|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tony Anapolis
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 3331
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Before I go all in on the analytics train, I want to see what happens in SA when Duncan and Parker are gone. When the greatest pf in nba history retires, I want to see how analytics gets them back to the ship. When that happens I will bow down gracefully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Before I go all in on the analytics train, I want to see what happens in SA when Duncan and Parker are gone. When the greatest pf in nba history retires, I want to see how analytics gets them back to the ship. When that happens I will bow down gracefully. |
Why is it mutually exclusive? Isn't the whole point to use both traditional scouting and analytics?
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Anapolis wrote: | | the association wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Analytics says Kobe Bryant is one of the most overrated players in NBA history. |
That's not true. Hacks like Abbott have always picked and chosen bits of information to support a pre-conceived notion, but the reality is that analytics have always shown his enormous value in terms of getting his team closer to victories. He's one of the top Win Share/VORP/OBPM guys in NBA history.
http://www.82games.com/pelton13.htm |
I think the contrarian view (relative to yours) is not that Kobe has been shown through AA to be absolutely overrated (i.e., that he just plain sucks), but rather that he's been shown through AA to be overrated relative to his peer group in the Top 10 (i.e., that he's inferior vs. MJ, Magic, etc.). I don't endorse the former or the latter (especially in the extreme) points of view, but I thought it important to try to understand where you're coming from with this post. The Pelton article from early 2005 (10 years ago) also didn't feel compelling to me.
I briefly reviewed some of the core advanced statistics you alluded to and I don't see meaningful support for your position. Win Shares per 48 minutes, he's almost 50th all-time. VORP, he's 15th. OBPM, he's 28th. What am I missing? |
Exactly, it is hard for any analytics dude to say Kobe is a top 10 player of all time. Only people who say he is top 5 or 6 are the ones who played the game, and don't study analytics. |
That's the challenge with subjective assessments ... and that's why it's typically really difficult to reach consensus on these matters. Few people, across the board and across all groups, fight back when you assert MJ and Magic in the Top 5 all-time. With Kobe, I think you have 20 - 25% that see a Top 5 player all-time, and then 75 - 80% that scoff at that view with varying levels of mockery ...
I know this topic is absurdly overplayed, but most of the lists I've come across have Kobe in the 6 - 10 range right now, with little room for further advancement at this point (which nearly all of us can agree on, unfortunately).
I don't know whether he's ultimately going to fall in the 10 - 20 range, the 6 - 10 range or the 1 - 5 range (for me, I'm guessing history will view him in the 6 - 10 range), but I do know that it's difficult when the per game basic and advanced data isn't really supportive of the argument that he's in the 1 - 5 range ...
We're left with opinions at that point ... but I don't leave room for the opinion that advanced analytics are unhelpful. That's just unmitigated horsepucky ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Anapolis
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 3331
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Before I go all in on the analytics train, I want to see what happens in SA when Duncan and Parker are gone. When the greatest pf in nba history retires, I want to see how analytics gets them back to the ship. When that happens I will bow down gracefully. |
Why is it mutually exclusive? Isn't the whole point to use both traditional scouting and analytics? |
Well yeah I agree, with you and that is my point, I was being sarcastic in that I will never be comfortable or for an all out analytics system of building a team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Anapolis wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Before I go all in on the analytics train, I want to see what happens in SA when Duncan and Parker are gone. When the greatest pf in nba history retires, I want to see how analytics gets them back to the ship. When that happens I will bow down gracefully. |
Why is it mutually exclusive? Isn't the whole point to use both traditional scouting and analytics? |
Well yeah I agree, with you and that is my point, I was being sarcastic in that I will never be comfortable or for an all out analytics system of building a team. |
I agree. There is a human element to it too and I hope lakers can get a mix of both.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Quote: | | The hesitancy to fully plunge in and explore analytics is a mystery to me. |
Well, if you don't have the talent to execute the system you want in place, then it would be a waste of money and resources, no? The current players on or roster aren't for the long term, thus any attempt to bring in a coach, who would enact a distinct system, would seem futile, especially considering the need for a worse record. |
None of the current players on the roster are here for the long term? We entered this season under the premise that every single player on this roster was going to be gone? Not even Julius Randle or Jordan Clarkson? Or Nick Young, who's signed for the next 4 years? There's no value in systemic continuity? Julius Randle & Jordan Clarkson being in Year 1 of a system in 2016 has the same value as them being in Year 3?
I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. Furthermore, I'm fairly fluent in terms of the specifics of "systems"...which is an overused and extremely vague term that's thrown around way too often...and I can't think of a single system that requires good talent to implement. Of course how effective it will be certainly hinges on the talent that you have, but there's no reason that we can't implement any system, and at least have some organizational continuity in place when our talent level improves.
"We suck, so what's the point?" is a terrible way to run an organization. |
Randle, Clackson, nor Younge will be the center of any team that's to compete for a title. Having role players in place, running an unproven system and just waiting to implant "Elite Player X" here, doesn't seem like a good model.
As someone pointed out above, all it took for the Celtics and Heat to win a title was to get 2 All-Stars to join their current All-Star. The role players were then built around them.
Same with PHil's 2nd time around in LA. The team he inherited was a work-in-progress, but at least had it's core start player to build around. They added Gasol (another All-Star) and go to 3-straight Finals.
So, a system ran well, without 2 All-Stars meant 1st round exit from playoffs. A system ran well with 2 All-Stars meant 3 straight Finals. |
I'm not sure I understand your point, or why you're weaving in and out of points regarding personnel, which is a completely separate issue. Is a system ran well without 2 All-Stars superior to a system ran poorly without 2 All-Stars? Is a system ran well with 2 All-Stars superior to a system ran poorly with 2 All-Stars?
Why is this such a black and white conversation? It's not EITHER a good system OR good talent. A system well run helps you to integrate talent. Both Boston & Miami had systemic continuity prior to the arrival of better talent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greenfrog wrote: | So what Boston and Doc experienced in those years in the cellar had a direct correlation to them winning a championship? The Utah Jazz were the poster children for system continuity and they never won a championship or were even a serious contender until the top talent in the West had diminished enough. We just disagree.
And to answer my own question, I think one or two training camps is enough. |
It's not what they "experienced", it's systemic familiarity. The more guys that know where they're supposed to be, and when they're supposed to be there, adds value. Is it the end all and be all? Of course not. But it certainly does add value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | greenfrog wrote: | So what Boston and Doc experienced in those years in the cellar had a direct correlation to them winning a championship? The Utah Jazz were the poster children for system continuity and they never won a championship or were even a serious contender until the top talent in the West had diminished enough. We just disagree.
And to answer my own question, I think one or two training camps is enough. |
It's not what they "experienced", it's systemic familiarity. The more guys that know where they're supposed to be, and when they're supposed to be there, adds value. Is it the end all and be all? Of course not. But it certainly does add value. |
Honestly, I don't remember enough specifically about those Boston teams or what kind of offense they ran in the years prior to KG and Allen joining, hence the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Analytics says Kobe Bryant is one of the most overrated players in NBA history. |
That's not true. Hacks like Abbott have always picked and chosen bits of information to support a pre-conceived notion, but the reality is that analytics have always shown his enormous value in terms of getting his team closer to victories. He's one of the top Win Share/VORP/OBPM guys in NBA history.
http://www.82games.com/pelton13.htm |
I think the contrarian view (relative to yours) is not that Kobe has been shown through AA to be absolutely overrated (i.e., that he just plain sucks), but rather that he's been shown through AA to be overrated relative to his peer group in the Top 10 (i.e., that he's inferior vs. MJ, Magic, etc.). I don't endorse the former or the latter (especially in the extreme) points of view, but I thought it important to try to understand where you're coming from with this post. The Pelton article from early 2005 (10 years ago) also didn't feel compelling to me.
I briefly reviewed some of the core advanced statistics you alluded to and I don't see meaningful support for your position. Win Shares per 48 minutes, he's almost 50th all-time. VORP, he's 15th. OBPM, he's 28th. What am I missing? |
Adjusting per/48 punishes longevity. His regular season rankings in those respective categories are 15th, 15th, & 8th, which collectively puts him right around 10th, as some guys are ranked highly in one area and completely missing from another. (note: I used OBPM rather than BPM, which is what you're looking at, because BPM produces some wonky results, IMO. For example, according to BPM, Charles Barkley is the 3rd best player in NBA history, Andrei Kirilenko is 16th, and Joakim Noah is also ranked ahead of Kobe.)
Then, he's 8th in playoff Win Shares, and while there's no BR data for OBPM or VORP in the playoffs, you can glean from his raw numbers (and the fact that it's a more selective group) that he'd likely be ranked very highly in those categories as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Exactly, it is hard for any analytics dude to say Kobe is a top 10 player of all time. Only people who say he is top 5 or 6 are the ones who played the game, and don't study analytics. |
This is the fear that has always driven a lot of the analytics bashing on this board. I'll repeat what I've been saying for awhile:
1. You are absolutely correct that analytics is going to degrade Kobe's standing over time, just as analytics in baseball has degraded the standing of players like Bill Terry. It is going to happen, because memories fade, but stats last forever. Exhibit A for the NBA is Bill Russell.
2. You need to separate that issue from the issue of whether analytics are valuable in the operation of a team. Arguments about the all-time standing of players are fun, but those are arguments for fans and pundits. Don't let your annoyance at guys like Hollinger distract you from the fact that analytics are a valuable tool for coaches, players, and GMs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58336
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You don't build a team around it, but to completely ignore numbers is idiotic. I love Byron, but Mitch is right. You must look at the data. Now building a team around it like some guys think they can, is silly. But the numbers can tell you a great deal of things on both sides of the ball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no replacement for having the skills to analyze the data, but having the complete data package is significant. If, for example, you have every set and every possession run by the spurs at your disposal, you can do a lot with that info, especially when it has every possession sortable by type and result, something you couldn't get with anything near the complete accuracy if you had an army of experts watching film. So here's an example of what you can do:
You can query all of the sets run by the spurs by both frequency and result against your team. You can then drill in on the plays that they run with both frequency and efficiency (high ratio of scores to possessions). Let's say you find that a high pick and roll intiated by parker from the high left side is both a frequent and efficient set against you. You can then sort that by which direction he went, how you defended it, etc. you could also cross reference against teams where the play was less efficient and see what their defenses did against it. You could then download clips of the defensive possessions that were most effective, and present both the data and the clips to your coaches.
That has value, and what's more, it can be done within a short timeframe. You could theoretically develop some defensive wrinkles and strategies for the other team's pet plays, and devise ways to take away their sweet spots.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Analytics says Kobe Bryant is one of the most overrated players in NBA history. |
That's not true. Hacks like Abbott have always picked and chosen bits of information to support a pre-conceived notion, but the reality is that analytics have always shown his enormous value in terms of getting his team closer to victories. He's one of the top Win Share/VORP/OBPM guys in NBA history.
http://www.82games.com/pelton13.htm |
Interesting that Ireland compared the Holmes article to Abbott's article, saying that both started with a premise and worked backwards from there.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Interesting that Ireland compared the Holmes article to Abbott's article, saying that both started with a premise and worked backwards from there. |
I didn't get that feel from the Holmes article. Instead, it felt like a bunch of analytics guys jumping at the opportunity to bash the Lakers for not being cool kids. I'm not sure why ESPN thinks that Holmes is a good choice for a guy focusing on the Lakers, but that's another story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | the association wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Analytics says Kobe Bryant is one of the most overrated players in NBA history. |
That's not true. Hacks like Abbott have always picked and chosen bits of information to support a pre-conceived notion, but the reality is that analytics have always shown his enormous value in terms of getting his team closer to victories. He's one of the top Win Share/VORP/OBPM guys in NBA history.
http://www.82games.com/pelton13.htm |
I think the contrarian view (relative to yours) is not that Kobe has been shown through AA to be absolutely overrated (i.e., that he just plain sucks), but rather that he's been shown through AA to be overrated relative to his peer group in the Top 10 (i.e., that he's inferior vs. MJ, Magic, etc.). I don't endorse the former or the latter (especially in the extreme) points of view, but I thought it important to try to understand where you're coming from with this post. The Pelton article from early 2005 (10 years ago) also didn't feel compelling to me.
I briefly reviewed some of the core advanced statistics you alluded to and I don't see meaningful support for your position. Win Shares per 48 minutes, he's almost 50th all-time. VORP, he's 15th. OBPM, he's 28th. What am I missing? |
Adjusting per/48 punishes longevity. His regular season rankings in those respective categories are 15th, 15th, & 8th, which collectively puts him right around 10th, as some guys are ranked highly in one area and completely missing from another. (note: I used OBPM rather than BPM, which is what you're looking at, because BPM produces some wonky results, IMO. For example, according to BPM, Charles Barkley is the 3rd best player in NBA history, Andrei Kirilenko is 16th, and Joakim Noah is also ranked ahead of Kobe.)
Then, he's 8th in playoff Win Shares, and while there's no BR data for OBPM or VORP in the playoffs, you can glean from his raw numbers (and the fact that it's a more selective group) that he'd likely be ranked very highly in those categories as well. |
Have you ever come across the site below? I stumbled upon it this afternoon when I googled "does win share per 48 minutes punish longevity?", a theory that seemed really implausible to me ... disclaimer: I'm not yet able to speak to the credibility of his work myself, but I figured I'd extend the dialogue to hopefully resolve where I'm missing the boat. I apologize if this material has been examined before ...
http://tothemean.com
He argues that WS is actually prone to being favorably distorted by longevity.
Below are direct quotes from the article:
"The number of seasons a player has played greatly affects win shares. You can't compare a player who has played 11 seasons with a guy who has played 6 or else you will think Matt Harpring (41.9 WS) is comparable to Russell Westbrook (42.3 WS).
Stats which are normalized per minute such as win shares per 48 (WS/48) don't take into account length of career or playing time."
Basically, his position would appear to be that WS overstates the value of the player with more years of experience (vs. the player with fewer years of experience), and that WS/48 is more directionally accurate if there is sufficient data for all compared players ...
Unless I'm reading it wrong (which is completely possible since this isn't my bailiwick), he argues the diametric opposite of the position that WS has greater utility than WS/48 in this particular application ...
According to WS/48, Kobe is 39th in Regular Season WS/48 and 47th for Playoff WS/48 ... however, in looking at the list of names above his in Playoff WS/48, I have to chuckle a little bit. Sometimes it's not true that any data point is a good one ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Anapolis wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Tony Anapolis wrote: | | Before I go all in on the analytics train, I want to see what happens in SA when Duncan and Parker are gone. When the greatest pf in nba history retires, I want to see how analytics gets them back to the ship. When that happens I will bow down gracefully. |
Why is it mutually exclusive? Isn't the whole point to use both traditional scouting and analytics? |
Well yeah I agree, with you and that is my point, I was being sarcastic in that I will never be comfortable or for an all out analytics system of building a team. |
No one employs an all out analytics system of building a team. And I'm not sure anyone is saying one should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Quote: | | The hesitancy to fully plunge in and explore analytics is a mystery to me. |
Well, if you don't have the talent to execute the system you want in place, then it would be a waste of money and resources, no? The current players on or roster aren't for the long term, thus any attempt to bring in a coach, who would enact a distinct system, would seem futile, especially considering the need for a worse record. |
None of the current players on the roster are here for the long term? We entered this season under the premise that every single player on this roster was going to be gone? Not even Julius Randle or Jordan Clarkson? Or Nick Young, who's signed for the next 4 years? There's no value in systemic continuity? Julius Randle & Jordan Clarkson being in Year 1 of a system in 2016 has the same value as them being in Year 3?
I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. Furthermore, I'm fairly fluent in terms of the specifics of "systems"...which is an overused and extremely vague term that's thrown around way too often...and I can't think of a single system that requires good talent to implement. Of course how effective it will be certainly hinges on the talent that you have, but there's no reason that we can't implement any system, and at least have some organizational continuity in place when our talent level improves.
"We suck, so what's the point?" is a terrible way to run an organization. |
Randle, Clackson, nor Younge will be the center of any team that's to compete for a title. Having role players in place, running an unproven system and just waiting to implant "Elite Player X" here, doesn't seem like a good model.
As someone pointed out above, all it took for the Celtics and Heat to win a title was to get 2 All-Stars to join their current All-Star. The role players were then built around them.
Same with PHil's 2nd time around in LA. The team he inherited was a work-in-progress, but at least had it's core start player to build around. They added Gasol (another All-Star) and go to 3-straight Finals.
So, a system ran well, without 2 All-Stars meant 1st round exit from playoffs. A system ran well with 2 All-Stars meant 3 straight Finals. |
I'm not sure I understand your point, or why you're weaving in and out of points regarding personnel, which is a completely separate issue. Is a system ran well without 2 All-Stars superior to a system ran poorly without 2 All-Stars? Is a system ran well with 2 All-Stars superior to a system ran poorly with 2 All-Stars?
Why is this such a black and white conversation? It's not EITHER a good system OR good talent. A system well run helps you to integrate talent. Both Boston & Miami had systemic continuity prior to the arrival of better talent. |
How is player personnel a separate issue when discussing players to build a system with? If the vast majority are not in it for the long haul and the few that are will only be support pieces, who may not even fit with the new system or the elite player that they'll need to build around, then it's kind of an important factor in deciding what coach and what system you want to put in place.
I never said it was black and white issue. We need a good system and good players (great if we want to win a title). Continuity is important, when you have a franchise player in place, like we did when Phil took over the team for the 2nd time around. Adding Gasol was the difference maker. But, let's not pretend the 08' Celtics were not completely altered on both ends of the court by the addition of KG and Ray Allen. Let's not discuss the importance of systemic continuity of the Heat in 2010, when they implanted the best player in the world who dominated the ball, thus altering every support players' role and the addition of Bosh, who also disrupted the roles at Center and PF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nash Vegas
Star Player
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 7239
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poor Byron, he's gonna have to know Analytics
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/new-lakers-liaison-to-help-coaches-and-analytics-group-communicate-052819670.html
| Quote: | Byron Scott does not like advanced analytics. The 54-year-old has made this stance abundantly clear, whether via his belief that his team should shoot a comically low number of three-pointers or his less direct, verifiably old-school analogies about foxhole scenarios and the like.
Yet Scott's aversion to the cutting edge (or even current standard) of statistical analysis has also come to represent the approach of the Lakers as a franchise. They have been well behind the rest of the NBA in embracing analytically derived trends and reportedly had little substantive analysis to show LaMarcus Aldridge when they met with the in-demand free agent.
It appears that the franchise is taking at least one small step to correct the situation. The Lakers have created a new position to facilitate communication between their analytics department and the coaching staff:
Assistant coach and advance scout Clay Moser is expected to transition from the bench to the front office in a sort of liaison position, which previously did not exist within the organization. A team spokesman confirmed Monday that the move is in the works.
The responsibilities of the role have been among those heaped upon assistant coach Mark Madsen. The plan with Moser, however, is to facilitate a pipeline of ideas with a basketball person in the front office. [...]
Team officials felt that statistical analysis got lost in translation between the two branches of the organization, with statistics employees sometimes failing to understand the practical complications of making certain adjustments based on numbers, and the coaches not appreciating the value of the stats. [...]
Madsen provided Scott with a weekly breakdown of advanced statistics, but in the middle of last season Scott said those numbers had never influenced a basketball decision. [...]
The disconnect became apparent in February when Mitch Kupchak told KSPN/710 that analytics are “of most use to a coaching staff.” Scott, however, said he had no use for them.
As our Kelly Dwyer wrote several months ago, it's possible that the Lakers' analytics crew is cranking out cutting-edge work that never sees any sort of application due to Scott's intransigence. Given that Madsen's explanations of his statistical approach were elementary at best, the creation of a new role should make it easier to communicate quality information to Scott and his staff. If Moser only focuses on understanding this data and explaining it in a way that more closely aligns with Scott's beliefs, then it's a good move.
The potential problem here is that Moser has been singled out as a liaison between the two sides, which could influence Scott's willingness to listen to him before he presents any reports at all. Yes, Scott is much more likely to heed the advice of someone with old-school credentials as a scout and assistant, but he has also proven to be so dogmatically against advanced analytics that it's hard to imagine him paying any attention to these findings. Unless Moser proves to be a genius at molding the work of Lakers analysts into Scott's preferred vernacular and making it seem an old-school type came up with the idea, what evidence do we have that the head coach wants any input from this source?
A liaison between two departments can only succeed if both sides have interest in working together despite some disagreements. The available evidence suggests that Scott doesn't want to. Can one new employee really transcend that divide? |
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I never understood why people are against supplementing the eye test with additional INFORMATION.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seems like they're laying the groundwork to fire him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Byron is a symptom of a greater problem, and it emanates from the very apex of the franchise org chart: There is no "vision thing" guiding them forward, so it isn't a mystery that leadership is not on the same page when it comes to analytics or even free agent presentations.
That foresight was lacking when they hired Byron. Though I realize there's a reluctance to discharge him go for financial, sentimental and reputation effects, they really should let him go, if for no other reason than he's retarding progress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | Byron is a symptom of a greater problem, and it emanates from the very apex of the franchise org chart: There is no "vision thing" guiding them forward, so it isn't a mystery that leadership is not on the same page when it comes to analytics or even free agent presentations.
That foresight was lacking when they hired Byron. They really should let him go, if for no other reason than he's retarding progress. |
I think they knew it was a two year send off gift to Kobe to hire a coach who believed in slowing down the tempo again. The only thing that's really changed is the rapid acceptance of analytics, helped by the Warriors winning a championship, and the role it might play in their free agent futility. It a very PR conscious organization, and it must kill them to be considered philistines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drifts
Retired Number
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 28374
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Scott will be alright... he'll just find another whipping boy (or boys)... ask Kobe to call his team "soft"... and he'll fly under the radar... back to the lottery... wash rinse repeat.
_________________
"Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
this is going to Byron's last head coaching job he is going to behave so ignorant to what 29 other teams are using.
hope this is his last yr. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
And back to TWC...hopefully.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
