Moneyball? (split)

[Livinthedream]

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but this organization is about to play Money Ball with a focus on analytics and value. We want to go with our gut instinct or the eyeball test and say Reke shouldn't have been let go. Whatever new valuation method Vivek and PDA have going on tells them that paying $11 mil for Reke was too much. NBA 3.0. I have a feeling we are not going to agree with a lot of the roster moves coming up, as it won't be a traditional valuation method. We were complaining that Petrie and the previous FO was too old school and we need analytics. Now we're complaining that we have it.

As others have said, this team is going to be built with trades and drafts. When you win and get in the playoffs, then you can begin attracting free agents. The only other option is to overpay for free agents, but that just creates a different issue that we will complain about as well. I think we want to have it both ways and can't. I put myself in that group. I want to get the free agents that we target, but I also want the FO to be smart with their money and make moves for players that fit with the team. Reality is setting in that we can't have all those things at once.

 

[jalfa]

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but this organization is about to play Money Ball with a focus on analytics and value. We want to go with our gut instinct or the eyeball test and say Reke shouldn't have been let go. Whatever new valuation method Vivek and PDA have going on tells them that paying $11 mil for Reke was too much. NBA 3.0. I have a feeling we are not going to agree with a lot of the roster moves coming up, as it won't be a traditional valuation method. We were complaining that Petrie and the previous FO was too old school and we need analytics. Now we're complaining that we have it.

As others have said, this team is going to be built with trades and drafts. When you win and get in the playoffs, then you can begin attracting free agents. The only other option is to overpay for free agents, but that just creates a different issue that we will complain about as well. I think we want to have it both ways and can't. I put myself in that group. I want to get the free agents that we target, but I also want the FO to be smart with their money and make moves for players that fit with the team. Reality is setting in that we can't have all those things at once.

my thing with the guys we've added so far (excluding McLemore, because I don't know a thing about college basketball) is that I do see how they make sense from an advanced stats POV. I see Vasquez' insane assist percentage, I see the efficiency numbers Landry has put up. what I also see, though, is that the context in which they've put them up is completely different from that of this team and that it'll be really difficult to achieve similiar results here.

I've detailed elsewhere why I think that Vasquez numbers are to a large degree a product of the system he was in and why Landry cannot be anything but an awkward fit as long as Cuz is around. context matters, much more so than numbers and all good advanced stats guys will tell you exactly that. I'm becoming increasingly weary that we've actually managed to grab one of the guys that doesn't see things this way. I hope I'm wrong, I really do and there's still a lot of offseason left for this to turn around. looking closely at our cap situation and the apparent availability of some really good fits has gotten me off the ledge somewhat. still, this hasn't been looking good so far.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but this organization is about to play Money Ball with a focus on analytics and value. We want to go with our gut instinct or the eyeball test and say Reke shouldn't have been let go. Whatever new valuation method Vivek and PDA have going on tells them that paying $11 mil for Reke was too much. NBA 3.0. I have a feeling we are not going to agree with a lot of the roster moves coming up, as it won't be a traditional valuation method. We were complaining that Petrie and the previous FO was too old school and we need analytics. Now we're complaining that we have it.

As others have said, this team is going to be built with trades and drafts. When you win and get in the playoffs, then you can begin attracting free agents. The only other option is to overpay for free agents, but that just creates a different issue that we will complain about as well. I think we want to have it both ways and can't. I put myself in that group. I want to get the free agents that we target, but I also want the FO to be smart with their money and make moves for players that fit with the team. Reality is setting in that we can't have all those things at once.

I both fear and hope you are right. I HOPE that some folks in the techno-brain trust HAVE worked out an incredibly advanced linear modeling program that IS light years ahead of the old saber-metrics. But historically there hasa been a HUGE problem with trying to apply that kind or static analytic to the infinitely more dynamic sports of basket ball or hockey and money ball has not even proven to be particularly useful in football a less dynamic sport.

 

[VF21]

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but this organization is about to play Money Ball with a focus on analytics and value. We want to go with our gut instinct or the eyeball test and say Reke shouldn't have been let go. Whatever new valuation method Vivek and PDA have going on tells them that paying $11 mil for Reke was too much. NBA 3.0. I have a feeling we are not going to agree with a lot of the roster moves coming up, as it won't be a traditional valuation method. We were complaining that Petrie and the previous FO was too old school and we need analytics. Now we're complaining that we have it.

As others have said, this team is going to be built with trades and drafts. When you win and get in the playoffs, then you can begin attracting free agents. The only other option is to overpay for free agents, but that just creates a different issue that we will complain about as well. I think we want to have it both ways and can't. I put myself in that group. I want to get the free agents that we target, but I also want the FO to be smart with their money and make moves for players that fit with the team. Reality is setting in that we can't have all those things at once.

Very valid points. We wanted change and we got it. Now we at least should be willing to see what NBA 3.0 is going to be about before we march on the castle with our torches and pitchforks. I know it doesn't appease those who are so upset about the loss of Evans and subsequent acquisition of Vasquez and Landry, but it's still true that it's only the first week of July. We've been used to seeing Petrie do one or two things at the most and stop. I'm pretty sure that's not gonna happen under PDA and Vivek.

 

[hrdboild]

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but this organization is about to play Money Ball with a focus on analytics and value. We want to go with our gut instinct or the eyeball test and say Reke shouldn't have been let go. Whatever new valuation method Vivek and PDA have going on tells them that paying $11 mil for Reke was too much. NBA 3.0. I have a feeling we are not going to agree with a lot of the roster moves coming up, as it won't be a traditional valuation method. We were complaining that Petrie and the previous FO was too old school and we need analytics. Now we're complaining that we have it.

Again, you're basically saying shut up and let this guy do his job because he's smarter than me. That remains to be seen. Agree to disagree. I've been an A's fan longer than I've been a Kings fan so I'm quite familiar with Moneyball and I'll tell you what, Beane has built his team by acquiring young talent, developing it, and trading it for better talent, by not committing large chunks of salary to veteran players when you can fill the position with cost-controlled younger ones, and by valuing defense (in this case pitching) and productive hitters over star power. But basketball is a completely different game. There aren't thousands of professional minor leaguers to draw your analysis from -- there are maybe 30 guys drafted every year who will become NBA players and 30 teams in the league. The rules of the game are totally different. But I still think defense is the cornerstone you have to build on. You can win with inferior talent if you have a system which maximizes their individual abilities and you have a defensive backbone which lowers the threshold at which the offense must succeed to win. Vasquez and Landry are not at all in keeping with that philosophy.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Now we at least should be willing to see what NBA 3.0 is going to be about before we march on the castle with our torches and pitchforks.

I'm still waiting for the "3" in my NBA 3.0.

 

[VF21]

I'm still waiting for the "3" in my NBA 3.0.

I see what you did there.

 

[Livinthedream]

Again, you're basically saying shut up and let this guy do his job because he's smarter than me. That remains to be seen. Agree to disagree. I've been an A's fan longer than I've been a Kings fan so I'm quite familiar with Moneyball and I'll tell you what, Beane has built his team by acquiring young talent, developing it, and trading it for better talent, by not committing large chunks of salary to veteran players when you can fill the position with cost-controlled younger ones, and by valuing defense (in this case pitching) and productive hitters over star power. But basketball is a completely different game. There aren't thousands of professional minor leaguers to draw your analysis from -- there are maybe 30 guys drafted every year who will become NBA players and 30 teams in the league. The rules of the game are totally different. But I still think defense is the cornerstone you have to build on. You can win with inferior talent if you have a system which maximizes their individual abilities and you have a defensive backbone which lowers the threshold at which the offense must succeed to win. Vasquez and Landry are not at all in keeping with that philosophy.

I didn't say anyone was smarter than anybody. I'm saying the approach is supposed to be new, maybe even revolutionary, so of course we won't automatically see where they are coming from. We don't know what's in Vivek's secret sauce. Only thing I can tell from these last few days is that they believe it requires a complete overhaul of the team from top to bottom, which won't happen in one off season.

I agree you have to have defense to win. But I also think that finding true offensive talent is harder than finding defenders or teaching team defense. This is why the premiums are paid on the offensive side of the ball. Once you get past your superstars who play both sides of the ball, the next most coveted skill is offense. They get the big dollars. Team defense can be taught, but offensive talent, be it scoring, passing or shooting, is hard to find. Golden State is a prime example of a team that has offensive talent from top to bottom and were taught to be a better defensive team. Flip it around and take a look at Indiana. Great defensive team, but got beat by Miami because they struggled too many times to put the ball in the hole when it counted. Not enough offensive talent.

 

[Section 101]

I'm still waiting for the "3" in my NBA 3.0.

Unfortunately, the "3"s out there aren't all that great. I foresee more 3 guard rotations in the near future.

Just looked at some of the FA and RFA next year and he crop of "3"'s is much better.

 

[Bricklayer]

Unfortunately, the "3"s out there aren't all that great. I foresee more 3 guard rotations in the near future.

Just looked at some of the FA and RFA next year and he crop of "3"'s is much better.

I don't think we can get it done via free agency. And I don't think we're going to be real players next year with Cousins' max and then something nobody has noted: unless you just gave Reke away for a 1yr rental, we're going to have to pay Vasquez next year. IT and Patterson if they are still here won't be bargains anymore either.

I also don't think its a hole you can allow to fester any longer though. And with now so many duplicative pieces stacked up, that means a trade.

 

[Uk kings fan]

I am yet to know moneyball to work with anything other then baseball (a game built on stats)

I know in Soccer it has failed horribly and the same with rugby and cricket.... can anyone tell me if it has worked in Hockey, American football or Basketball??

 

[Darth Divac]

Again, you're basically saying shut up and let this guy do his job because he's smarter than me. That remains to be seen. Agree to disagree. I've been an A's fan longer than I've been a Kings fan so I'm quite familiar with Moneyball and I'll tell you what, Beane has built his team by acquiring young talent, developing it, and trading it for better talent, by not committing large chunks of salary to veteran players when you can fill the position with cost-controlled younger ones, and by valuing defense (in this case pitching) and productive hitters over star power. But basketball is a completely different game. There aren't thousands of professional minor leaguers to draw your analysis from -- there are maybe 30 guys drafted every year who will become NBA players and 30 teams in the league. The rules of the game are totally different. But I still think defense is the cornerstone you have to build on. You can win with inferior talent if you have a system which maximizes their individual abilities and you have a defensive backbone which lowers the threshold at which the offense must succeed to win. Vasquez and Landry are not at all in keeping with that philosophy.

Agreed. It's always defense first. Look at the Grizzlies; their offense is impossible to watch, but their defense is so historically excellent that they made it to the conference finals. "Grit and Grind". Offense is good. It is necessary, and it CAN win you games. But your first priority in building a team should be to establish an identity on the less glamorous side of the court.

 

[Darth Divac]

I am yet to know moneyball to work with anything other then baseball (a game built on stats)

I know in Soccer it has failed horribly and the same with rugby and cricket.... can anyone tell me if it has worked in Hockey, American football or Basketball??

I have yet to establish how the game cricket makes any sort of sense whatsoever.

As for those other sports, yes, it is beginning to have an impact in football. Hockey doesn't have an sort of metric AT ALL. As for Basketball, you should look at Grizzlies, Memphis or Pacers, Indiana.

 

[Uk kings fan]

I have yet to establish how the game cricket makes any sort of sense whatsoever.

As for those other sports, yes, it is beginning to have an impact in football. Hockey doesn't have an sort of metric AT ALL. As for Basketball, you should look at Grizzlies, Memphis or Pacers, Indiana.

i could explain it to you sometime if you want

Ah thanks, it was a genuin question about moneyball not really trying to prove a point, to what extent do the NBA teams use analyitics??

 

[Darth Divac]

i could explain it to you sometime if you want

Ah thanks, it was a genuin question about moneyball not really trying to prove a point, to what extent do the NBA teams use analyitics??

Well, NBA teams usually rely on it for a second opinion, er, so to speak. The primary method of determining whether or not a player is someone you want to acquire is and always will be the eye test-traditional stats, playing style, reputation. However, often when a team has second thoughts about someone, they reach out to analytics. For instance, say I was going to acquire Evan Turner. His stat line (14 PPG, 6 APG, 8 RPG) looks awesome, until you turn to stats such as estimated wins added, calculated using a player's PER and defensive rating ( Turner scores 2.4), player efficiency rating, or PER, which sums up all stats and metrics into a single player rating using an advanced equation created by John Hollinger (which Turner scores 12.16, to a 15 league average PER). Things like that make teams pursue guys like Andray Blatche (21 PER, 9 EWA) or Paul Millsap (20 PER, 10 EWA).

 

[Bricklayer]

I am yet to know moneyball to work with anything other then baseball (a game built on stats)

I know in Soccer it has failed horribly and the same with rugby and cricket.... can anyone tell me if it has worked in Hockey, American football or Basketball??

Short answer: no.

 

[hrdboild]

Assuming the end goal is to win championships, I think an argument could be made that it hasn't really worked in baseball either. And this is coming from a lifelong A's fan.

 

[sidney]

Short answer: no.

What about Houston? Why does Morey, the leader in this moneyball movement for the NBA, go out and sign Dalembert, Asik, and then Howard in consecutive seasons? It's nice to rip on these advanced stat guys except the biggest one is grabbing the type of players we avoid like the plague. I'm not sure if the method itself is bad or our side is just doing it wrong.

 

[Bricklayer]

What about Houston? Why does Morey, the leader in this moneyball movement for the NBA, go out and sign Dalembert, Asik, and then Howard in consecutive seasons? It's nice to rip on these advanced stat guys except the biggest one is grabbing the type of players we avoid like the plague. I'm not sure if the method itself is bad or our side is just doing it wrong.

Maybe the closest, but I don't think Morey is actually playing moneyball. Kind of the opposite now. He's done a great job of playing superstar ball. It was audacious and sudden, I remember when he turned that corner, said all the wanted to do was accumulate assets to get players that could be stars. And he did just that. remember last summer when he was selling off the whole tam for picks trying to move up high enough in the lottery to get a high lotto star? then when that didn't work out he used all those piles of young assets to get Harden. He wasn't trying to win with underappreciated assets. he was trying to get his hands on the classic superstar assets everybody covets, because in the end that's how you win in the NBA, not by trying to sneak on through with a backup SF with a high TS%.

I guess you could call Asik moneybally, although really I think that was just a case of identifying a young big with breakout potential. That's gone on for a long time. But dropping that contract on him was audacious, so hey.

 

[HndsmCelt]

What about Houston? Why does Morey, the leader in this moneyball movement for the NBA, go out and sign Dalembert, Asik, and then Howard in consecutive seasons? It's nice to rip on these advanced stat guys except the biggest one is grabbing the type of players we avoid like the plague. I'm not sure if the method itself is bad or our side is just doing it wrong.

What Morey is doing is NOT "Money ball" if by money ball you mean applying sabermetrics on a cost/benefit basis to make hire/fire decisions in order to get the most bang for your buck. What Morey appears to be doing is using advanced stats to find undervalued role players that he then either keeps or uses to trade up. In his starting line up you have Lin and now Howard on monster contracts that can hardly be justified in a Sabermetric format. And paying big for Harden only to change his context was also a risk. Now I am NOT saying that these are bad decisions, or that Houston is not now a contender, but it would be a mistake to credit the whole process to advanced stats. They are ONE tool used to build that team, not the Holy Grail.

 

[uolj]

I am yet to know moneyball to work with anything other then baseball (a game built on stats)

I know in Soccer it has failed horribly and the same with rugby and cricket.... can anyone tell me if it has worked in Hockey, American football or Basketball??

It's working in American football and in basketball, don't know about hockey. The teams who are winning in the NBA use moneyball style thinking right now. Same with the NFL (see Patriots and 49ers as examples).

It's obviously easier in baseball, with more games and more discrete events. Top hitters get 500+ at bats every season, teams get 162 games, etc.

In basketball there are 82 games, which makes it easier than in american football, but because the play is continuous and the play of all five guys on each team affects the outcome of the possession nearly every time, it is harder to get more detail. But that doesn't mean it doesn't provide useful information. Teams are getting plenty of data and using it to improve.

Moneyball is about finding where the value is, finding out what is overrated and what is underrated in the league and exploiting those pieces of information. Daryl Morey is absolutely playing Moneyball. He is the poster boy for analytics in the NBA and he hasn't won anything yet, but his Moneyball thinking led him to understand that there's value in amassing assets to try to get superstars (the people who misunderstand Moneyball are the ones who think he's not doing Moneyball). We'll see how Howard and Harden do, but the salary cap and maximum contracts make superstars worth more than their contracts. Exploiting that is exactly what Moneyball is about.

Similarly, the Patriots have been using Moneyball style thinking for years, and it has kept them on top. Over the last few years, the 49ers have done the same (one of their top guys is a regular Sloan Sports and Analytics Conference attendee/presenter) and because of that they are already at the top of the NFL and poised to stay there.

Some people think Moneyball or analytics is about only looking at numbers, but of course that's not what Beane did (nor what he continues to do) and it is not what current analytics guys do and hopefully it's not what Ranadive wants to do.

Assuming the end goal is to win championships, I think an argument could be made that it hasn't really worked in baseball either. And this is coming from a lifelong A's fan.

Theo Epstein says, "huh?" Brian Sabean says, "wha?"

 

[hrdboild]

It's working in American football and in basketball, don't know about hockey. The teams who are winning in the NBA use moneyball style thinking right now. Same with the NFL (see Patriots and 49ers as examples).

It's obviously easier in baseball, with more games and more discrete events. Top hitters get 500+ at bats every season, teams get 162 games, etc.

In basketball there are 82 games, which makes it easier than in american football, but because the play is continuous and the play of all five guys on each team affects the outcome of the possession nearly every time, it is harder to get more detail. But that doesn't mean it doesn't provide useful information. Teams are getting plenty of data and using it to improve.

Moneyball is about finding where the value is, finding out what is overrated and what is underrated in the league and exploiting those pieces of information. Daryl Morey is absolutely playing Moneyball. He is the poster boy for analytics in the NBA and he hasn't won anything yet, but his Moneyball thinking led him to understand that there's value in amassing assets to try to get superstars (the people who misunderstand Moneyball are the ones who think he's not doing Moneyball). We'll see how Howard and Harden do, but the salary cap and maximum contracts make superstars worth more than their contracts. Exploiting that is exactly what Moneyball is about.

Similarly, the Patriots have been using Moneyball style thinking for years, and it has kept them on top. Over the last few years, the 49ers have done the same (one of their top guys is a regular Sloan Sports and Analytics Conference attendee/presenter) and because of that they are already at the top of the NFL and poised to stay there.

Some people think Moneyball or analytics is about only looking at numbers, but of course that's not what Beane did (nor what he continues to do) and it is not what current analytics guys do and hopefully it's not what Ranadive wants to do.



Theo Epstein says, "huh?" Brian Sabean says, "wha?"

You're talking about teams with top 5 payrolls in the league. Does a greater emphasis on utilizing every resource available help to give you a competitive edge? Of course. But you can't say these guys won with moneyball. $100 - $150 million buys you a lot of mistakes. Both of those teams are also outspending the majority of their competition. I could talk for days about why the A's are competitive, and maybe this is the season that they actually do win it all, but so far the only thing that's been proven is you can win a lot more games by expanding your criteria for how you judge talent and carefully analyzing market dynamics. To actually win a championship you still need star players in any sport and star players demand big paychecks. No amount of statistical analysis is going to allow teams like Oakland to sign Miguel Cabrera or Albert Pujols.

 

[Kevin's Good Feet]

You can't confuse Moneyball with the use of advanced statistics or analytics. The later is very important. Miami and San Antonio have them. Dallas too I believe. Superstars are and will always be the most important thing in winning a championship in basketball, but you still need to put together a good team around them.

And yeah, chasing superstars isn't the same as dropping Moneyball. True superstars have a huge impact on the game that is reflected in advanced stats.

 

[uolj]

You're talking about teams with top 5 payrolls in the league. Does a greater emphasis on utilizing every resource available help to give you a competitive edge? Of course. But you can't say these guys won with moneyball. $100 - $150 million buys you a lot of mistakes. Both of those teams are also outspending the majority of their competition. I could talk for days about why the A's are competitive, and maybe this is the season that they actually do win it all, but so far the only thing that's been proven is you can win a lot more games by expanding your criteria for how you judge talent and carefully analyzing market dynamics. To actually win a championship you still need star players in any sport and star players demand big paychecks. No amount of statistical analysis is going to allow teams like Oakland to sign Miguel Cabrera or Albert Pujols.

Sorry, this isn't computing for me. A poor team does it and it only gets them to the playoffs but not a title because they are competing against teams with enormously higher salaries. A rich team (or two) does it and they end up winning titles after failing for decades.

How does that mean it doesn't work? The A's and Rays do it, and somehow compete with teams with much larger payrolls. The Giants and Red Sox had large payrolls, but didn't start winning until they moved into using analytics more (the Red Sox specifically). At this point so many teams use analytics that no one team's success would prove their worth, but the fact that almost everybody is doing it helps to proves their worth by itself.

 

[hrdboild]

Sorry, this isn't computing for me. A poor team does it and it only gets them to the playoffs but not a title because they are competing against teams with enormously higher salaries. A rich team (or two) does it and they end up winning titles after failing for decades.

How does that mean it doesn't work? The A's and Rays do it, and somehow compete with teams with much larger payrolls. The Giants and Red Sox had large payrolls, but didn't start winning until they moved into using analytics more (the Red Sox specifically). At this point so many teams use analytics that no one team's success would prove their worth, but the fact that almost everybody is doing it helps to proves their worth by itself.

You're only reading half of what I'm saying. Moneyball, as defined in the book, was effective as a strategy up until it was adopted by the rest of the league. Once teams that can outspend you clue into what you're doing and adopt the same practices, you no longer have a competitive edge do you? As Kevin's Good Feet just said, statistical analysis alone is not moneyball. It's about doing more with less by outsmarting your competition. And things like .OBP and WAR are one way to do that. But when the Red Sox are looking at the same spreadsheet that you're looking at and they have 3 times the budget that you do, you're out of luck. But if Oakland simply continued to do what everyone else was doing they wouldn't have won either. It's kept them competitive, that I agree with. That organization's ability to consistently find and develop top level pitching talent has also kept them competitive. So maybe the undervalued commodity is actually organizational development staff? (shh, don't tell anyone!) But the success of teams like the Red Sox and Giants who are now using advanced statistical analysis to guide their decisions does not prove that moneyball is a success. As you said yourself, everyone has adopted those principles now. The market adjusted. The thing to look at is what's coming next, not what already happened.

And the Rays were not built on moneyball they were built on being so bad for so long that they compiled an impressive group of young talent on cost-controlled rookie salaries and extensions. All of those guys then have to be paid. We'll see what happens when arbitration runs out. If they're still competitive in that division in 10 years then you might have a case.

 

[uolj]

You're only reading half of what I'm saying. Moneyball, as defined in the book, was effective as a strategy up until it was adopted by the rest of the league. Once teams that can outspend you clue into what you're doing and adopt the same practices, you no longer have a competitive edge do you? As Kevin's Good Feet just said, statistical analysis alone is not moneyball. It's about doing more with less by outsmarting your competition. And things like .OBP and WAR are one way to do that. But when the Red Sox are looking at the same spreadsheet that you're looking at and they have 3 times the budget that you do, you're out of luck. But if Oakland simply continued to do what everyone else was doing they wouldn't have won either. It's kept them competitive, that I agree with. That organization's ability to consistently find and develop top level pitching talent has also kept them competitive. So maybe the undervalued commodity is actually organizational development staff? (shh, don't tell anyone!) But the success of teams like the Red Sox and Giants who are now using advanced statistical analysis to guide their decisions does not prove that moneyball is a success. As you said yourself, everyone has adopted those principles now. The market adjusted. The thing to look at is what's coming next, not what already happened.

And the Rays were not built on moneyball they were built on being so bad for so long that they compiled an impressive group of young talent on cost-controlled rookie salaries and extensions. All of those guys then have to be paid. We'll see what happens when arbitration runs out. If they're still competitive in that division in 10 years then you might have a case.

Again, I'm confused. I generally agree with everything you're saying, I just don't see how that does anything but show that Moneyball has worked in baseball.

Yes, Moneyball wasn't specifically about sabermetrics, it was about market inefficiencies. Teams like the A's can (and do) still use Moneyball techniques to get an edge on the competition. They can and do use sabermetrics as a tool to accomplish that goal.

I guess I just don't understand the criteria for success if baseball can't be considered a success. If the criteria for success is a team with limited payroll exceeding the expected value of that payroll after using Moneyball techniques, then the A's are obviously the example. If the criteria is using Moneyball techniques to actually win a World Series, then the Red Sox are obviously the example (they won only after bringing in Epstein and Bill James). If success requires staying power, then the adoption of these techniques by so many teams around the league is evidence of that success. What more could have been done?

 

[uolj]

Getting back to basketball, the question is whether sabermetrics/analytics/big data techniques that we expect Ranadivé and possibly D'Alessandro to use with the Kings are good, bad, or neither. It seems people want to know if it is just a fad that lacked substance, or if those things are legitimate tools that help teams succeed. I think the evidence is that they are the latter. Certainly in baseball, where they are now a significant part of how many teams operate, and where the most notable teams to employ those techniques have found success. Also to a lesser degree in american football, where on-field decisions still lag behind what the stats advise but front office moves seem to be based on analytics and Moneyball thinking more and more, and the teams that are well-known for heavy usage of analytics are also the teams that seem to be perennial contenders lately.

It's certainly possibly to use sabermetrics badly. Ranadivé commented on a potential market inefficiency before he purchased the Kings when he talked about how bench players play a significant portion of the game but make significantly less money relative to starters. Now, that may be true, but there's a lot more to it than that, and the question is what he and the team will do with that information. Will they overpay backups and in doing so give up potential stars who make more? I'm not sure that would be wise, but if that was their justification it isn't a knock on analytics it's a knock on using the data poorly.

For those concerned that heavy use of analytics will cause the team to fail in its quest to be a championship contender, I don't think that's the right concern to have. The concern should be whether the front office team can use the information they have correctly. The good teams do that, the bad teams don't or don't even try. We'll have to see how this Kings regime ends up.

 

[hrdboild]

Again, I'm confused. I generally agree with everything you're saying, I just don't see how that does anything but show that Moneyball has worked in baseball.

Yes, Moneyball wasn't specifically about sabermetrics, it was about market inefficiencies. Teams like the A's can (and do) still use Moneyball techniques to get an edge on the competition. They can and do use sabermetrics as a tool to accomplish that goal.

I guess I just don't understand the criteria for success if baseball can't be considered a success. If the criteria for success is a team with limited payroll exceeding the expected value of that payroll after using Moneyball techniques, then the A's are obviously the example. If the criteria is using Moneyball techniques to actually win a World Series, then the Red Sox are obviously the example (they won only after bringing in Epstein and Bill James). If success requires staying power, then the adoption of these techniques by so many teams around the league is evidence of that success. What more could have been done?

Reading over this again, I think the only point we really disagree on is the definition of what moneyball is. My point was more that moneyball was primarily concerned with finding ways to win in a small market and one way that was done was with advanced statistical analysis. And that's become a kindof shorthand that people use, referring to statistical analysis as moneyball. But the thesis of the book was that a team can still win without spending money by identifying and exploiting market inefficiencies and that hasn't really proven true. The big spenders are still the ones winning. Not all the time, it's still entirely possible to blow a lot of money without getting the expected wins, but at the playoff level when you're down to the elite teams, the benefits gained by maximizing your resources isn't enough to overcome the spending gap. Everything has to break right for the A's to win. Other teams have the luxury of winning despite their redundant pieces and overpaid poor performers.

That said, statistical analysis has been a huge success in baseball and that's why it's filtering out now into the other sports leagues. And it is common sense that utilizing more tools to make your decisions can give you an advantage, provided you know how to use them.

 

[Bricklayer]

That said, statistical analysis has been a huge success in baseball and that's why it's filtering out now into the other sports leagues. And it is common sense that utilizing more tools to make your decisions can give you an advantage, provided you know how to use them.

The difficulty of course is that stats are far more definintive in baseball than they are in any other major sport. Its not a question of having more stats. Its a question of the entire game being highly compartmentalized so that it can be summed up simply and mathematically.

 

[funkykingston]

It's certainly possibly to use sabermetrics badly. Ranadivé commented on a potential market inefficiency before he purchased the Kings when he talked about how bench players play a significant portion of the game but make significantly less money relative to starters. Now, that may be true, but there's a lot more to it than that, and the question is what he and the team will do with that information. Will they overpay backups and in doing so give up potential stars who make more? I'm not sure that would be wise, but if that was their justification it isn't a knock on analytics it's a knock on using the data poorly.

Yeah, I remember cringing at that comment. The NBA is a superstar driven league. Period.

I think there will be a learning curve with this new ownership & front office. Hopefully, they adapt quickly.