Analytics, "It's like arguing with a baby, or someone who believes the Earth is flat," Daryl Morey

[Bricklayer]

Right. Such an obvious FACT that Harden was going to be a max-level player. He was had for Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb. Some bidding war for a guy "EVERYONE" expected to become a superstar.

Lets cut out the revisionist history bullcrap. Almost nobody expected him to be a superstar. And lets stop pretending that there is some mutually exclusive dichotomy between "traditional" GMing and using analytics. Analytics does NOT tell you to avoid grabbing superstars. The principles remain the same. The analytics help make better informed decisions. This strawman you insist on hammering should have died a long time ago, but better late than never. Just stop.

I am eternally amused by people who argue themselves into a box.

1) So, first of all, the trade package for Harden:
-- Kevin Martin (at time coming off a 17.1ppg season, and 5 straight 20pt seasons before that)
-- Jeremy Lamb (rookie, #12 pick in the 2012 draft a few months before)
-- 12th pick in 2013 draft (Steven Adams)
-- another future first
-- a future 2nd

So we get a 20ppg shooting guard, 2 lottery picks, another 1st, and a 2nd.

2) OKC traded Harden because they did not think they could afford to pay FOUR players max type contracts

3) After OKC trades Harden, for a 20ppg SG, 2 lottery picks, another first and a 2nd they are widely ripped for being cheap and not getting enough back.


Onto this playing field stride desperately dishonest analytics types attempting to take credit for recognizing Harden's future prospects via stat formulas and such, or worse yet, attempting to credit their heroes for that insight.

But I ask, if Daryl Morey were such a genius and seeing things nobody else saw, why was OKC having to give up Harden in the first place because he was going to get a max contract? If Daryl Morey were such a genius and seeing things nobody else saw, how could OKC have gotten a package including a 20pt SG, 3 first round picks, 2 in the lottery, and a 2nd? And if Daryl Morey was seeing things nobody else saw, then how could there have been such an outcry about that trade package after it happened. I mean, Daryl Morey's calculator was surely the only one who saw Harden's future stardom right? So why were GMs fighting over him? Why was he going to get a max contract? Why were fans upset that Keivn Martin and 3 firsts wasn't a good enough package?

'Tis very odd.

And completely ****ing illogical and full of bullcrap.

Daryl Morey won an open bidding war for the hottest young commodity in the game by throwing every asset he could get his hands at at the problem. His analytics didn't do dick for him in that case, unless he really is a stupid basketball mind and needed them to get him to the same point all the other GMs after Harden had gotten to with their primitive game watching and other 1.0 techniques.

And the funny thing is, it was the best thing he ever did as a GM. The numbers genius has been down there for nearly a decade now, and Houston is still no closer to a title now then they were then. And any chance they do have is entirely centered around the superstar Morey acquired just like everybody else acquires superstars.

 

[jalfa]

I am eternally amused by people who argue themselves into a box.

1) So, first of all, the trade package for Harden:
-- Kevin Martin (at time coming off a 17.1ppg season, and 5 straight 20pt seasons before that)
-- Jeremy Lamb (rookie, #12 pick in the 2012 draft a few months before)
-- 12th pick in 2013 draft (Steven Adams)
-- another future first
-- a future 2nd

So we get a 20ppg shooting guard, 2 lottery picks, another 1st, and a 2nd.

2) OKC traded Harden because they did not think they could afford to pay FOUR players max type contracts

3) After OKC trades Harden, for a 20ppg SG, 2 lottery picks, another first and a 2nd they are widely ripped for being cheap and not getting enough back.


Onto this playing field stride desperately dishonest analytics types attempting to take credit for recognizing Harden's future prospects via stat formulas and such, or worse yet, attempting to credit their heroes for that insight.

But I ask, if Daryl Morey were such a genius and seeing things nobody else saw, why was OKC having to give up Harden in the first place because he was going to get a max contract? If Daryl Morey were such a genius and seeing things nobody else saw, how could OKC have gotten a package including a 20pt SG, 3 first round picks, 2 in the lottery, and a 2nd? And if Daryl Morey was seeing things nobody else saw, then how could there have been such an outcry about that trade package after it happened. I mean, Daryl Morey's calculator was surely the only one who saw Harden's future stardom right? So why were GMs fighting over him? Why was he going to get a max contract? Why were fans upset that Keivn Martin and 3 firsts wasn't a good enough package?

'Tis very odd.

And completely ****ing illogical and full of bullpoopoo.

Daryl Morey won an open bidding war for the hottest young commodity in the game by throwing every asset he could get his hands at at the problem. His analytics didn't do dick for him in that case, unless he really is a stupid basketball mind and needed them to get him to the same point all the other GMs after Harden had gotten to with their primitive game watching and other 1.0 techniques.

And the funny thing is, it was the best thing he ever did as a GM. The numbers genius has been down there for nearly a decade now, and Houston is still no closer to a title now then they were then. And any chance they do have is entirely centered around the superstar Morey acquired just like everybody else acquires superstars.

the one thing Morey deserves credit for over all else is the way he put himself in a position to make that trade. he only had Martin, because he identified Carl Landry as a valuable contributor (originally got him for a 2nd rounder). he got the pick that would become Lamb, because he got Kyle Lowry for Rafer Alston. he got the pick that would become Steven Adams, by convincing the Bucks that Sammy Dalembert was worth a 1st round pick. he then kept his cap sheet clean enough to sign another max free agen and he did all this without tanking a single season. the Rockets, even after an offseason that had everybody expecting them to fall off, are still an elite team, in the Western Conference, no less, and the necessary cap space to massively strengthen their roster over the next few offseasons. I find that fairly impressive.

 

[Bricklayer]

the one thing Morey deserves credit for over all else is the way he put himself in a position to make that trade. he only had Martin, because he identified Carl Landry as a valuable contributor (originally got him for a 2nd rounder). he got the pick that would become Lamb, because he got Kyle Lowry for Rafer Alston. he got the pick that would become Steven Adams, by convincing the Bucks that Sammy Dalembert was worth a 1st round pick. he then kept his cap sheet clean enough to sign another max free agen and he did all this without tanking a single season. the Rockets, even after an offseason that had everybody expecting them to fall off, are still an elite team, in the Western Conference, no less, and the necessary cap space to massively strengthen their roster over the next few offseasons. I find that fairly impressive.

No, absolutely.

I am attacking, nay flat denying that analytics had anything to do with it. But I'm far from saying it was luck. It was good GMing. But it was good GMing precisely because it used a tried and true method of accumulating fungible assets -- picks, kids, etc. -- in the hopes of picking up the first star that became available. Harden was that guy, so he grabbed him. If it had been a different young emerging player he probably would have grabbed him too. Its as far from "moneyball" as possible. Morey came to the conclusion, the correct one BTW, that in order to win big in the NBA you aren't going to do it by accumulating a bunch of underappreciated roleplayers. You need star talent. He made moves to set the stage to get a star talent, and then when one popped up, eh was ready. It was absolutely good GMing.

 

[jalfa]

No, absolutely.

I am attacking, nay flat denying that analytics had anything to do with it. But I'm far from saying it was luck. It was good GMing. But it was good GMing precisely because it used a tried and true method of accumulating fungible assets -- picks, kids, etc. -- in the hopes of picking up the first star that became available. Harden was that guy, so he grabbed him. If it had been a different young emerging player he probably would have grabbed him too. Its as far from "moneyball" as possible. Morey came to the conclusion, the correct one BTW, that in order to win big in the NBA you aren't going to do it by accumulating a bunch of underappreciated roleplayers. You need star talent. He made moves to set the stage to get a star talent, and then when one popped up, eh was ready. It was absolutely good GMing.

and I think this is the point where some of the confusion begins to seep in. the whole advanced stats thing doesn't necessarily have all that much to do with what happened in baseball. not that I know **** about baseball, but from what I gather, there, the point was to exploit undervalued stats and the likewise undervalued players going along with them in order to cheaply build a championship team without necessarily having top flight talent. Morey never argued that. smartly, seeing as that approach simply cannot work in a game where there's only ever five people on the court. he knew that basically every single NBA championship team had at least two top10 players, one which usually was top5. the way in which he did use the moneyball approach was to exploit inefficiencies in the way players were valued because of traditional analysis. Battier (never contributed much in boxscores, invaluable as a defender and floorspacer), Landry (stubby, but an extremely efficient paint scorer), Hayes (again, stubby, but able to completely lock down opposing bigs) for example were all gotten for a song, got heavy minutes, blew up their value and were later traded for high-value assets (Battier being a it of an exception, due to him being gotten in order to complement a championship run).

in general, it's difficult to say that analytics do one specific thing, as each team takes different lessons from analytics. the whole "some players are undervalued because of how little they contribute in traditional stats and vice versa, there are guys that are heavily overrated because of their (inefficiently) accumulated traditional stats"-thing has been over for a minute, now. you can see some of it in Morey's and Hinkie's "no need to get mediocre talent, when we can get a d-leaguer to do basically the same thing" approach and some of the guys that would have traditionally been really expensive (Mayo, Ellis, Jennings) were feeling the squeeze, too. generally, advanced stats these days are used to find an optimal way of playing defense (with stronger emphasis on help, because of the no handchecking rules, as the Raptors do) and of finding a way to optimally use their teams respective top flight talent.

 

[macadocious]

I don't understand this thread. Are people trying to say that James Harden wasn't a superstar type player when the Rockets traded for him?

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

I am eternally amused by people who argue themselves into a box.

Indeed. How's the inside of that box looking?

1) So, first of all, the trade package for Harden:
-- Kevin Martin (at time coming off a 17.1ppg season, and 5 straight 20pt seasons before that)
-- Jeremy Lamb (rookie, #12 pick in the 2012 draft a few months before)
-- 12th pick in 2013 draft (Steven Adams)
-- another future first
-- a future 2nd

Lets just review these for a second, shall we?

We have Kevin Martin, a 28 year old on an expiring contract which was essentially a rental.
Jeremy Lamb, he of value equal to a Thomas Robinson or Nik Stauskas at the time.
A non-top 10 lotto pick, which is decent.
A heavily protected first rounder from Dallas which they may never see.
A future second rounder from Charlotte.

Quite the conglomeration of assets there. Yet, it was all Morey had, so he threw the book at OKC hoping they would bite. It worked.

Meanwhile, we are left to wonder, if Harden was such a widely-acknowledged superstar in the making, why was Oklahoma City trading him in the first place? Answer: they believed his production was not worth the max and they could replace it for cheaper. Do you honestly believe they would have traded Harden if they knew he would be this good? Revisionist history at its finest. No team in league history is THAT cheap to sell a superstar. None. OKC realized that Houston was willing to throw a max deal at Harden and didn't want to lose him for nothing in free agency. Full stop.

But again, more questions present themselves: if Harden was a lock to be a superstar (which you also missed, by the way; wonderful thing about the Internet is that it never forgets), why did Golden State refuse to trade Klay Thompson for him? Why did Washington refuse to trade a rookie Bradley Beal for him? If all of these teams knew that Harden was going to turn into what he is now, surely their best young asset is a small price to pay?

Again, some bidding war.

For all his faults, Morey was able to recognize something that others missed. Analytics indisputably helped him reach this conclusion. Building a team consists of essentially the same principles used decades ago with tweaks as appropriate given the rule changes. Widening the breadth of information available sharpens the ability to realize those principles in a team's roster. Yet still the unsophisticated nonsense of jurassic-era analytics bashers continues to be spewed far and wide from luminaries like Charles Barkley and Byron Scott. I hope their company is worthwhile because their basketball minds are not.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't understand this thread. Are people trying to say that James Harden wasn't a superstar type player when the Rockets traded for him?

Oh no, people are trying to say only Morey's calculator could possibly have recognized his superstar potential. This despite him just winning the 6th man of the year for a Finals team and getting traded because he was going to get a max contract.

Its like us trading for Kawhi Leonard and him blowing up and PDA saying "See! See the power of my data points!"

Bunch of self serving nonsense.

 

[Bricklayer]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wireta...er-Than-Numbers-But-Numbers-See-All-The-Games

 

[Prince_XY]

Most indications are that the final straw was when Malone came out publicly and made a comment about his lack of belief in analytics, saying "analytics doesn't win basketball games. Defense wins games."

Let me borrow your post VF21, because I can't find the exact article where this was written.

Sometimes people are so arrogant they think they are so intelligent up there (like Barkley) they don't need available solid data to help them. I am so glad that this article was written to show how important it is for most successful NBA organizations (and how important for the team's FO and very good coaches like Pop to work together) in using analytics as an integral part of the system in running their teams. IMO, only the dumbest and laziest coach/FO would think otherwise and they deserve to be fired for being so stubbornly naive and backward thinking.

It is year 2015 now. We all know analytics help in basketball. It is no different than those researches that helped improved every facet of life. If you don't believe in it, then maybe you still believe the world is flat.

I don't get it.

Why be anti-analytics?

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

I don't understand this thread. Are people trying to say that James Harden wasn't a superstar type player when the Rockets traded for him?

Well, besides the meatheads plugging their ears screaming "la la la I can't hear you" apparently thinking it was obvious that Harden was going to be a superstar worth the max, there was significant debate what Harden was actually going to do on a new team. Morey's analytics told him he's a superstar so he went after Harden with every asset he had. But the point isn't even that analytics > eye test or vice versa. The point is that analytics help make better informed decisions. And the vast majority of the league agrees, the leftovers being the least successful teams in the league. Them and some brainless troglodytes lurking around the web.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...talent-sorting-fact-fiction-in-nba-stats-wave

This article in the OP destroys all of the typical straw man arguments used against analytics.

But the public debate has become wildly distorted, because some loud skeptics—Barkley, Brown and countless cranky old newspaper columnists—have promoted a thoroughly warped image of the advanced stats movement, with criticism built on a foundation of straw men, misperceptions and mythology.

No one working in NBA analytics—at least no one I've ever met—claims to have all the answers. None of them believe in building a roster based on stats alone. None of them discount the value of scouting, or coaching, or chemistry. In fact, they are generally emphatic that analytics is just one tool—albeit a crucial one—in the effort to build a winning team.

And, contrary to what Barkley may believe, analytics have influenced some of the NBA's best franchises in recent years.

The Dallas Mavericks used advanced stats to make a key lineup change in the 2011 NBA Finals, when they defeated the Miami Heat. Miami, under Riley and coach Erik Spoelstra, consults the numbers regularly. Boston Celtics president Danny Ainge was an early adopter (and the one who hired Morey). The San Antonio Spurs have been quietly incorporating analytics for years.

Morey: If I were to say "former player decision-makers, all they do is talk to a guy and make decisions," that's idiotic. But that's not what they do. Even great former player GMs like Danny Ainge, they watch a lot of games, they talk to players, they look at data, they talk to coaches. Everyone is always factoring in every piece of data, whether that's the games they've watched or the coaches they've talked to, or the drill work they've put them through in a workout....All analytics is, is how do you best take that data and make the best decision for increasing your odds of winning a championship in the NBA?