Analytics and the Kings

[dude12]

Charley Rosen attacks the validity of statistics over on Hoopshype (yep that site). He says that stats favor the player with the ball and 90% of the players on the floor do not have the ball at any one time!!!

Link is here---> http://hoopshype.com/columns/rosen/the-numbers-game-is-fraudulent-part-1

I read the piece....doesn't really get in depth and technical....talks more about basic stats as opposed to analytics.......what does a player shoot in pick and roll, pick and pop, and the other analytic categories. Not even sure he talks about per 36 or 48 numbers.......but says to be continued, so maybe he gets more in depth.

 

[bajaden]

That's not what I said. I said the only player worse for the kings would have been monta Ellis. Josh smith, for us, would have made more sense. Cause he fills a need. Landry does not. Is he better than what he had off the bench? Yes. Does it make us a better team. Yes, but not be nearly enough to justify the cost. If it was a 1-2 year deal for 10 million, it'd be a great signing. 4 years 27 million is huge mistake that will hamper us next season, when we might actually be able to get one of the many free agents, plus add another lottery pick. Instead we are taking the marginal improvement that Landry might bring, while tying up money long term, while hurting our lottery chances in the immediate future. And certainly doing nothing to help the teams biggest weakness, defense, where Landry is a strong negative. And passing, where he is one of the worst in the league.

Do people have Landry deja vu? We've been here it before. It didn't work.

That Malone quote I find a little scary in regards to his defense, and Landry in general. Landrys is 29, and he's "very coach able?" Shouldn't he kinda know what he's doing at this point? And for the money we are throwing at him! I don't like hearing that a 29 year got better on defense last year, in his contract year. It just blows me away that we hire a defense first coach, then go out and get Carl Landry. And toss away tyreke. Some,how we got worse defensively.

Btw, if laundry is coming off the bench to spell cousins, then he'll play maybe 15-20 mins a game. I don't think we signed him to barely play him. He's getting 26-30 a night, and many with cousins. It's unavoidable. And Landry adds nothing to cousins game. It's just an awful pairing. JT fits way better.

I doubt that Landry will be coming off the bench to spell Cousins. Its more likely that he'll be coming off the bench to spell whomever is starting at PF. Will he get some minutes on the floor with Cousins? As you said, its probably unavoidable. But I doubt the world will end. I heard a reporter that covers basketball, don't remember who, say that when he watched the Kings last year on offense, it was like watching five guys chasing chickens.. There was no rhyme or reason to it. I'm sure you could describe our defense in a similar manor. The fact that Landry didn't work out the first time has nothing to do with this time. Different coach, and different system.

Landry averaged 23 minutes a game last year off the bench. That's probably close to what he'll get this year, and on a par with his career averages. I have no idea who will be starting at PF for the team. The obvious answer is JT, but they might decide to start Patterson there, and let JT back up Cuz. That of course can change with a trade between now and the start of the season. While Patterson isn't a shotblocker, and a poor rebounder, he is a good team help defender. To be honest, I don't envy Malone. Trying to figure out a good starting five and a proper rotation with this ill fitting group is going to be interesting.

 

[bajaden]

I read the piece....doesn't really get in depth and technical....talks more about basic stats as opposed to analytics.......what does a player shoot in pick and roll, pick and pop, and the other analytic categories. Not even sure he talks about per 36 or 48 numbers.......but says to be continued, so maybe he gets more in depth.

Actually, I don't think what he's talking about is analytic's, but stats. And to me at least, their two different things. Stats are results, and to me, Analytic's show you how you got those results, and how you can improve those results. They can be as detailed as you like, from how many cups of coffee you have every morning to whether you tie your left shoe before your right shoe. But mostly their about how many times you go left or right when driving the basketball. What spot on the floor do you shoot your highest percentage. What kind of defender gives you the most trouble, and which players you easily abuse. Which obviously helps a coach figure out match ups. Basicly, it breaks down every tiny detail of a players game. And if used properly, a good GM, along with what he's seen visually, can use that information to decide whether to sign a player, keep a player, or help a player to improve, not only long term, but game by game.

In short, analytic's is a tool to be used along with all your other tools. I do think the teams that use every tool available, have a distinct advantage, depending on the talent pool available of course.

 

[Turgenev]

Is there a stat for 'gets the job done'?

I am maybe apathetic towards analytics. Of course, a good GM supports his practice with modern technology. Although there is a risk technology can take control of the GM- and maybe a couple have/ will fall prey to the trend. Also, the use of analytics does not, on its own, equal successful multidisciplinary practice.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Charley Rosen attacks the validity of statistics over on Hoopshype (yep that site). He says that stats favor the player with the ball and 90% of the players on the floor do not have the ball at any one time!!!

Link is here---> http://hoopshype.com/columns/rosen/the-numbers-game-is-fraudulent-part-1

That column really only attacks traditional statistics like FG%, assists, etc, which, of course, the new analytic types have also been frustrated with as well. That's why they've worked to come up with more accurate metrics, which Rosen appears to not understand, as he omits them completely. Not a very insightful piece, IMHO.