First of all, Van Gundier that was an excellent post. Very nice explanation. Simple, informative and to the point. Well done. lpbman, The whole moneyball things isn't about finding who has the greatest potential to be a star. In fact, one of the tenants of Moneyball is that teams overvalue potential, so generally you stay away from potential except for the rare situation where you can get it cheap. The biggest potential in most every MLB draft is High School pitchers. Huge upside, but lot's of risk. Billy Beane's Oakland A's won't draft HS Pitchers. They go with college players. You're not paying for potential and there's more of a proven track record (also something that's highly valued in Moneyball). Moneyball is about finding players that contribute towards winning. That's very different than who has the bigger star potential or who puts up more points and rebounds. Strickly by skills and numbers, Stephon Marbury is one of the best PGs in the NBA. From a perspective of helping your team win, he doesn't contribute that much at all. The fundamental of moneyball is to buy skills that are undervalued by other teams and sell skills that are overvalued by other teams. Marbury is a talented guard, but he doesn't contribute much to winning and he makes a ton of money. That means that your are not getting much efficiency for your money, so he's a bad buy. The net result of the Battier trade was that we took $5M that we were paying to a very inefficient player (Swift) and we're now using that money on a very efficient player (Battier). So, we've greatly improved the return that we're getting for that $5M. Of course, that move alone isn't going to fix all of the problems. Until they've had time to correct things to where we are spending most all of our payroll efficiently, you won't see the full results. I'm not sure why it's important if Battier can guard Amare or Duncan, because neither Swift or Gay could guard those guys either, so you had the same problem either way.
And yet if you look at how players are valued and compenstated by NBA GMs, it's pretty apparent that there is a premium for guys that can score and create their own shot over guys that can do all the little things. So the way I'm assigning that we got less that what we should have is completely in keeping with how business is done in the NBA. GMs don't crack their wallets or deal away assets to land role players. The market just isn't that big for them. I mean there is a reason why GMs have payed the max for guys like Steve Francis, and set the market value for a Raja Bell at 4-5 million a season. See that's the biggest problem about this whole thing. Since the rox had this deal sign and sealed when Roy went off the board, they never guaged the rest of the league for what Gay was worth. The 8 pick obviously isn't going to be worth as much because there's such uncertainty over who's avaliable. The rocket front office should have absolutely backed out of that deal with memphis and put Gay on the block. They certainly would have gotten a better deal or forced Memphis to up their offer. Blame that on Ainge and his "brain type" analysis. I can't imagine that that he couldn't find a better deal than that. Pretty much anybody looking at that deal is of the opinion that Ainge got waxed almost as bad as we did. I swear, if we fudge Juwan's brain type test, we could land him for Al Jefferson straight up. I would be absolutely ecstatic if we landed Roy. First off, I think his downside is no worse than what Battier brings to the table. I find it hard to believe that Roy will give us anything less than a smart player, that will play defense, shoot the ball and fit right in. Which is what Battier gives us. The difference is that Roy has the potential to be much better, whereas Battier is a finished product. If Roy brings any scoring off the dribble whatsoever, that in itself would be a decided upgrade, because Battier has never shown the ability to do that. Also don't dismiss the fact that Battier is starting a five year contract making $36 million while Roy would be on a rookie deal. I've said it before, but rookies who pan out are on the most cost effective contracts in the league. And for a team that's looking to put pieces around two max contract players, being cost effective is very important since Les doesn't seem willing to pay the luxury tax. As for Head versus Stro, it's pretty much a wash in my book. Head is an undersized SG. He's got a pretty apparent ceiling if he doesn't improve his ball-handling dramatically. Stro is a big man on an affordable contract. Even if he gives us nothing but a body off the bench, he's still an inexpensive option at a terribly overpaid position in the league. Considering that Nene just got 60 million, Etan Thomas and Jerome James got the full MLE, and Adonal Foyle got 40 million over 5 years. It's hard for me to believe that the best we could do for Stro is to stick him in a deal as salary filler. To be honest, I'm ready to move on from this deal, and make the best of things but your post Van Gundier just stirred up some final things I needed to get off my chest. I by no means like the deal, but it's not the end of the world, and the Rockets still should be able to make a title run with a few more additions (Mike James being right at the top of that list).
I kind of wish we would lose the "moneyball" phraseology. Just a pet peeve of mine . I know, there's little chance that we'll stop using "moneyball" to describe the analytical approach to assessing basketball but allow me a moment to get on my soapbox a little. Statistically / metric driven analysis has been around for a long long time and used in all walks of life and industries. The science of decision analysis using metrics of some sort isn't some "new" thing. There's nothing magical about it. There's no difference in the application of the analytical principles that makes the basketball or baseball related analysis different from any other field or industry so calling it a "moneyball" decision makes it sound like it's some hocus pocus of some sort. The only thing that's new here is that the sports industry is finally starting to apply what alot of other folks have been doing for DECADES now in other fields. The other thing that bothers me about calling it the "moneyball" approach is that if you're going to do that you might as well call a lot of other parts of life based on moneyball from how much you qualify for a loan on a house or a car to which canned soups you find on the shelves of Walmart. OK, off my soapbox .
That would make sense if Stro and Battier were the only guys traded, but it's pretty apparent that Stro was added strictly as salary filler. Memphis let him walk the first time around, and it doesn't sound like they're that eager to bring him back. So it's not so much that the Rockets sold Stro's overvalued skills, it's more like they just didn't care about throwing him out for nothing. I mean a real moneyball approach to this situation would be to trade Sura, Bowen, and Gay for Battier. Gay is the overvalued player (course I'd still say that he should be more overvalued than that) with the others in the deal to make salaries matching. Memphis would save more on the deal than with Stro and they don't have to deal with a disgruntled returning player. Then if you still want to get rid of Stro, then look for someone that might be in the market for his size and athleticism. And trade his overvalued strengths to a team that actually overvalues it, rather than a team that's just accepting him as filler.
You're correct that NBA GM's love potential and guys that are athletic. I'm not sure I'd consider Swift as a guy that can get his own shot and consistenly score, but he does have intriguing potential due to his athletic ability. Likewise, many GM's look at guys with potential that haven't shown many results and think that with a change of scenary or in the right situation, the potential would be realized. The problem is that when a guy has been in the league 5 or 6 years, with 2 or more teams, then GM's start to realize that there's a good chance that they'll never reach their potential. Also, when GM's hear things like unmotivated and low Basketball IQ from multiple teams, then that player becomes much less attractive. Kwame Brown was a total bust in Washington, but plenty of GM's could imagine that a change of scenary would turn him into a star. If the Lakers give up on Kwame Brown, do you think that there's going to be a big market for him?
Well I was referring to Gay in that section. As for Stro, I refuse to believe that we couldn't get more out of him than as salary filler. If West parlays him into a half decent player or draft picks, I'm probably going to be sick.
You've actuall hit on the primary difference opinion between myself and others who share your opinion. You seem to feel that the Rockets could have traded Swift for something of value and that they either didn't bother to explore those deals or that they chose not to take them for some reason. We've known that Houston was trying to trade Swift since the all-star break. It was widely reported. I have a hard time believing that the Rockets didn't explore all of the trade options and that they wouldn't have taken anything remotley of value. I believe that there simply was no market for Swift. Sure it would have been a great Moneyball move to include garbage players in the deal for Battier, but you also have to have a trading partner in order to do a deal. Do you really think that Memphis would have taken Sura and Bowen instead? We traded a player that wasn't highly valued by us (Gay) and another very inefficient player for a player that is extremely efficient. That's moneyball. You can certainly make up deals that would be even better value for you, but in any trade (moneyball or not), you have to have a deal that someone is willing to accept. If Memphis would have took Sura and Bowen instead of Swift, then that might have been a better deal. Realistically though, Memphis wouldn't have done that deal.
One thing I'm not understanding -- what was the hurry trading Gay right on draft night. Was there a danger that Battier wouldn't be available unless the Rockets agreed to the trade then and there?
I don't think it's Jeff but someone awfully close to the man with a little more bball IQ than your everyday clutchfan. Although it does sound awfully close to what Mr. Van Gundy would say. Excellent post Van Gundier and if it is you Mr Van Gundy I hope you don't take the Van Dummy references personally. I don't question your bball IQ it's just your player management and selection that I sometimes find fault with.
It's possible that Swift didn't have trade value like you mentioned aelliott but do you feel that the Rockets could have gotten the 24th pick or a player like Lawrence Roberts out of Memphis?
m_cable, I think you place a higer value on Stromile than many others. If you don't mind my asking, what would you give up to GET Swift? Name me a player one for one that YOU would give up to get Swift. What draft pick your would give up to get Swift. IE, if the Rockets held the number 10 pick, you would want them to trade that to get Swift back? The number 15 pick? No first round pick? What is your idea of fair trade value for Swift?
Here's my thought on that. We didn't trade Gay we traded the 8th pick. And it just so happened that Memphis wanted Gay with the 8th pick. I am certain there were other offers for our 8th pick and they probably increased as we got closer to our pick. But if we had decided we didn't want the Memphis deal or any other deal that was on the table and we also weren't that high on Gay joining the team then we would have been drafting Gay on speculation. Hoping that someone else would want Gay later and be willing to offer a better deal. Sounds like alot more risk to me. Not good GM'ing to me. We knew all the offers before hand and thought the Memphis deal was the best and so we drafted Gay for them never intending him to hone a Rocket Uniform.
I would have never have guessed it, but Marbury's efficiency numbers have not been that bad. In 05-06, which was a bad year for Marbury on a horrible team, he still had a Roland rating of 4.2. That's better than all but three of the Rockets' players last year. It's bad, of course, when weighed against his $18 million salary and his me first attitude. But what blew me away is that he had a net +/1 rating of 12.0 in 04-05: http://www.82games.com/0405NYK.HTM The +/- differential when he was on the court was -0.4, but when he was off the court it was -12.4. In comparison, in 04-05, McGrady had a +/- differential of only 2.0. Last year, McGrady had a +/- differential of 5.9, and Yao's was 7.3. I would have never had dreamed Marbury had those numbers. Maybe Larry Brown got in his head in 05-06, or he got in his own head. Nonetheless, maybe Dolan and Isiah looked at these numbers, and figured they could get more out of Marbury and others if they ran Larry out of town. Or maybe I'm giving those buffoons to much credit.
I kept telling myself to get over the draft. But I just can't resist... After last year's draft, CD said repeatly that they were trying to trade up to get Gerald Green etc. Now Gay fall into your lap and you let go? Is Gerald Green that much better than Rudy Gay? At least Gay has played in NCAA. I just can't understand their logic.
There was a rumor that Seattle had an agreement with Memphis to trade the 10th pick+ the expring contract of Danny Fortson for Battier, whether West had someone else in mind for 10th or he thought Gay might have fallen that low, now I'm not so sure... Also, I heard that (correct me if I heard wrong) Rockets had spoken with Memphis days earlier about trading the pick under certain conditions (that all 5 of the guys Rockets coveted in the draft had to be gone, maybe the guy(s) West wants has to be available). My impression is that teams talking about trading picks often condition their offers based on the availability of players at the spot. So, I'm pretty sure that when Rockets talked to other teams about trading the 8th pick, they specifically talked about "What would you give me if Rudy Gay was available?" It's highly unlikely that they just had no idea at all as to what other teams would have offered for Rudy Gay. In the end, though... this trade seems to be the kind that Morey would support strongly. Battier is like the perfect player for Daryl to have a huge boner over.
A few things affect a player's +/-... the biggest one is the player backing him up. Yao had a negative +/- in 04/05 because Dikembe was awesome... I don't remember who baked up Marbury in 04/05... don't think it's anyone good. Marbury is not a bad player at all, and probably not a bad human being... the big problem with him is his ego and his salary are both that of a superstar, his skills are a notch below. Morey refered to Yao and Tracy as "star-plus" players, meaning they are a notch above the normal star players (Marbury, Rashard, Francis, etc). The signficant thing about the "star-plus" guys is you pay them pretty much the same as regular stars (max salary) but they give you more than regular guys on the court.
Funny stuff.. Now that's the kind of headline I want to see Feigen write; MOREY HAS A HUGE BONER OVER BATTIER
