http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_Epstein Dallas has made much more financially responsible choices in recent years. Their bloated roster was more of an artifact of an earlier era. Cuban also uses data driven analysis to help the coaching staff with playoff strategies. Avery Johnson said that going small vs. Houston in 05 started as a suggestion of Cubans stats folks. Here, as I've posted before, was Cubans take on the financial decision involving Steve Nash: http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/6721616637326928/
No bubble burst, actually, you're wrong on both accounts. Van Gundier is correct that most of Dallas's payroll is due to legacy decisions and in recent years, their moves have been very efficient. Regardless, there's nothing that says a team using statistical analysis can't have a high payroll. Teams like the A's have used statistical analyisis to level the playing field with teams that have much more money to spend. Their problem is that no matter how efficient they are, a team like the Yankees can always throw enough money into the team to make up the difference. Even a highly efficient $40M to $60M payroll is going to have a tough time beating a $200M payroll. The example of a team using statistical analysis and having a high payroll is the Boston Red Sox. Their GM Theo Epstein is a Yale grad and a disciple of Billy Beane. The Red Sox had originally tried to hire Beane and he had actually agreed to become Red Sox GM, but at the last minute he decided to stay in Oakland. The Red Sox eventually hired Epstein. Last time I checked, Epstein's Red Sox did indeed win a Championship, so you can't say that statistical analysis prohibits winning titles. Here's an excerpt from Lewis' Moneyball book regarding Epstein: What baseball did, instead, was cast about for reasons to dismiss what had happened in Oakland-and what was now happening in Toronto and Boston, if the nerve was so raw, it was because the idea of rational baseball management had already begun to spread. The Boston Red Sox, having failed in their attempt to hire Billy Beane, did the next best thing, and hired a very bright young man, Theo Epstein, who viewed Beane as his role model. In fact there's an entire book dedicated to Epstein and his use of statistical analysis with the Red Sox. Here's the synopsis of the book from Amazon: The Red Sox finally did it. By making decisions that other clubs would not have made and using talent that other clubs ignored or lacked the statistical understanding to perceive, the new, focused Red Sox management built a championship team that overcame 86 years of baseball history. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761140182/002-9414804-9136016?v=glance&n=283155
Ok so giving Dampier a maxed out deal is also now a PAST-ERA thing when it happened only a few years ago??? Your way of just retracting everything is not very accurate cause the past always makes the future. BTW where is the stats sheet on Dampier and why does he deserve a lucrative deal like this??? Moneyball is based on this idea that you find the best players through statistical analysis and do it very efficiently. It doesn't mean that if Cuban just hires some geek to crunch some numbers and voila you have yourself a Moneyball system and now Dampier is part of it so you hand him out a huge payday. There is a difference between just using stats and using them efficiently (ie Moneyball). Dallas in MY OPINION does not fit Moneyball because Cuban just goes out there and grabs whatever he can and now if he uses stats to do it that still doesn't make it Moneyball. Sorry again to burst your bubble but didn't Cuban let REIGNING BACK-TO-BACK MVP Steve Nash just walk away. Where were the "Moneyball Geeks" in that move??? Please don't tell me your gonna defend this Mark Cuban guy after this blunder??? Nash's contract now looks like a complete steal, heck he got less moeny from Phoenix than what MR. Moneyball Caban gave to Dampier that same summer!!! Is that a thing of that past too??? Tell me did Cuban just started using Moneyball last night so everthing before that doesn't apply???
The primary purpose of Moneyball is to use statistics to give yourself the best chance of winning. Getting the most for your money and being able to acquire players below market value usually improves your chances for winning. That doesn't mean that you only go out and accumulate efficient under valued guys for low salaries. If your analysis tells you that paying alot for a player or two can put you over the top, then that's fine because it gives you a better chance to win. Theo Epstein is using Moneyball and his payroll is the second highest in baseball. Billy Beane has paid big contracts to certain players. The example of letting Nash walk is actually classic moneyball. It's not different than the A's letting Jason Giambi, Jason Isringhauser and Johnny Damon all three walk in the same season. Those guys were great players, but what the A's determined was that the cost of retaining them was much greater than the cost of acquiring guys to replace their contribution towards winning. Steve Nash is great, no doubt. But, Dallas was able to go out and get Jason Terry and Devin Harris to take his place. Would Dallas be better with Nash? Most likely, but not that much better and that's today. In several years when Nash is older, that decision will look better and better. Did Dampier turn out to be as great pickup as they thought he would be? Nope, but that doesn't mean that just because one player didn't pan out, then the system doesn't work. The statistical analyis just gives you the best probability, but you can't expect to be right 100% of the time. No, system is 100% correct. Here's a Q/A from the afterword of Moneyball that addresses that very thing: Q: If Billy Beane thinks he's such a ******* genius, how come he didn't draft (fill in the high school phenon)? How come he's paying Jermaine Dye o$11 million a year? A: The point is not that Billy Beane is infallible; the point is that he has seized upon a system of thought to make what is an inherently uncertain judgment, the future performance of a baseball player, a little less uncertain. He's not a fortune-teller. He's a card counter in a casino.
What the Rockets have been doing for most of the last 10 years hasn't worked. Why not try something different?
on the Nash move, again I read the Cuban blog already and know what was going through his mind. Now I keep mentioning Dampier because he was signed the very summer Nash went to the Suns. Please tell me if your Dallas and your are willing to giving Dampier - A ROLEPLAYER a max deal and not a 5 year deal worth MUCH LESS to a guy like Nash who was probably top 3 PG in NBA back in 2004??? It would be one thing to let Nash walk off due to financial and analytical reasoning but if your just going to splash huge money for a guy like Dampier the very next day who is going to be ROLEPLAYER then I must the Dallas Mavericks and Mark Cuban are TERRIBLE at Moneyball. I was shocked when Nash left the Mavs and even amazed that Phoenix got him with out giving up anything at all. OK now since Moneyball is all about stats then lets make a comparsion chart of players that earn similar pay to Nash (or what Mavs would have paid had they kept) anyway compare those players to Nash and you'll be amazed how good Nash is on paper even at 30+ years age. He is not only good in Phoenix but was already a great player in Dallas prior to his departure. Guys like Marbury, Francis, Baron Davis and Bibby all make more money than Nash but they have all underperformed for the money. Now I don't undertand how Cuban goes about to justify this move as Moneyball cause the stats don't say even back in 2004 Nash was ahead of most the guys I mentioned. It is a given that a given with the talent of Nash especially since he is a TRUE PG which are a rare thing these days, will gain a large contract on almost any team in the NBA. These are all thing you put into consideration. Not just stats and salaries but player position, availability at that position and the finally the COST OF REPLACEMENT. Yes Terry may have been a cheap replacement for the past 2 years but now he will cost the Mavs more than Nash and I don't believe in my wildest dreams that a combo-guard Terry is an improvement over a true floor general like Nash. Again just my opinion but the mavs don't fit true definition of Moneyball, The Spurs and Pistons fit that description better in my humble opinion.
I don't claim to have the best understanding of moneyball, but your whole reasoning for saying Dallas isn't using it seem to be based on two deals - Nash and Dampier. You think because they didn't give money to Nash (who is very good) but they did give even bigger money to Dampier (who sucks) that they aren't using moneyball. It's even easy for me to see the hole in your logic. Dallas knew they could replace Nash with Terry and Devin Harris (who, incidentally, have taken Dallas farther than Nash ever did). But they still had a gaping hole at the center position. They decided it made more sense to replace Nash on the cheap and spend that money to fill their hole at center. That's not completely illogical. Had Dampier been willing to put in the same work he did at Golden State in his contract year, it might not even seem like a bad idea. Basically, my point is they had an alternative solution at point guard but they didn't have any other legitimate option at center. Besides all of that, how can anyone consider it a serious mistake when the Mavericks have become better every year since?
You don't figure Nash's value based on the fact that some less productive players make more money. That just means that somebody else overpaid for a player. Nash's value has to do with what it would cost to replace his contributions. They chose to go with Terry and Harris and have gotten good results. As for Dampier, if you thought that he was the missing piece of the puzzle, then you go out and get him. Obviously, if you had another alternative that supplied the same things and you could have gotten them cheaper, then that would have been the thing to do. I'm guessing that they thought that they needed a defensive force and rebounder in order to win a title. Statistically, Dampier was coming of a very good season where he provided those very things. Was Dampier the missing piece? Nope, they missed on that one. Basically, it probably came down to the fact that they thought that they could get guys almost as good as Nash, but they didn't really have any other way to get a guy to provide what they thought Dampier would. They have gotten better each season since they made that decision. Of course, a guy like Diop turns out to provide what they had hoped for from Dampier. In hindsight, yeah they overpaid for Dampier, but it was a calculated risk that they just happed to miss on. They took a shot on both Diop and Dampier and they hit on one and missed on one. It just so happens they missed on the higher priced guy. Bottom line, they're closer to a title today than they realistically were with Nash.
Money ball makes it difficult to perdict those that will do well. Since rookies and 2nd yr players rarely get the opportunity. Also, basketball is about chemistry and we need a team together for 3 years before we start winning. This is a process that is repeated through out NBA history. The Rockets had to lose with the same players before they could win. Plus JVG is not a creative coach and runs the same sets all day.
Here's the thing about the Dampier deal: Rockets fans are spoiled by having Yao Ming for the last four and tend to look at every other big man contract like "OMG, that scrub got 60 million?! WTF! WTF? OMG!?" The fact is, every contending team needs some decent bigs out there to defend the paint and secure the rebounds if they are serious about trying to win it all. They don't have to be star two-way players, but at the very least, you need them to rebound and defend. However, there are very few of these guys out there and unless you find a treasure on the scrap heap (Diop), you have to overpay just to make sure you are not seriously undersized or stuck with Rafael Araujo and Pape Sow at C. In that context, Dampier isn't a real "mistake". His contract is probably not tradable, but they probably don't want to trade him either given he's at least a signficant contributor for a WC championship team. After all, he did average a healthy 7.8 rebounds in just 23.6 minutes this year.
Rationalizing after the fact, like a lot of posts in this thread, is the exact stronghold of stats. You can always massage the data to tell your side of the story, that's the peril and beauty of stats. If you know any endogeneity, it's sure to say stats-ball won't be the universal ruler of this league.
Yes, rationalizing after the fact is what you have to do when you don't have access to the stats and logic that went into making decisions. It's no different than any trade ever made. After the fact everyone looks at it like it was a no-brainer all along. Even the people who may have been against the deal originally. Fact of the matter is the Oakland A's, Toronto BlueJays and Boston Red Sox aren't looking at stats after the fact. They're using stats to make decisions for the future and they're very successful. Teams like the Mavs, Rockets, Cavaliers and Sonics are now trying to do the same in basketball. People said that it wouldn't work in baseball and it did, so now we know that it won't work in basketball? I'll admit that it's different in the sense that they have to consider alot more interaction between players on the floor. That means that your analysis is more complicated, but impossible... I don't think so.
Morey's system seem to remove the "ESPN highlight reel" approach from evaluating players. And I for one think that is a good thing. Just look how much the media soars with hyperbole about a guy only to be dead wrong in most cases. My take on the whole Stromile Swift / Rudy Gay for Battier trade is like this: West: Hey there CD how's it going? CD: Oh hi Jerry, its going great. Whats up? West: Well I read on the rumor site that you guys are not that high on Rudy Gay and would rather get Roy or Foye if you can at #8. CD: I see, so what are you thinking there Jerry? West: Well, I was thinking that if your options are all gone by the time #8 gets there AND Gay is still available, that maybe we can work something out. CD: I'm listening.... West: Ok I'm thinking maybe Damon Stoudamire for Gay straight up? CD: Hmmm....your breaking my balls here Jerry! West: Ok....ok I'll throw in Raul Lopez too... CD: Jerry, it doesn't sound like you want Rudy Gay so bad after all. West: C'mon CD don't do me that way. CD: Ok Jerry, so you really want Gay? West: Well heck yes I want Gay... CD: Here's what I'm willing to do: If all my options are gone and Rudy Gay is still there at #8, I will trade you the draft rights for Rudy Gay and Juwan Howard for Pau Gasol. West: Pau Gasol? CD I can't trade him away, he is our franchise player. CD: Your breaking my balls here Jerry! West: How about Shane Battier for Gay? CD: Shane Battier huh? West: Yes Shane Battier, I know I'm giving up a lot here, but I like you CD. CD: hmmm....Well I can settle for Shane Battier for Gay only if you also take that loser, good for nothing Stromile Swift off my hands too. West: Swift? CD your breaking my balls here! I just dumped that stiff last year. CD: Thats my final offer Jerry.......now do you want Gay or not? West: Ok.....ok I'll do it, Swift and Gay for Battier.....you drive a hard bargain CD. CD: Thats my job Jerry....thats my job! So its a deal? West: Yes its a deal! As both GM's hang up the phone they murmer to themselves....... CD: SUCKER! West: SUCKER!
I might be worng, but I don't think you understand what I was actually saying with that reply. I don't know how much you undstand stats or such. Before we go on, before we even touch basketball, can you answer this question first? let's take baseball for a second, What will happen if everyone in the major leagues understands and uses moneyball approach? Look, I'm not saying stats are useless. I'll give a hint. Think about stock markets, there are analysts who covers individual stocks/inductry, they are like scouts. There are also statisticians in every major trading house.
My two cents. The trick with stats would be how accurately they reflect performance. What are the variables that may skew a stat one way or the other. In this way baseball is greatly different from basketball. Baseball is essentially an individual sport. For everyday players, the only real variables would be where they sit in the batting order and who bats before or after them and to a smaller degree the quality of pitching that they may face (which I would expect over a course of a year would be pretty much the same for most across the league). An at bat is an at bat. Basketball is completely different. A minute of floor time is not a minute of floor time. Which position do you play? Who plays with you? How many scoring opportunities do you get? ......and so forth. Stats would not be affected much by many variables may be. Percentage of total rebounds while on the floor. free throw percentage. (obvious) uncontested three point percentage. assist to turnover ratio on a fast break Can't think of many more.........
michecon, as I'm sure I've told you before, you're logic is more logical than real life. lol. i say that in good fun. cheers. regarding your post to aelliott, may I take that question? that's a rhetorical question, since I'm going to take it anyhow. lol. when reading your post I can't help but say that that was one big hypothetical, and knowing aelliott, he's not likely going to answer it. Your hypothetical poses a simile whereby moneyball analysis someday is like stock market analysis, and you ponder..."what then?" .... how valuable will moneyball be then? Well, I'd bet the reason aelliott might not consider answering that is because IF moneyball analysis becomes as mature and proven as the stockmarket analysis then that in itself means moneyball was correct all that time. So, the question "What will happen if everyone ... understands and uses the moneyball approach?" is also the answer.
There isn't a set formula for moneyball? Everyone does their own analysis of the stats and decides how each factors into winning. Even if every team subscribes to a moneyball philosophy, they won't all have the same results. Billy Beane's version of moneyball is different than Theo Epstein's version. Some obviously will be more effective that others. I firmly believe that moneyball can work in the NBA, but I can't swear that Morey's approach will be effective, because we really don't know what the nuts and bolts of his approach are. What will happen is that some teams will do a better job of evaluating the trends in the league as they change. Over time some of the things that are undervalued today, will later be overvalued. As that happens the smart teams will see the change in the value of that stat and will adjust their strategy to keep up with the changes. To get to the point in time where all teams are very good at a moneyball strategy, we're talking years and years down the road. NBA teams will be like alot of the posters here and just assume that there no way that it will work in basketball and they'll resist using statistical analysis. As long as there are teams out there like that, then teams using a moneyball approach will be able to take advantage of them. I realize I'm not really answering your question, but realistically it isn't going to happen ever and if it does, it will be too far in the future to worry about now.
