I would be thrilled to get a Granger/Ginobli from the draft. How many fans here are expecting Morey to turn a 14th pick into a young DWade?
Eh, but they also drafted Rhodes, who was supposed to be athletic and a great defender but couldn't shoot. The draft fiascoes were pretty random.
Right, no-one should. I wasn't clear enough: I'm hoping Morey is as God-like as we think, and pulls a Granger/Ginobili who are better talents than say Brooks/Landry. A better way to say it is: I expect another Brooks/Landry level of player from this draft, at the very least Code: [U]List of #14 draft picks:[/U] Earl Clark (Phx, 09); [b]still available:[/b] Darren Collison Anthony Randolph (Gsw, 08); [b]still available:[/b] Roy Hibbert, Al Thornton (Was); [b]still available:[/b] Stuckey, Brooks, Landry Ronnie Brewer (Mem); [b]still available:[/b] Rondo, Kyle Lowry Rashad McCants (?); [b]still available:[/b] Granger, David Lee, Monta Ellis Kris Humphries (Nets); [b]still available:[/b] Al Jefferson, Josh & JR Smiths Luke Ridnour (Mil); [b]still available:[/b] David West, Josh Howard, Mo Williams Fred Jones (?); [b]still available:[/b] Tayshaun Prince, Krstic, John Salmons So when i said I'm tempering my expectations, I meant that Morey already seems to be able to identify the Brooks/Landry's in the draft, and that the range of players he can chose from at #14, are probably not much more talented than Brooks/Landry. I don't think we can expect any better.
Put it this way. 3-5 years later rank all of the draft picks from a draft. In the Brooks + Landry year, who was available at #14 who has turned out better than Brooks or Landry? Sure we might have developed a talent a little better than another team, but it is mostly up to the player. If the answer is that Landry or Brooks were the next best available, we would have done no better with a better pick.
Yeah, because winning a title definitely proves your model was superior, right? It's just like anything else - as Battier said so eloquently in the No Stats All-Star piece, you can play perfect defense, put your hand right in a guy's face, and he can take a 25-foot heave, falling down, and it still goes in. Or you can play terrible defense, trip over yourself, and the other guy misses a layup. If you judge exclusively by the end result, as you're suggesting, the guy who tripped over himself must be the better defender, right? There's only so much that's within your control, and if you only grade based on the end result, you're missing important parts of the craft.
I agree. Morey AND his staff were able to identify players that should have gone 10th-15th. Since he's already AT 14, he'll more than likely just pick the appropriate player. People are thinking well if Morey's 25-40 picks are 4 times better than their draft spot, just imagine a LOTTERY pick But in the lottery there's fewer picks, fewer mysteries and fewer chances of good players getting passed up. The thing to do is NOT choose the DUD of the lottery, as much as it is trying to choose the next star.
I'd hardly consider the Red Sox a "Moneyball" team - they have one of the highest payrolls in baseball - number 2 in fact! Hiring a statistician isn't enough.
Define "Moneyball" and read the following article. Thanks. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1880247
It's better to be lucky than good. Seeing how the organization and its fans have been blasted recently as being too tolerant of mediocrity, some people seem to see only the black and white, and nothing in between, and not caring about the process at all, only the end results. Most people seem to view the draft similarly. The people in charge are the magicians who either pull the rabbits out of their hats or fail and are laughed out from the stage, nothing in between. Busts are going to be busts and the stars are going to be stars no matter what, that's the way they think, and the GM's should be able to identify them from all the noise and randomness or be seen as a failures.
They also got Cuttino Mobley in that draft, and Michael Dickerson. So they hit on 2 of 4 picks (with no lottery picks). Do you consider that bad?
I just watched (listened at work) to the video. Its worth the 75 minute listen. I know the term Moneyball and having a bunch of money seems to be a contradictory. While I'd agree the Red Sox was 60% Moneyball/40% boat load of cash, you dont have to "prove" Moneyball by being poor or cheap. Rockets arent exactly struggling for cash as much as other teams. They've bought most their draft picks from the past few years. I hope that doesnt get used against them. The key is still in finding undervalued assets.
Using statistical analysis existed before Moneyball was written or implemented on the Oakland A's. Looking deeper than basic stats is something people have done before. Moneyball to me is the idea that you can build a team purely by picking guys who aren't superstars but rather very good players who go under the radar because they don't have gawdy stats. You can't tell me the Red Sox are Moneyball team with the number of superstars they have. So many they picked up a few role players using stats to find value - that's not Moneyball - that's common sense.
I wish I had the 75 minutes - can you summarize? My impression of Moneyball was that you could build a contender on the cheap by looking at stats which were the ones that got players the big contracts. As soon as you're Boston throwing big money at big names - and Boston has a lot of them, you're just saying hey, let's use stats to find bargain role players. As I said, that's not really an impressive new strategy to me. Baseball has been a game of statistics far before MoneyBall.
In order to do that he will have to move up and get Turner. I don't think Xavier Henry who might be available at 14 is in that league.
Moneyball is building a team by utilizing and picking assets that will statistically heighten your chances of winning. This can also apply to picking up LeBron or Kobe but isn't needed to determine. Basically it's about making the most of what you have.
Moneyball isn't defined by low budget, its all about making the most of the resources you have. Moneyball was created via necessity, the lowbudger dude needed an edge to keep up with the higher end teams, however low budget is not a prerequisite of the moneyball strategy. Case in point would be Mark Cuban who's one of the bigger advocates of the moneyball team in the league. He probably wished he jumped on the bandwagon before they let go of Nash and signed Dampier with the cash they saved.
