Let's just say, because of the frustration of having this tome get a hundred times the publicity BoP and Hollinger's Pro/Fors have ever gotten in a few scant weeks, I'll be giving it the Joe Morgan treatment (not touching it) until the end of the summer. Yeah, that "sentence" didn't make any sense, but any metric that details Allen Iverson (incredibly overrated as he is) as the 91st-best player on WSs alone in 2000-01 is not for me. I'm hoping I'm proved wrong, but it'll be a few months until I buy it.
I reset the net player wins to Rockets and minimum 500 minutes. Both Mutumbo and Hayes had positive ratings. Ryan Bowen had the worst Offensive and defensive ratings - no surprise. Juwan should retire and become a spokesperson for Rayban sunglasses.... Win shares - Juwan is 2nd but has almost twice as many minutes as Stro and 5x as many as Hayes - if WS ramps up with minutes played then SS and Hayes both pass Juwan. Mutumbo is also a keeper here as well. Ryan is the team towel boy again - PLEASE! Tmac was obviously playing hurt - so if he can heal and stay healthy - the Tmac of old is a winner! Which means the team is with him and Yao anchoring the rotation!
I don't need statistics to tell me that Hayes was an efficient player for the rockets. anyone who watched him and has knowledge of basketball can see that. the plus/minus statistics tell us that guys like garnett, mcgrady, kobe, and shaq are some of the most efficient players year by year. do I really need statistical analysis to figure that out? its interesting, but in the end this statistics only prove what you already see. its just a game, its not that difficult to understand. did rudy t use this analysis when he made the sam cassell pick, or picked horry when everyone wanted miner. edit: I apologize if I offended you with the word "geek". I'm not anti-progressive technics in scouting. I guess this can be used as a tool when you can't go and see every player. But other than that I just don't see it telling me something I don't already know. for example, ben wallace. of course ben wallace would help almost any team you put him on because rebounding is essential to a good team. anyone who rebounds at the pace he does is gonna add to wins. I just don't think its groundbreaking, its just a long drawn out way to confrim something you already know.
If that's the case, why does every team use statistical analysis and take it very seriously? Why is the trend on NBA teams towards using more and more sophisticaed statistical tools? Why does Dallas (ever read Cuban's blog?) rely HEAVILY on statistical analysis? You're well behind the curve if you think statistics can't tell you anything more than what can be simply observed by the eye. Yeah, you don't to record any stats to figure out that players like Shaq, Kobe, McGrady, LeBron are very good. That's clear simply from watching them. But how good are they? What's their relative value? How much better could they improve a team if you traded for them? What's their trade value? Is Kobe really any better than LeBron, and if so by how much? And accurately evaluating the value of role players who don't dominate the action is even more difficult. If you think teams don't look at stats when making trades, for instance, you're dead wrong.
but those are extreme examples. kobe's never gonna be traded for lebron. and in that sense I can see where this could be useful in determining the value of role players. for example, I bet that the role player who had the highest value to the rockets two seasons ago was bob sura. no maybe statistical analysis could have forseen that, I don't know.
Not really. Superstars do get traded (not necessarily for eachother). If a team is going to trade for Kevin Garnett, isn't it worthwhile for the teams involved to have an accurate picture of what they're really getting and how much they should be giving up? One bad move, and it could set a team back years and millions upon millions of dollars. It's worthwhile to utilize the most accurate methods available for evaluating players.
One could say that the (mis)reading of typical stats like points per game and such allowed the Magic into being duped into trading McGrady for Francis and Mobley -- guys who put up solid stats, but only because they played big minutes and were allowed to dominate the ball.
and one could also say mcgrady puts up big numbers and never has been out of the first round of the playoffs. in both cases these stats tell you nothing about a players will to get his team over the hump. it amazes me that people who are knowlegable about basketball act like the rockets got the steal of the century when they traded for mcgrady. what did mcgrady's stats tell you when his team only won 21 games.
The post had nothing to do with McGrady. It had everything to do with thinking that Mobley and Francis (combined) were equal to a 30 ppg guy. It has to do with guys like Francis and Mobley being overrated because they get to stay on the court for 40 minutes at a time. It had everything to do with Weisbrod wanting Mobley because he averaged 15.8 points per game in 03-04 -- overlooking the fact that he played over 40 minutes a night. When guys like Weisbrod look at basic stats like ppg and ignore the big picture, they get screwed. I mean, Chucky Atkins averaged exactly 15.8 points per 40 minutes this season.
but the post was about the mcgrady trade which if weisbrod doesn't trade mobley for nothing, orlando was on its way to being the same team it was with mcgrady, a mid 40 game winner. so orlando wasn't duped, they made a lateral move. and your post proves one other point that I forgot to make when trading superstars. whenever a superstar is traded, it has nothing to do with stats. as in mcgrady's case, it had to do with a disgruntled superstar who didn't want to be there any more. in shaq's case, it had to do with the franchise making a decision about where they wanted to put their money in the future.
furthermore to show you how these stats can be relevant and irrelevant at the sametime, the success of the mcgrady trade for each franchise depended on the moves made afterward. as stated earlier, trading mobley for nothing, and in turn the rockets grabbing bob sura, when everyone wanted brent barry, and then trading jim jackson for wesley. let's not forget how the rockets played before sura was healthy. something that the stats didn't show, the team was soft. and something that stats did show, it was a weak rebounding team till sura got there.
My post and thoughts had nothing to do with McGrady, or the moves the Rockets made, or T-Mac's potential. It has to do with general managers, who refuse to consider context and statistics that differ from the usual points-per-game crap, thinking it OK to take on players like Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley. These guys were exceedingly AVERAGE in 03-04, averaging around 16 points per 40 minutes. Weisbrod sees "16 points per game" thinks "pretty good," and makes a trade -- forgetting that, if a guard is on the court for 40 minutes, he damn better well score 16 points. Or, in Francis' case, you would think that if a point guard were on the court for 40 minutes, he damn better well dish around 7-8 assists, but Francis topped out at 6.2 that year. You can argue the trade all you want, I don't care. My point is about Weisbrod significantly overrating Mobley and Francis -- traded for ANYONE. As it was, he did trade McGrady for two guys who combined to score about as many points as he did, per 40 minutes, while taking up two positions and making more money.
now you're just being silly. in talking about the trade you have to consider what they gave in return to do the evaluation. if he trades francis for lue its not a bad a trade at all. so yes, macgrady does become part of the evaluation. I mean if your argument is that trading francis for anyone is a bad trade you are being ridiculous. you have to consider the return or the price in the equation, as much as you hate him, he does have value.
I don't hate anyone, so don't give me that 12-year old "hater" crap. I get enough of that in my inbox. My frustration with Weisbrod and "thinkers" like him starts with the way they approach players like Mobley and Francis. Just because they are out there, putting up numbers for other teams, it doesn't mean you go after them. The Bulls could send Chris Duhon to the Knicks right now for Francis and absorb his salary with their cap space, but would that be a smart move on their part? No, they didn't give up much in Duhon, but that doesn't mean it's a "good" move. Francis doesn't give you much return on his cap hold and in production per-minute. EDIT: Let me re-phrase part of that. Francis doesn't give you return commensurate with his cap hold. So, McGrady is NOT part of my evaluation. My eval starts with Weisbrod, and why he would want a player making over 13-million a year, but only giving your team 16 points, five rebounds and six assists over 40 minutes of play. And why he would consider Mobley to be an elite guard because he averages 16 points per game, without looking at the fact that he loitered on the court fo 40 minutes. You have X amount of holes to fill up on a roster and only Y amount of cap space to do it with, and you shouldn't waste that space with players who are giving you average stats while playing big minutes and making huge gobs of money.
well then weisbrod is smarter than you because out of that 16-5-6, because he got 21-5-7. nice way to take francis worst statistics to make your argument.
I'm looking at the stats he put up in 03-04. That's when he traded for Steve. I mean, good for Steve that year. Fab. But in looking at his stats this season, his per-40 minute numbers with the Magic were 17, five boards and six assists. So which is the fluke?
the stats for the career are a fluke. I mean really kelly, you can't use the stats from the year he didn't play for orlando to make your argument.
It's the whole crux of my argument! I'm railing against a GM looking at a player on another team and deciding to trade for him. So, yeah, I can use those stats. Weisbrod looked at a guy averaging 16, 5 and 6 over 40 minutes while making over 13-million a year and said, "I want this guy." That's what I'm warning against -- thinking that goes along these lines.
