Roland Beech gone - Luke Bornn hired
- Thread starter Larry David
- Start date
It all sounds so very vague. Like one very large black box, that miraculously tells one that Chris Paul is a better defensive player than James Harden. Who would have known? As far as the "tells" of basketball players, one would think that there was no such thing as scouting departments before there was such a thing as "analytics." Or is analytics just another fancy term for scouting with some computer data thrown in? Whatever. As anybody who has spent any time with data and computers, it's all garbage in garbage out, or gold in, gold out, depending on the judgment of those who do it.
Really not sure what your point is. Do you think analytics are worthless? Are you for analytics, or against analytics? Or are you just against anything the Kings do? Your a smart guy Kingster, and I think you know that analytics are not the same as a scouting dept, although, the analytics dept may come up with the same results as the scouting dept. As I said in a previous post. He plans to build an analytics dept very similar to the one used by the Spurs. Not sure, but I think the Spurs have been a tad successful of late, so maybe that's not such a bad idea.
I just thinks it's over-hyped. I think its very common to have an abundance of data; very uncommon to have individuals with excellent judgment throughout the organization. Given that there is a finite amount of resources in any organization, if I were an owner I would spend much more time and money on how to evaluate people for the key positions of judgment in the organization than on fancy data analytic tools for evaluating players. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that data analytics is used to rationalize the poor judgment of those in positions of responsibility: But, but, but, the computer said X, and I said X, how can I be blamed if it turned out Y?
So, you want Vivek to hire people to evaluate people, that are going to be making judgement's on evaluations? Having run a business, you hire the best people you can find, and then, you don't look over their shoulder. You get out of the way, and let them do their job. If you don't get the results you want, then you fire them. It's not complicated. Analytics is just another tool you use to evaluate. But just as important is your scouting dept, which does more than scout college teams. It also scouts your next opponent, and the analytics dept tries to add important info on each player on the opposition team. Where does he like to shoot from. Is he more inclined to go left or right. Is he a poor shooter off the dribble but a good shooter when squared up. Does he have a quick release. Analytics is a great tool, if you use the info.
"You hire the best people you can find..." That statement is self-evident. But how do you determine "the best people"? Where are the reams and reams of articles and media conversation on THAT subject, which is far, far more important than the arrangement of data? If you want to go in deep, which apparently is what analytics does, then go in deep in THAT subject. And as far as your description of scouting, no duhh. Scouting looks at all of the above, and has for decades. That's my point. Does analytics (computer software) make scouting more refined, a tad more intelligible in some cases? Sure, it's a marginal improvement to the scouting that's been around for decades. But the volume of talk pertaining to analytics far outdistances the results, imo. Just the volume of verbiage in the link above comparing CP3's and Harden's defensive prowess speaks to that.
Some of the best teams in the NBA, also have some of the best analytics dept's. So maybe there's just a wee chance that it helps. You don't like analytics? Fine, I could care less. To my mind, anything the Kings can do to improve their lot in life, I'm all for it. Personally, I'm more of an eye ball test guy, but I've nothing against analytics, as long as that info is combined with eye's on info. The more information you have, the better decision you can make.
Now, how do your determine the best people to hire. Well first you compile a list of the people that fit what your looking for. Then you go and look at the history of each of them. If they were in a winning front office, you start calling people in that front office and see how much influence they had in the decision making, and the same holds true if they were a part of a losing franchise. Finally, you interview them. You ask them what their approach to building a franchise is, and see if it comes close to your vision. You ask them about their mistakes and their successes. In the end, you pick the person that best fits what your trying to do, and hopefully the person that your comfortable with. You want smart talented people that you can trust. That last part can be the tricky one. Smart talented people also tend to be ambitious.
Now, how do your determine the best people to hire. Well first you compile a list of the people that fit what your looking for. Then you go and look at the history of each of them. If they were in a winning front office, you start calling people in that front office and see how much influence they had in the decision making, and the same holds true if they were a part of a losing franchise. Finally, you interview them. You ask them what their approach to building a franchise is, and see if it comes close to your vision. You ask them about their mistakes and their successes. In the end, you pick the person that best fits what your trying to do, and hopefully the person that your comfortable with. You want smart talented people that you can trust. That last part can be the tricky one. Smart talented people also tend to be ambitious.
Coach Joerger was on with Carmichael Dave and crew this morning and was asked about analytics. He said he's totally into it and feels it helps a lot, but that it is 1 tool among many that should be used. He also mentioned that too much of it can be suffocating if it's not part of balance (I'm paraphrasing). His comments suggest a really healthy respect for the use of analytics while understanding that there can be too much.
As an aside I really enjoy listening to coach Joerger. I don't know if that makes him a good coach or not, but he seems like a really grounded guy who loves basketball but doesn't take himself too seriously. I like him more and more all the time.
As an aside I really enjoy listening to coach Joerger. I don't know if that makes him a good coach or not, but he seems like a really grounded guy who loves basketball but doesn't take himself too seriously. I like him more and more all the time.
I agree with him totally. It's a tool, but one of many. And in my opinion, you can't have too many tools at your disposal. I happen to think that Joerger is the best coach since Adelman. Sorry Malone fans, and believe me, I liked Malone. I just happen to think that Joerger is a better overall coach whose able to adjust to his talent. There aren't many better coming out of a timeout when you need a basket. But I don't mean to make it a contest between Joerger and Malone. Both are fine coaches.
Where I might give the edge to Joerger over Adelman, is with coaching young players. Adelman did give Peja his shot, but in general, he prefered older more experienced players. But then a lot of head coaches do.
Where I might give the edge to Joerger over Adelman, is with coaching young players. Adelman did give Peja his shot, but in general, he prefered older more experienced players. But then a lot of head coaches do.