This is kind of what I'm talking about. Sorry to use your quote, but it's a good example of the sentiment I'm referring to. The case is being built that he's somehow close to irreplaceable due to these qualities when I think that there's only sufficient evidence that he makes a positive contribution beyond the box score.
The Rockets apparently believe that his impact on the team is close to that of an all-star. If they truly believe that, and I'm skeptical they do, then it may in fact require a fairly lopsided trade in terms of talent for them to part with him. Maybe if they look to another team that plays "moneyball", like Portland or Dallas, they can get a nice deal.
That's alright, but I didn't mean that Battier's irreplaceable. I meant Morey would hate to trade Battier because he finds him too intellectually interesting. He's be losing his stats buddy. But I do agree with your point about the article's use of the season records. A bad use of numbers there.
He glosses over the other factors involved, and you're right that is a bit disingenuous. The way I understood it is that even adjusting for the other changes there's a "magical" increase in wins that one wouldn't expect just looking at his stats or physical abilities. The Grizzlies fell apart after he left. There were other factors, to be sure, but if you look at those other changes closely that doesn't account for the extreme turnaround in that team's win-loss record. Same with the Rockets. Forget about that 05/06 season. We were a 52-win team in 04/05, and a 52-win team in 06/07. Talent-wise, is there a comparison between the two rosters? Remember, Bonzi Wells and Kirk Snyder gave us practically nothing in 06/07, and they were supposed to be key acquisitions that year. We had Chuck Hayes and Juwan Howard as our PFs. Tracy and Yao both missed significant time with injuries, and Tracy clearly wasn't the same player he was 2 years prior. And we still one 52 games. How so?
Lol that's why I love Morey. As much as I have my doubts, I trust Morey's judgement more than my own.
Battier was a factor in the 52 wins but so were Juwan and Deke. In fact Juwan took up the role of the 3rd scorer in the regular season. Deke and Shane anchored the defense. Shane was very reluctant to take open shots during that time,even when JVG expected him too. The reason was he didn't have enough confidence in himself.
I don't think that the author is saying that we acquired the ability to win largely due to Battier. I think it's just what he says in the article, when Battier's on the floor all of his teammates do much better. Are there other contributing factors? Sure there are. Is it coincidence? Maybe, but there's a pretty big sample size on it. His teams have usually done well. Memphis was a 50 win team with Battier and they've stunk once he left. The Rockets have struggled when Battier was out of the lineup or playing injured. I fully realize that people resist things that they can't quantify, but for whatever reason, Battier makes his team and the players around him perform better. Heck, even if he was just a good luck charm. Does it really matter? What matters is the results. He's not going to guarentee you a win, but he's going to contribute toward winning. The point is that Battier contributes in ways that don't show up in statistics. Because of that he's undervalued and that's why he appeals to Morey. Could a stud SF help the team just as much or more? Sure they could, but they'd also cost you twice as much money and they are hard to acquire. That's where the whole "Moneyball" idea comes in. Getting more value for less resouces (money or tradeable talent). If you're using the right performance indicators, then it's reasonable to think that you can acquire guys like Battier. Getting a Lebron James, Paul Pierce or Carmello Anthony is obviously very difficult if not impossible. My take is that the article is saying no more than Morey and guys like him are finding ways to acquire value for less. Nobody in the NBA can single handedly win games for you. There always have to be contributions from mulitple guys. That goes for the everyone from Battier all the way to Lebron and Kobe. Nobody can do it alone, but you want to accumulate the guys that are going to consistently contribute positive things night in and night out.
I see your point, but I think the author is trying to frame it differently as evidenced primarily by this quote: 'In 2005, the Houston Rockets’ owner, Leslie Alexander, decided to hire new management for his losing team and went looking specifically for someone willing to rethink the game. '
You could come up with a few different answers to Shane's particular value to the Rockets based on this idea. I think Morey would argue that Shane+McGrady+Yao is better than [big stat guy]+McGrady+Yao. Obviously, you have to have more scoring punch than 8 rotation guys of Shane's offensive caliber, but if you combine Shane's play with the right players, he is essential to the performance of the team. Personally, my opinion of Shane's value goes back and forth. Overall, I think that we could probably get more out of another player with equal trade value to Shane, but it wouldn't be just any player. You could easily trade Shane away for someone who appeared to be of BETTER value and the team could get worse. I personally think that Shane's physical limitations hurt him in playoff matchups. The ONLY stats that Morey should be tracking are the Rocket's stats against the top 8 teams in the league in the 4th quarter... TRANSLATION - the stats when the best players in the world put aside the crap and are solely focused on winning. I would be interested in seeing Shane's +/- against those opponents. I'm guessing they wouldn't be so flattering. BTW, Robert Horry's stat line would be off-the-charts in that regard.
http://www.82games.com/0809/0809HOUP.HTM Here are some interesting stats. The individual +/- of each of the "Big 3"-- Yao, McGrady, Artest is lower than the +/- of the Yao/Battier pair, the McGrady/Battier pair, and the Artest/Battier pair. There could be other explanations, but it would seems like Battier complements each of these guys well.
His few recent games only show a trend, but sample size means just about everything with these stats.
Most people, it seems, are reading the article with their eyes closed. The truth is that fans who criticize Battier don't like him because 1. He is an anomaly. He doesn't do the things they expect him to do as a typical NBA player. 2. A corollary from (1) -- He does not entertain them. Fans watch games they want to be entertained. They praise players that entertain them, and they instinctively criticize players that seem to be invisible. Battier is the antithesis of what fans expect in NAB entertainment. The fact is that you don't even need to see Morey's advanced statistics to appreciate Battier's value to the team. Widely available numbers such as on/off team efficiency easily show that despite his lack of box score production, the team just functions so much better when he is on the court, be it on offense or on defense. It's actually kind of ironic that this current season, in which he has been criticized the most for his lack of offensive production, he has had a greater positive effect on the team offensively than any of his previous seasons in a Rocket uniform. Fans can't wrap their minds around that. So they do the next best thing they know -- call for his head.
But would Adelman play Ryan Bowen that much? My point was, under TWO very different coaches, he has been heavily used. Actually, a better argument for you is Rafer Alston. But Rafer doesn't have a very solid backup until Brooks started to do well (and now he's regressed). We have plenty of good wing players and Battier is still the guy coaches want on the floor. Nobody is arguing (and I don't think the article is) that Battier is the fix-all guy. The article is just saying that Battier makes the team better, a lot more than people can see on the surface. I think a lot of the Battier critics just dismiss the so-called intangibles. But according to people like Morey and Hinkie, those "intangibles" are actually tangibles. You just have to look deeper.
One thing I don't get is that in a season when "ballstopper" dominates the vocabulary of Rockets fans, some people still fail to the value of a guy who runs the offense correctly and gets the ball to teammates without unnecessarily eating up the clock. When you have enough teammates who can score, sometimes the simple act of keeping the ball moving without wasting the 24-second clock or taking a bad shot when someone else has a higher % opportunity is very significant to your team's efficiency. Another thing I want to point out is Battier's transition D. The Rockets transition D really hurt without Battier this season. Without him, there often are not enough guys getting back to prevent a break. It may be just several blown transition D possessions per game, but these add up in usually close NBA games. Battier is also one of the better guys at playing 1 on 2 or 2 on 3 in transition. He does as good a job hedging and anticipating as anyone out there. Of course, the opposing team still has a good chance to score in these situations, but it's much better when Battier is the one back there rather than, say, Tracy McGrady (Ask Jamario Moon... was that a 2 on 1 or just 1 on 1 break?) There was one possession in, I think the Timberwolves game... T'Wolves had a 2 on 1 break. I'd think NBA teams probably score at something like an 80%+ or maybe 90%+ clip in these situations. Battier was back there, though... and contested the shot at the basket. Miss, Artest, who was trailing the play, rebounded, pass it up court, got it back, easy layup, and 1. Instant 5 point swing and momentum changer. Of course, you can ask, "What about all the possessions in which he doesn't score but another player like Rudy Gay or even Von Wafer would have taken a shot and scored?" The important thing really is in each of these possessions in which Shane passed up a shot (or has to pass up a shot because he can't create when defended), what whehter the Rockets scored at the same or higher efficiency level than Rudy or Von would had they been in Shane's position and had done something other than passing up the ball like Shane did. Overall, the Rockets offense actually have functioned more efficiently with Shane, so his deficiencies seemt to be covered up pretty well. Maybe it woudln't be the case on another team, but it works for this one.
Let me throwthe the Chauncy Billups trade into this interseting conversation. Upon his departure Detroit went from being a good defensive team to a poor one. Denver went from one that did not even attempt to play defense to a decent defensive team. What "stats" do you need to realize that Billups is a difference maker?
nope he doesn't sell tickets directly but he wins games, and when your team win games, more people will want to watch it.
You got this mixed up ... 34 wins in 2005-06 and 52 wins in 2006-07 ... You missed the point. Point is Gasol still played 59 and they still 22-60, so even the Gasol injuries didn't really matter to the record. The best they could have done was 22-37 with Gasol and 0-23 without Gasol (trust me that didn't happen), and even if it did happen, they still went backwards a lot without Battier and with Gay/Swift vs 2005-06. That's just what the scoreboard says. It wasn't to say Damon was equal to Gasol, and the data doesn't require Damon = Gasol to still make a strong case Battier made a big difference to their record.
