Hollinger on the Rockets' prospects for this season

Two championships vs. none. Sure.

 

That's a scary thought but I trust him to make something big happen before training camp.

You might want to put on your bathing suit because Morey's about to make a big splash.

 

Yes, Hollinger predicted Rockets was #1 in western a couple times recently. Yes, ROCKETS ALWAYS PROVED him wrong.

 

Hollinger wasn' too bad on that one. Is he still saying that? Can't blame him. What, one win away last year from 2nd place and might have made a run for first if Tracy hadn't been in and out of the line-up the first half of the season. Heck after Scola finally started starting I think we went 15-0 or so when he did.

 

The 1994 and 1995 rockets had among the very lowest payrolls in the league at the time. (19th and 23rd out of 27) .


Strike 3.

 

we won championships in the late 90s and early 2000s?

 

I don't think moneyball will win in the NBA. It is a superstar league and it will continue to be a superstar league. Has a billy beane team won a championship? no

I think money ball can help level the playing field some what, but at the end of the day you need a hakeen, jordan, duncan, shaq, kobe etc.

The closest non superstar team to win was the pistons and billups was pretty good in that series.

 

To be fair, Hollinger's predictions were based on the assumption that, y'know, all of the Rockets would actually be able to play.

 

Not to get off subject here, I know this isnt a College Football thread but, the Florida Gators run a Spread... hmmm...

 

Where in the "moneyball" aspect does it say you can't get superstars -

LeBron James, Wade etc scores off the charts using more advanced statistial analyses, and on a $$$ per productivity basis, is probably the best value player in the league.

Morey or any GM would jump at a chance to acquire them, which is why they were ready to part with a prized role cog like Battier for Rubio on the chance that he could become a franchise player.


Edit: to expand on this, here's a list from 2006 of the most productive players in the league with productvity translated to a metric of dollars minus the player's actual salary:

Best Values
1. Dwyane Wade
2. LeBron James
3. Chauncey Billups
4. Tayshaun Prince
5. Dirk Nowitzki
6. Boris Diaw
7. Josh Howard
8. Elton Brand
9. Steve Nash
10. Carmelo Anthony
11. Chris Bosh
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Nenad Krstic
14. Vince Carter
15. Jason Terry
16. Richard Jefferson
17. Alonzo Mourning
18. Andre Iguodala
19. Gilbert Arenas
20. Ben Wallace

Note that although Wade and LeBron were on Rookie deals and were far and away the best, even if you give them max contract that year they still would have been on or near the top (Example: Wade that year gave the equivalent of about $35mm in productivity on $3m salary, even if you paid him the max that year of $15mm, he still would have produced more excess value than any player in the league) Billups ranked high because he was awesome that year but had a cheap (5.9mm) deal, Prince was on a rookie deal as well (1.8mm), which gave him the league's highest return per $

 

To me moneyball is finding undervalued players like Jeremy giambi, not getting lebron.

I think one thing that Morey did a 100x better than rudy is not overpaying, but I think moneyball will always have a smaller impact on sport like basketball vs baseball.

 

No, but Theo Epstein has won twice with two different rosters.

Moneyball is all about finding efficient players and that includes superstars (and the ones you listed are very efficient...even Kobe).

 

I think they had the 2nd highest payroll those years. He might have used statistical analysis etc., but the I would like someone to win a championship with a 50 mil dollar payroll. You have to be willing to pay.

 

It's not about finding undervalued players as it is in getting the most out of what you have- which in the case of superstars ROI, is much higher in basketball, precisely because it is NOT like baseball.

 

I agree moneyball doesn't help with finding star players because everybody already knows they are good, and its effectiveness in basketball will be less, but that doesn't mean a GM who uses stats is averse to picking up a star (be it draft/trade) if he can.

Instead of the A's take a look a look at the redsox if you want to see a moneyball team that goes for star players and has won in recent times.

It's one thing to criticise Morey for bad trades, bad talent/potential evaluation etc, and another thing to say that he won't go for a star player because he's a moneyball GM.

 

The Spurs maintained a firmly lower middel class payroll during their championship years, as did the Rockets during theirs - in the NBA with a salary cap, spending wisely per $ is probably more important, making moneyball arguably a better fit.

 

I posted a payroll comparison between redsox and the yanks in another thread awhile back. I don't think they were second but around the top 5 or 6. There was still a significant gap between them and the yanks. Since Boston's current management which is very into moneyball took over their payroll's been around 100-120mil, while the yanks in the same period are around 160-200mil, but in terms of championships it's Boston 2 Yanks 0.

 

Air Langhi: I just checked again, you're right, Boston had 2nd highest payroll in 2004 (127mil) and 2007 (143mil). They've been 4th for the last 2 seasons though. Yanks payroll: 184mil in 2004 and 189mil in 2007.

 

Is it a coincidence that Celtics won the championship after ditching Moneyball and Brian Cook(money ball pick)? I think not. They went after stars.

Can I hear have an "Amen!"?

 

Is it a coincedence that after utilizing the moneyball approach following years of mediocrity, that the team built up enough talent to trade for superstars?