but he out performed those stats, so your argument doesn't hold water. he projected. that's what you do when trade for players, when you buy a stock, when you invest, you project it to out perform. ever heard of buy low, sell high, that's what he did in francis, he bought low. for the season francis played for him, he made the right decision.
But he reverted back to form the year after, the team wanted nothing to do with him, and traded him for an expiring contract. I'm confused. One year of good (not great) production per 40 on a 36-win team outweighs the season before and the season after when he was decidedly average (while making superstar dollars)? And that's the only year that counts, because Weisbrod jumped (or was pushed) after one full season? He bought low, left when the stock was high, and got to observe the stock reverting back to "low" from afar -- so it's a good move?
so the season before and season after outweigh 4 years of 20/6.3/6.4 production from francis? it seemed fairly clear that francis had by far his worst season ever under van gundy and that he was better than he showed. i don't really see how that's debatable, given 4 years of being much better than that right before it. he then put up 21/7/6 for orlando. why would that be the fluke with 4 other years to back it up? then things turned sour, he basically quit on the team and they quit on him and he had another down season. i guess if you're arguing francis is petulant and that should be a factor in evaluating him, then go ahead. but to argue statistically it was a stupid move just b/c francis had his worst year ever right before the trade, while being asked to play completely contrary to how he always played and to how he would be playing again the next season is silly. as soon as he got to orlando, the 20/6/6 stuff returned as would be expected when he got out of jvg's system. if orlando doesn't trade mobley for nothing and then have hill and turkoglu get injured, maybe things turn out a lot better that season. as for mobley, he's a career 18/4/3 per 40 minutes guy, not 15.6. he was a distant third option that year and increased his defensive presence, scoring fewer per 40 isn't really a shocker. presumably he would have a slighly bigger role in orlando, and like i said the 15.6 doesn't account for his defense. it's not like mobley had provided no evidence that he knew how to score more than a pedestrian 15.6/40 minutes throughout his career. now maybe i'm missing something, did weisbrod specifically say he was trading mcgrady for mobley and francis b/c they averaged more than mcgrady combined or something? i mean he said a lot of stupid things so maybe it's in there somewhere, but i don't remember it. statistically, you were getting a 3-time all-star who could give you 20/6/6 and an 18/4/3 per 40 minutes guy who had seasons of 19.5 and 21.7 ppg who could play defense and hit 3's. i have a hard time believing mobley's defense and shooting didn't at all play into the decision nor francis' previous 4 seasons. plus, this doesn't even take into account we gave them cato, who had a very good year as a backup C 2 years before the trade, then a solid year as a defensive-minded, rebounding, shotblocking PF the year before, and we also took juwan howard's contract off their hands. if the rockets won the trade, it's only because getting a superstar is almost always the way to go b/c they're the hardest to find. the actual trade didn't exactly vault the rockets into contention and crush the magic. in fact, the magic started 13-7 or something while the rockets floundered to 6-11, even after acquiring mutombo to basically replace the whole cato aspect of the trade. not until sura was added and then we basically stole barry, wesley, and james did we really take off and not until orlando screwed it all up did they fall apart. now again, that might go back to why you get the superstar, b/c it's easier to get lucky and steal role players to build around the superstars and then become a team that finishes 45-20 and takes a good dallas team to 7 games. but i really don't see how weisbrod screwed that trade up (aside from screwing up enough in the first place that tmac wanted to be traded) from a stats perspective. mobley and francis weren't just 40 minute wonders. and what is 40 minutes, like 10% more than most quality starting backcourt players get? it's not exactly enough to take average stats to way above average stats. mobley and francis were a quality backcourt, francis being capable of scoring at a very good clip. certainly not championship caliber franchise player level scoring, but enough to take over a significant number of games. and mobley could get you 20 on any night. and cato played great D. and juwan howard sucked and you always get slightly less than a superstar is worth. and the performances of the teams certainly didn't distinguish the trade an notably lopsided. so i'm not seeing how weisbrod failed to evaluate the trade thoroughly or fixated on one thing and it cost them.
in the end I just think statistical analysis can only take you so far. honestly, francis as much as I defend as well as mcgrady proves that it can only take you so far, and in regards to star players it doesn't really give you the info you need. its seem to be a good measuring tool for role players. if you look at francis's second year statistics and even his migrane year statistics they are very good. the problem with francis isn't production, its leadership, its a willingness to get better. the problem with mcgrady is leadership and desire. the problem with kobe is how well he is gonna get along with other player. the problem with garnett is does he know when to takeover a game, when he should remain in the post. lebron isn't a better player than kobe because of production, assists or shooting percentage, he's a better player because he's a good teamate. he's a better player than mcgrady right now because he is tougher. stats go out the window win evaluating guys on that level. all three are good enough to build a team around. the question is where their heads are.
honestly the analysis I find much better is the brain type. you want to find yourself a superstar, that's what you need to examine.
I find it interesting how high Battier is on the list using this sort of analysis. He is no. 14 over the last three years; ahead of people like Kidd or Kobe. McGrady is no. 78. Yao is no. 8. http://basketball-reference.com/lab...in=1000&sort=desc&limit=100&submit=View+Stats
Does this algorithem take account of how much defence the player was facing? I doubt the 76er and Nuggets would win more games if AI and Melo were injured las year. If it's true, I don't see why Nuggets would sign melo for max in stead of dump him.
that is crap Take iverson off those 76ers teams THEY WIN NOTHING . .they make the knicks look good Rocket RIver . . . Stats don't tell the whole story
Uh-oh. If you look at the Rockets team stats from 1978-2006 (all the years they've made available for this stat), coming in dead last at #100 is none other than Vernon Maxwell. Apparently, Mad Max cost the Rox 16 games during his tenure here. Someone get the smelling salts ready for Tinman.
Well, that forumula is obviously a concoction of some Maxwell hater with the sole purpose of degrading the greatest Rocket of all time...
What's more, is if you do the analysis from the first year possible until today, the stats look as follows: 1. Karl Malone 2. John Stockton 3. David Robinson 4. Michael Jordan 5. Charles Barkley 6. Hakeem Olajuwon 7. Shaquille O'neal 8. Magic Johnson 9. Reggie Miller 10. Larry Bird Malone, Stockton and Robinson ahead of Jordan, Olajuwon, O'neal and Magic...um, no. Robinson shouldn't even be ahead of Duncan (ranked 12th), Reggie Miller shouldn't be in the top ten even. I know this is based just off this particular formula, but results don't lie...if the formula leads to this kind of ranking on a superstar/integral to team success type list, then the formula is wrong.
I would be interested to see McGrady's measured effect on winning/losing, I would venture to guess it's one of the highest in the league.
Everyone who is interested in the book needs to read this review from Roland Beech, who points out that their work is out-dated and more or less a money grab: http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol2/iss3/5/
