[Daryl Morey Post-Mortem]WSJ: Geek-Infested Teams win 60% of Games, Geek-less 40%

just wondering, any way to find out which category all the teams besides the ones mentioned fit in?

 

I think statistical analysis is great for building regular season teams to win a lot of games.

But I think it falls apart in the playoffs. That's because defenses really tighten up and in a series become experts in taking away the stuff guys are effective at during the season. You can have a whole team of efficient scorers and passers who can't get off a great shot in a super-pressured hyper defense crunch time mode. We've seen our Rockets suffer from this.

I think it does take exceptional players who defy statistics...guys who might not be the best on paper but certainly good...but who can do things that make the difference. Guys like Manu, Paul Pierce (not this year though), Wade, Kobe, LeBron, Parker, Dron, Billups, Baron Davis, Carmelo Anthony, and to a degree, T-mac in the past.

That's why my only hesitation with the trade is that T-mac can split a double team and pretty much get a good shot off or create an easy shot for another player in crunch time. I am not sure Brooks or Martin can do that.

So we can have a great team statistically - and will as will many other teams...but unless you have the right "ingredients" I think a championship will be elusive.

Either we have to acquire someone who can create an opportunity against stifling defense or develop one...not sure I see that happening until 2012.

 

The number crunchers help you identify, trade for, draft, and develop little Lebrons.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Morey has stats on that very thing, and probably a few hundred other "intangible" things NBA players do.

 

Hats off to the WSJ. That really is some deeper-level number-crunching.

Did they hire Nate Silver as consultant?

 

This is a flawed analysis.

Good teams tend to do things rationally. Geek hiring is the result of being successful, not the reason.

 

Correlation does not equal causation...hell, they haven't even done correlational analysis. Just some simple eye-balling.

+1 for what redao just said above me.

 

David Kahn with another cerebral gem. Nobody is saying that number crunchers are serving as REPLACEMENTS for talent.....and nobody is saying that LeBron's absence from the Cavs would go unnoticed if they had a staff of analysts. What IS being said though, is that once you HAVE LeBron, a staff of analysts can help you surround him with the kind of players that would thrive on that team. I know that Kahn wasn't the GM when Garnett was in Minnesota, but it's that kind of archaic thinking that forced T-pup fans into watching 12 years of mediocrity. They could never give Garnett the kind of support he needed to be successful in the Land O' Lakes.

 

Yeah, it's ironic that their 'statistical analysis' failed miserably. This is endogenous with numerous omitted variables--teams with more resources can buy better players, coaches, and even geeks. A naive comparison of win-percentages tells us nothing about what's driving the correlation between geeks and wins since it could be any number of alternative hypotheses.

 

What you say is true, but I don't see much relevance. Sure, as redao said, geek hiring might be the result, not the reason of success. But then, do you trust the decisions of good teams or those of bad teams?

Even if what redao said was true, the final analysis is the same (although not as strong) that hiring geeks is smarter than not doing so.

It's like saying "successful people make good decisions." Does it matter whether it's the good decisions that make them successful or it's because they are successful people so they make good decision, when you want to know what those decisions are?

 

This analogy is flawed. A more proper analogy could be say "successful people drive mercedes", and if you're not so successful you may or may not be able to do so.
IN ANALOGY... the weaker teams may be, say, financially strapped, to the point that they forgo the statistics due to their finances. We KNOW that the statistics isn't cheap, in fact even Morey said so. Hence, possibly the weaker teams, due to their weakness, receive less revenue and as a result must forgo the statistics. In this scenario, statistics has no causation to the success of the teams.
So...........statistical analysis may or may not matter. I would agree with that there's correlation but no causation whatsoever.

 

I think you're thinking more in terms of conventional statistics than the type of obscure things Morey and Co. work with. And because of that, you're assuming that "Moreyball" stats can't find the kind of players who produce defensively. I would argue that Moreyball is MORE likely to find clutch playoff guys. Although he was handcuffed by T-Mac's contract and Yao's injury, the team he put together excelled in the playoffs. And don't forget how Moreyball player Trevor Ariza stepped up his game in the playoffs last year.

 

You are right if it is just a piece of random writeup or general talks on basketball, statistics and all. But it is an actual "statistical analysis" on statistical science and from a big name paper WSJ. Should not we ask more?

The author, or WSJ, was making the mistake that can be found on the first 5 pages in any book on elementary statistics. It's on JCDenton's level or worse because they actually spent time on such a flawed research.

The good thing is that the author did not rush any conclusion other than throwing out as many as statistical data as our own JCDenton.

Bad journalism but interesting thought.

 

He was handicapped by T-Mac's injuries just as much as Yao's. McGrady's contract was well worth it if he could have stayed healthy.

 

Unfortunately your analysis of the analysis isn't. Learn to round.

 

You are saying that statistical analysis is just a piece of luxury like a Mercedes. That is clearly not true. Successful people do not drive Mercedes because they believe it will make them successful (other than the image thing). Teams, on the other hand, hire geeks because they believe it CAN make them better.

Using of statistical analysis is a business decision for success, not a luxury. And if a significant proportion of successful teams are using the tool, don't you think they have already looked into how the tool works?

While correlation is not the same as causation, whenever you see significant correlation, you know you want to look into it to see what is going on there. People had known smoking and lung cancer were correlated before they knew how it actually happened.