538 : Stat based GM's v "Basketball GM's".

[paulpressey25]

Thought this was mildly interesting.

Hamburger eaters can hold their own with ballers.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... overblown/

[bizarro]

The keys to this article are understood by anyone w/ an advanced understanding of modern NBA basketball. The polarity in the analytics vs. 'Old School' debate mainly stem from insecurity; a lack of knowledge; fear of the unknown; and cronie-ism, imho. It's obvious a modern NBA team is wise to employ both experiential understandings w/ analytics information. And, frankly, there are too many indefinable factors that determine a team's overall success. Look at the Bucks, for example. How big a role does Herb and Cronies meddling truly play? How inept is Jon Hammond? How poor is our talent pool vs. inept coaching (I would argue both are bottom-tier BUT I truly don't know)? How true are the notions nobody wants to play in Milwaukee? How biased are refs in a given game - let alone against a given coach or team? Regardless, it is clear the Bucks are awful. We will get a top 4 pick. And, we may continue to suck for decades...yes, even with new ownership/GM/coach. I would propose, in addition to these banal and meaningless statistical sets by themselves, one needs to consider the overarching cultures of teams. For the Bucks, what did Jon Hammond truly mean by '...changing the culture...' at Bucks HQ? Obviously, this culture change has sucked ass just as badly as the on-court product assembled by this stooge of a GM. However, what are the cultural principles @ Spurs HQ? Context is absolutely essential in these types of scenarios. Without it, it is just another set in the PPG, ASST, REB matrix.

[Newz]

I think a big thing for all General Managers is getting the owner to trust them enough to allow them to do what they want.

I think a lot of the GMs that have come through Milwaukee have gotten the short end of the stick because of this. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that the same thing keeps happening over and over and over regardless of who the GM is.

We continued to go for the playoffs regardless of if we knew we were just a fringe team. We continuously sign guys to the mid-level deals that almost never work out. We continue to play veterans over youth.

[thomchatt3rton]

Did I miss something? Because there's a pretty big flaw with the logic of his argument.

All those graphs show is that more GMs who haven't played or coached are being hired. His argument that advanced stats people are doing increasingly better in the NBA relies on the false assumption that every GM who hasn't played or coached is automatically an advanced stats guy.

The Broussard article is specifically about advanced stats guys- all this article does is compare ex-players/coach GMs with those who've never played or coached. Don't see how that refutes Broussard.

[ajb905]

http://www.crabdribbles.com/crabdribble ... utterbuck/

Who knows what happens with current Bucks staff but saw this interview of director of analytics hired in November, kind of interesting. http://www.crabdribbles.com/crabdribble ... utterbuck/

Sent from my SGH-T999 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Treebeard]

http://www.crabdribbles.com/crabdribbles-qa-milwaukee-bucks-director-of-analytics-michael-clutterbuck/

Who knows what happens with current Bucks staff but saw this interview of director of analytics hired in November, kind of interesting. http://www.crabdribbles.com/crabdribble ... utterbuck/

Sent from my SGH-T999 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Neat article.

I thought this remark makes a lot sense, in that he seems to be recommending both the eye-test and analytical approach:

Analytics, in my opinion, attacks the margins, but margins add up.

You can't make a average player great with analytics, but you may be able to incrementally give him an edge. And multiply that impact through the roster.

[breakchains]

Didn't read the article but I hope we don't get some guy who is too dogmatic about analytics. The most important qualifications: a smart human being who also understands the game of basketball, as well as human psychology and sociology. Analytics can be part of the "understanding" but no more than that.

[JustinCredible]

Didn't read the article but I hope we don't get some guy who is too dogmatic about analytics. The most important qualifications: a smart human being who also understands the game of basketball, as well as human psychology and sociology. Analytics can be part of the "understanding" but no more than that.

You will definitely like the article then.

[Jez2983]

Just a random thought, but one of the reasons ex-players make better coaches at higher level IMO is respect. Basically you need to have a star coach to bring star players into line (I.e. Phil Jackson).

I know this article pertains to GM's so I guess I'd say respect for GM's really isn't so important anymore except if the GM was a non-player dealing with ex-player GM's.

It would be interesting to see if the continued retention of good stats-guys sees their average terms of service increase. Basically that the non-players will deal with non-players, make deals on a level playing field and keep their jobs. I could see a Bird blocking a deal with a Morey coz he thought he was an egg-head back in the days...

[Treebeard]

Just a random thought, but one of the reasons ex-players make better coaches at higher level IMO is respect. Basically you need to have a star coach to bring star players into line (I.e. Phil Jackson).

I think there is some truth there. But also, some of the very best coaches/field managers are guys like Jackson, Tommy LaSorda, Tony LaRussa, who were primarily 2nd tier or minor league players. Those guys, in part may have become students of their game to get a needed edge, probably more so than the really gifted ones. The next part for both the game smart and stat smart guys is being able to effectively communicate what they see needs work. Gross generalization of course.