Moneyball never won anything - you can't win on the cheap. Now when you combine statistical analysis with spending, THEN you can win...but you can not win with just Moneyball and undervalued players. DD
You hit the nail on the head. Breaking the bank, even if Les would agree to it, is no longer possible in the NBA.
There's also no salary cap in baseball. So "moneyball" becomes less prevalent and less useful than basketball. Moneyball worked for the Spurs, surronding Duncan with underpaid guys like Manu and Parker, and getting diamond in the rough role players like Green.
So true. And it again becomes obvious that the Spurs FO is the best in US sports, and that their coaching staff is also near or at the top.
It works, if you have a good foundation in place for that to compliment it. But, the concept of building your whole roster on trying to get all undervalued players tends not to be as effective. You either need a center piece of sorts, or high quality (not necessarily the elite players, non-top 10-12 players) across the board. Example, New England Patriots, often look for undervalued players or those they can acquire on the cheap. Biggest reason, it works so well for them, year in and year out . . . they have a 1st ballot HOF QB and coach. Even with Peyton Manning on the Colts, biggest reason they kept winning that person standing over the center. Getting undervalued players isn't necessarily a problem, it could just be a matter of picking the right ones. One of the major reasons that players, like Morris and Patterson fell in the draft. Teams saw that they did not have that higher level talent, athleticism, or potential. Not game-changing players. It's a calculated measure on the Rockets part, yet a safe risk. Even though, a player is undersized for his position. He does certain things fairly well across the board that might make him into a decent NBA player (notice I didn't say star). Patrick Patterson showed himself to be a solid defender in college, decent at rebounds, a little offensive game, and good BB IQ. He has great chance of staying on any roster and being an occasional starter, though not on a great squad. If you expect him to be the next Buck Williams with a great mid-range and dead-eye shooter that can carry a team through tough stretches of the season. You are going to be disappointed, because it's a hyper exaggeration of his talent level. In reality, his size is somewhat holding him back, though at the same time he doesn't have that higher level ability to be an All-star. That lack of size hurts, when he isn't necessarily a great or exceptional talent to begin with. Same with Marcus Morris, he can do some things with very good. At the same time, he's not quick enough or athletic enough to be a really higher level power forward, while he might struggle as much at power forward. Since, he isn't known for his defense, while I'm not sure his post game is up to snuff with say someone, like a Scola. Moreover, his offense on the perimeter offense does not compare to an Al Harrington, Josh Smith, and definitely not LaMarcus Aldridge. I cringe, when people compare him to Paul Pierce, Carmelo Anthony, or Glenn Robinson. It makes things much worse, and realistically I doubt the Rockets would put that level of expectation on him that was comparable to those players coming out of college.
Since we've employed Moneyball approach, we haven't come close to having the success that either the A's did or the Red Sox. Nowhere close. But it's a bad analogy anyway, because the economics of the sports and the sports themselves are very different.
You can't compare playoff appearances in the NBA to MLB. The NBA lets half of their teams in the post season you have to really suck to not make the NBA playoffs.
Realistically, I'd be happy if Morris can play to the level of a forward who plays for the Phoenix Suns. Not his twin brother, but Jared Dudley. 12-14 points 4 rebounds and a couple of assists, and work his ass off on the defensive end. Sorry about the digression, OP.
