyball though? I have no idea.
The Rockets aren't using Moneyball. They're just doing a lot of homework and trying to analyze the players to the best of their ability. That's called common sense.
ALOT of agents dont like the way morey plays and evals players. Maybe why no big names are considered to rockets even though is large market team
the Boston Red Sox used moneyball to win the world series.... Money ball is about buying undervalued assets, do you know who the most undervalued asset in the NBA is? guy from Miami whose making about $15.5m this year, when he's worth about 50.
I think it does to a point in the context of running a franchise or team roster, because you have account for every measure. Whether, it's acquiring such player or contemplating a trade or his release (This happens often in the NFL). Of course, people know certain all-star talents will help you win, but to what point and how effectively. Dwight Howard is a good example. Of course, he helps a team wins and he has really exceptional numbers, but in the current system isn't it possible he could be overvalued for his contributions replaced with incoming players whose metrics collectively might give the team a better chance of winning versus Dwight Howard or outgoing players and both parties matched up with current players on the roster. It's more of a question of how valuable a player is to what exact point in context of the team.Some of sabermetrics in basketball, unlike baseball, though alot like football, is often effected by the performance of teammates and overall team (or vice versa). In baseball on offense, a teammate cannot effect a player's base-stealing ability, batting average, or power numbers. In basketball, you can be effected by the team's star player or point guard, or be forced into giving up alot of points, if you have poor team defenders. On the contrary, one's actual defensive performance or even numbers could be effected by having really good team defenders. Good point, moneyball could tell you that, while at the same time who is he undervalued in comparison to in the general market or which teams. You could say in comparison to the average small forward that he is undervalued, yet on the same token in comparison to the average starting small forward. He could be appropriately valued, in his skills or performances valued against other starters. He's a fine player, yet teams may value things, like scoring ability, passing ability, versatility, athleticism, play-making ability, defense, and possibly intangibles. GMs and scouting staffs evaluate those things, probably not as much with sabermetrics. On the same token, you have to ask yourself, why is a player undervalued or overlooked. There's a reason for teams might overlook certain players, while even with undervalued players its possible to overvalue some of their qualities. Though, I must say in basketball it is much easier to undervalue defensive-oriented players versus offensive maestros, but in Shane's case his intangibles aren't necessarily measurable, especially individually compared to other players. Battier is a great example though, because he was under Morey's watch, and the more traditional Carroll Dawson who traded him for #8 draft pick and Stromile Swift. Who probably just saw him as a solid small forward with a good head on his shoulders who could play defense and hit open shots over the more mysterious, yet phenomenally gifted Rudy Gay (who would've been another person T-Mac or Yao had to contend with for the ball). You have to really find out what object was he undervalued to. It's not tied to payroll directly, but the decisions made through sabermetrics (statistical analysis) inevitably effects how a team will spend its money or its regards to player acquisition through trades. It's hard to argue that it does not. The value of those (undervalued) players are in regards to their market value versus other players at their position or etc. Player value typically equates to what a player is worth on the open market or what a team will pay for that player, which in turns effects the overall payroll. It's a bit misleading to say it has no effect on payroll, because payrolls are effected by the market of players. In regards to Oakland A's, people often attribute their success to money ball, yet there were other factors involved in their success. http://www.mademan.com/10-reasons-real-life-moneyball-is-overrated/ http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/37751/moneyball-not-just-about-baseball http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/theo_has_no_interest_in_seeing_moneyball/ http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/16614/mets-brand-moneyball-not-so-successful
