Why MoneyBall doesn't work & other lessons learned

Before we get into it, I'm glad to see that we agree that Les isn't to blame for the current state of the team. The man's been over the luxury tax, purchased draft picks, included cash to make deals go down, and I believe him when he says he'll pay for a contender. Want to see a bad owner? Look no further than my other favorite team, the Bulls

In my opinion, the biggest misconception about Morey's philosophy is that it's fundamentally different than other GMs and I don't think this is the case. Whenever any front office, from the Spurs to the T-Wolves, makes a personnel decision, they're considering essentially the same thing: How does this affect my team? They're mentally tallying ALL the attributes of the players in question. Shooting percentage, defensive ability, how well they'll fit in the offense, how they'll affect the cap situation, how much the fans love them - these are just a few of the factors that go into any decision, but every front office is trying to determine how valuable all the attributes of the players in question are, and how much they are worth to acquire.

Moneyball is simply an effort to quantify a qualitative process as much as possible. For instance, instead of making decisions based on 'We hear he's pretty good on defense', the organization is using their massive database to parse how a given player performs in a 2-3, in a 1-3-1, in a sagging man, on the ball, off the ball, through screens, etc. In most cases, the stats simply confirm what the conventional wisdom already knew: Lebron is a beast, Howard is a monster, and whatever you paid for Eddy Curry, it was too much. This is why the stats are only part of the personnel decisions the organization makes. They still have scouts, they still hold workouts for draft prospects, and when Morey gives interviews, the things he talks about are pretty much the same as the things we talk about.

Occasionally, however, there's a difference between conventional wisdom and what the quantitative analysis, and that's where value can be extracted. We scored big on the Lowry deal because the team's data indicated that he was pretty damn good, even though he couldn't get off the bench in Memphis. Martin is another example. Despite his pedestrian shooting percentages and unimpressive rebounds and assists, he's one of the most efficient scorers in the league. In almost all of Morey's moves we've come out ahead because we've got a very good idea of who the good players are. Every GM makes decisions based on evaluation of players. Moneyball is simply about being able to value them more accurately.

Keep in mind, this is an inexact science. In addition to Brooks and Landry steals, we'll have Dorsey-sized busts. Whether we've able to successfully acquire a star without several high lottery picks remains to be seen, but I've been very, very happy with Moneyball so far.

 

I agree with that part of the philosophy. It adds to the part where you can find hidden talent and draft day steals or fee agents that have some value at the lower end of the spectrum. My contention with Morey is he holds the statistics too high in his practice when it comes down to laying down the probabilities of risk reward high and low for Superstars like Amare in that instance or Rudy Gay. The percentages, or whatever had him pointed toward role players, or playing it safe so to speak. Sometimes playing it safe gets us nowhere compaired to the risk takers. Thats where his philosophy is flawed, and he doesnt stray from too often. He stays within a safe zone allowed within his numbers or personal goals in life. Amare is dangerous because he wants a Max contract and no time for a physical to be done. Rudy Gay is dangerous because he might takes years to develope? Trading Battier might make our team defense worse? Trading for Battier will make us better in the short term.. The stats say Kevin Martin is real efficient so he is a safe guy to go after.

Ariza for Lee?? Ariza is a hot head with Rick Adelman. it might not work out. Lets not keep Artest... Artest might decline and he isnt enough to win Championships.

Safe moves. His thinking. Why not do the opposite of all these moves he ultimately did or didnt do? Because these moves involve a little gambling. They are not safe. They brung results to everyone else who ultimately did what we wouldnt. That doenst mean they where playing it safe though. Lakers brought in Artest a huge potentially Championship team killing move. They never play it safe. They go all in.

 

What has Eddie Griffin done to make him a better choice? Griffin can't score, can't pass, can't even get a season out of the lottery.

 

They got Duncan, but they didn't win another championship, after Robinson retired, until Parker came along. You need more than 1 star player. You take the gamble on high upside players with potential to be stars instead of just high upside roleplayers.

 

In fact his best move with a higher caliber player he ever did was Artest. He took a risk with him. thats the only time he ever did and worked real well until he didnt take another chance on him again by not resigning him.

 

Artest is on a steep decline and he definitely would not have been a good buy for a young team that's trying to rebuild on the fly. Makes more sense for LA because they were already a championship-caliber team. Ariza was a good swap. But after a year, Ariza did not progress like the Rockets hoped, so they swapped him for Courtney Lee plus the cash savings. I know that you consider Ariza to be a superior player, and I did too. But Ariza's shooting slump since leaving LA is now going on about 1 1/2 seasons. While in 2009 it looked like he could be a breakout player, now that idea seems silly. Lee provides similar athleticism, better ball-handling, better shooting, and he can check SGs and PGs. And that's leaving aside things like attitude and maturity, which believe it or not does matter on a young team that's trying to build up a winning culture.

 

That was actually a response to me that Adelman had a roster full of talented players. It was pretty clear to anybody that the Rockets talent didn't compare to the talent on playoff teams 1-8(Spurs to Trailblazers).

I find it unsatisfying that you agree our roster is weak and not just underperforming high quality talent.

 

The problem here is I agree with you in alot of ways. Which is why I go along with alot of their ideas. Its just that in my point of view now. Which is mostly hindsight i admit. They seem like sucky ideas. LMAO! I just feel crummy when Kobe lifts another Championship hugging Artest. Then Amare taking the Knicks into the standings ahead of us. Then want to point the car tail pipe at my mouth in the garage when Rudy Gay signs a max contract. I think being a Houston sports fan is the most painful experience short of being a Cubs fan or Cleveland fan. Just one short kick in the nads away from a similar experience. Texans stairing us in the face every season isnt helping. :grin:

I must be a masochist by now.. Thats a Rockets/Texans/Astros fan for you.

 

Well, you can use the same analogy and say the Rockets "lucked" into Hakeem and won two championships but that's not the point I'm making here. It's not that the Spurs had Duncan while the Rockets didn't but what they did with the team around him that's relevant here. They have consistently sought to put a contending team around Duncan. The Rockets did not do the same thing with Yao even before he started going down to injuries. Yao comes in during the end of the SF3 era. They then gut the team to go get McGrady but fail to stock the 3 positions (PG, SG & PF) they traded away for Tmac for years. The end result is what you see now out there on the court.

Contrast that to what the Spurs did as an organization with Duncan as the centerpiece: finding a Parker & a Ginnobli, creating stability at the coaching level, developing a basketball identity, drafting/signing players who fit that identity and coaching them to play in their system. You see the Steelers doing the same thing in the NFL. Even now with Duncan on the downslope of his career, they have been able to still field a contending by tweaking that system to deemphasize Duncan's role. And it appears to be working thus far: they currently have the best record in the NBA.

Now, go back 10 years and look at how the Rockets organization has gone about developing their basketball identity, acquiring players and coaching them to play in their "system" (whatever that is/was). Look at the teams they have put around Yao. Look at their strategy to deal with the injuries to Yao & Tmac. To me that to me speaks volumes about why this team and organization continues to come up short. I just don't see things improving until fundamental changes are made in the way this organization operates and I am not optimistic that things will change anytime soon.

 

My friend, the Battier trade was anything but safe. We traded Gay, a high lottery pick, and Swift, who at the time was still seen to have valuable potential, for Battier, whose many deficiencies are well-known. Everyone in the media and the public thought we were fools. We definitely lost on that trade, but you sure can't say our staff didn't go out on a limb. A few others:

-We traded our starting point guard in the middle of a playoff race.
-We traded a couple first-round picks for a known headcase in an attempt to go all-in for the playoffs
-We traded our best fourth-quarter scorer for a 2-guard with a history of injuries
-We had a deal in place with Philly for their #2 and Elton Brand's contract. Philly pulled out, not us.

We can debate the merits of individual deals if you'd like, but his history is not indicative of someone who's prohibitively risk-averse.

We passed on Amare because he wanted a max contract and has a history of injuries that tend to be chronic. Signing that deal without a physical evaluation isn't a calculated risk, it's downright foolhardy. New York's looking pretty smart right now, but that can change real quick if his eye or knee problems return. He has the potential to be a Grant Hill-level franchise killer. Time will tell.

As for the draft, our front office has stated in numerous interviews that they evaluate players based on their ceiling, but also on their probability of reaching that ceiling. Whiteside might turn into a legendary shot-blocker, but it's much more likely he's another Stro Swift. Patterson is low-risk in the sense that he's very unlikely to bust out of the league, but that doesn't mean his ceiling is low. I think he's going to be a very, very good player for us.

 

Nice points. Fair. I am the master of hindsight right now and so my arguments are unfairly balanced towards me. Thats the way i like to converse sometimes. I am like Fox news channel. Unfair and unbalanced at times.

 

I love all your points. The Alston-Lowry trade was quite a scare for many posters. Trading away a veteran for a bench player on a lottery team. Sometimes, you got go with athletic upside over a veteran player.

 

All right! My brother is back!

 

Quite true but remember: Alston filled the void that was left at PG when they traded SF3 in the McGrady deal. He was an improvement over Tyronn Lue.

 

No team has ever been successful with stars injured for whole seasons. No team has ever "had backup plans for injury-prone stars". If your stars are injured you will lose. You people need a real sense of reality here.