Official Trade Thread - Part XXV

[mhd]

What about this deal:

Wiz trade Ves+Singleton+2014 2nd rounder for Nate Robinson+Arthur?

Nuggets get expirings and a 2nd rounder.

[payitforward]

@ stevemcqueen -- It seems that no matter how many times it's mentioned that there's been research on these subjects, and the data doesn't support "fit" or "continuity" being important factors, people -- in this case you -- will simply repeat the claim over and over.

As to "business" -- if you want to design and manufacture the best car, for example, you hire the best engineer, the best designer, the best interior space expert, and the best manufacturing people. That's how you get the best result.

I've been a technology entrepreneur for going on 30 years: it's a *mantra* in technology to hire the very best. Try to hire someone to work for you who is better than you, and make sure that guy or gal hires people who are better than he or she is! Because, otherwise you'll hire someone *not* as good as you. And that guy will hire someone not as good as he is, etc. -- right down the line. Result? You are GM.

"Fit?" Bullsh**t! It has no place in business. Now if you create a high-performing business team, then you get continuity -- of course! Success is rewarded, or it should be. But it was the performance, not the continuity, that was the success factor. So "continuity" goes on the trash heap w/ "fit."

[Nivek]

I agree with most of your post, but I think it's more complicated than that.

I do think fit exists, in a very intuitive sense. Specific skills like passer & ball handler + shooter go well together and produce synergy. A team is a system and IMO your best approach to creating that system with limited resources is to come up with a mix of pieces that can cover up each other's weaknesses. And while I don't think the difference in skill levels between the freaks that are NBA players is as large as we sometimes make it seem, I do think that subtle differences has a large effect over long periods of time.

I think fit exists, but it's the outcome of acquiring good players, not the result of putting together a puzzle.

When organizations talk about a player's fit, I think they're often talking about his personality though. People just operate in unique ways. Some people will simply not be able to "get it" and buy in at one place, but then they'll go somewhere else and it is a natural fit.

Maybe some are. I know the Spurs value personality to some extent. I also know from the conversations I've had with the folks running the Wizards, they are decidedly NOT talking about personality.

Also I do think there is intrinsic value to continuity. Obviously it's more nuanced than that. Maintaining continuity with bad employees is counterproductive. Making the evaluation that a bad employee is now counterproductive is probably more art than science. But continuity itself contributes to success and is not merely a byproduct of it. Familiarity and the ability to accurately anticipate outcomes is important and leads to success when you have to make rapid decisions in dynamic situations with limited information. That's really what basketball is.

Don't agree. Continuity is the result of success. It doesn't make sense to keep a group together unless you already know you have good people. There is no amount of time together that could make a winner out of a team comprised of Jordan Crawford, Andray Blatche, Nick Young, Chris Singleton, Jan Vesely, Kevin Seraphin, Shelvin Mack, etc. Not no way, not no how.

Businesses heavily factor continuity into personnel decisions. High turnover is bad for their business obviously, and they do what they can to keep their people because it takes a lot of time for employees to develop into their most productive phases. Works the same for basketball.

High turnover for a business is bad -- IF they're losing good workers. If they're shedding bad workers and replacing them with good ones -- it's good for business. Replace Nick Young with Lebron James and you've "hurt the continuity" but improved your team. Same is true if you replace Young with Ariza or Webster or any number of other players.

Went through something like this at a hotel where I worked years ago. I got hired by a new management team that was taking over a struggling hotel. They were implementing performance criteria in every department -- my job was to create the standards for the front desk, do the training, help the manager, etc. When the standards were introduced there was an almost overnight exodus of employees -- many of whom had been there a looooong time. We hired new people, they learned the expectations (and performed to them), and the business turned around. Keeping all those long-term employees would have been a slog because they didn't want to do the job the way they were being asked to do it -- the way that was going to lead to the overall business being successful.

[stevemcqueen1]

@ stevemcqueen -- It seems that no matter how many times it's mentioned that there's been research on these subjects, and the data doesn't support "fit" or "continuity" being important factors, people -- in this case you -- will simply repeat the claim over and over.

As to "business" -- if you want to design and manufacture the best car, for example, you hire the best engineer, the best designer, the best interior space expert, and the best manufacturing people. That's how you get the best result.

I've been a technology entrepreneur for going on 30 years: it's a *mantra* in technology to hire the very best. Try to hire someone to work for you who is better than you, and make sure that guy or gal hires people who are better than he or she is! Because, otherwise you'll hire someone *not* as good as you. And that guy will hire someone not as good as he is, etc. -- right down the line. Result? You are GM.

"Fit?" Bullsh**t! It has no place in business. Now if you create a high-performing business team, then you get continuity -- of course! Success is rewarded, or it should be. But it was the performance, not the continuity, that was the success factor. So "continuity" goes on the trash heap w/ "fit."

Nivek didn't cite any research here, neither do you in fact, so I can't respond to any claims about any research on the subject. Your post here is typical you: abrasive, absurdly oversimplified, mentally rigid, unrealistic. It's not as simple as just going out and hiring the best people. For one thing, you're competing with everyone else for the same labor pool and with limited resources. You have to work within your means to build your team, frequently buying low on your personnel and planning out how to grow them into something better than the sum of its parts.

For another, evaluations of who is "best" are subjective and complicated and far from exact, and this is true for every GM. X player will not be X player for every team. For some organizations he will play worse than others. And that is partly about fit.

Continuity is part of success because it influences performance. It is self evident to me that familiarity leads to better decision making, and familiarity is established over time with repetition and continuity.

[LyricalRico]

Your post here is typical you: abrasive, absurdly oversimplified, mentally rigid, unrealistic.

Yep, that's our beloved PIF using his patented 4-step message board response outline:

Step 1 - Ridicule and belittle posters that disagree with you.
Step 2 - Demand that disagreeing poster support their position with data.
Step 3 - Dismiss any data provided by disagreeing poster as irrelevant and/or invalid.
Step 4 - Return to step 1 and repeat.

[Dark Faze]

I'd love a move of Booker for Nate Rob. Nuggets are headed nowhere and trading a patch piece in Nate for a potential long term prospect in Booker seems like a no brainer, especially with the Javale injury.

[Nivek]

steve -- Both payitforward and I have discussed various research done on interaction effects NBA players have on each other, year-to-year consistency of NBA stats for individual players, even the effect of coaching changes on player production. I don't have links handy, but there's work in each of those areas by David Berri (read Wins Produced, his blog, or his second book which name escapes me), Arturo Galletti (who uses Wins Produced), Neil Paine, Kevin Pelton...probably some others. I think EvanZ (the guy behind NBAWowy.com) has written about it too. The basic findings are these:

- Interaction effects are fairly minimal. Players tend to produce at much the same rate as they have previously even when they change teams, the lineup changes, or the coach changes. There are exceptions, of course, and this research doesn't say that young players don't improve -- they do. But, there's no evidence that the improvement is caused by changing teammates or teams.

- NBA box score stats are consistent year to year. In other words, much of what a player does one year can be predicted by what he did the previous year. There are aging effects, but players tend to produce year-to-year what they've previously produced.

- Very few coaches seem to have much effect on the individual productivity of their players. If I recall correctly, the "few" include guys like Phil Jackson, Popovich, Pat Riley. This is not to say that coaches don't matter, but rather that they're largely interchangeable beyond the elite few. And probably the atrocious few. The number one thing a coach can do to boost his team's productivity is distribute minutes to his most productive players.

[Dat2U]

I'd love a move of Booker for Nate Rob. Nuggets are headed nowhere and trading a patch piece in Nate for a potential long term prospect in Booker seems like a no brainer, especially with the Javale injury.

If Book isn't a potential long term prospect for us, why would he be one for any other team? Don't see Denver with having any need for Booker with Faried, Randolph & Hickson already on their roster.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Washington sends: Otto Porter, Kevin Seraphin, Jan Vesely
Houston sends: Omer Asik, Terrence Jones, Greg Smith

The Wizards needs more rebounding. Nene's health and Gortat's free agency would each be covered by adding Asik. I think Jones is potentially a strong player off the bench at PF or SF. He's similar to Al Harrington, but can rebound, block shots, and has a scorers' instincts.

Seems to me the Wizards don't lose much letting either Seraphin or Vesely go. Early returns on Otto are dubious. Most of all, it will take him a couple years to be a good NBA player IMO. Jones had the highest PER in D-League and I think he's ready now at just 21 years old. Otto shouldn't blow up before Jones MIGHT. In the mean time, I think Asik would be happy to be a Wizard, and wouldn't prevent Gortat from resigning at all.

Thoughts?

[Nivek]

That's quite the haul for the Wizards, CCJ.

[Wizardspride]

Washington sends: Otto Porter, Kevin Seraphin, Jan Vesely
Houston sends: Omer Asik, Terrence Jones, Greg Smith

The Wizards needs more rebounding. Nene's health and Gortat's free agency would each be covered by adding Asik. I think Jones is potentially a strong player off the bench at PF or SF. He's similar to Al Harrington, but can rebound, block shots, and has a scorers' instincts.

Seems to me the Wizards don't lose much letting either Seraphin or Vesely go. Early returns on Otto are dubious. Most of all, it will take him a couple years to be a good NBA player IMO. Jones had the highest PER in D-League and I think he's ready now at just 21 years old. Otto shouldn't blow up before Jones MIGHT. In the mean time, I think Asik would be happy to be a Wizard, and wouldn't prevent Gortat from resigning at all.

Thoughts?

I'm reluctant to give up Otto. Really reluctant....but I'd probably pull the trigger.

It's something I'd have to think long and hard about.

[nate33]

Interesting discussion on fit and chemistry. I tend to agree with Nivek and PIF that as long as the players have talent, an average NBA coach can generally put together a system that allows them to properly utilize their talent.

There are some caveats though. For example, there are diminishing returns for each additional offensively proficient player you add to a team. If you already have four good offensive players, you don't want your fifth guy to be an Antawn Jamison all O, no D type of player. It won't help the offense all that much and it can destroy the defense. Also, no matter who you have, you need at least 3 guys who can reliably hit perimeter shots, and preferably 4. Having 5 HOF caliber defenders and no shooting, won't be a recipe for success.

Overall, I think the formula for success is varied, but relies upon a few essential principles. First, you need a guy good enough offensively to force double team help. That can be either a good guard/wing iso scorer, a dominant low post threat, or a great PG who can run the pick-and-roll with precision. You also need at least 2 other guys who can hit 3-pointers, and preferably at least one more with range out to at least 18 feet. Defensively, there are lots of ways to get it done, but it usually relies on a great interior help defender and at least one competent wing defender.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

That's quite the haul for the Wizards, CCJ.

And without a mask or a weapon, Nivek.

[Nivek]

There are diminishing returns on defensive rebounding as well. Possibly assists too.

The points you're making are largely addressed by what I'm talking about (and what I think payitforward is too). If you're looking at a player's overall impact on the game, you're not going to assemble a team that's all offense or all defense.

As for the need for shooting, ball handling, all the various tasks that need to get done on the floor -- that gets addressed by getting good overall players at each position. A good overall SG, for example, is likely to be a good shooter. Same for SF and PG. Get players at each position who produce the things that cause a team to win, and your team wins.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

We REALLY need a combo guard who can score and put pressure on defenses. I wonder if Nate Robinson may be available if Denver continues to slump?

As far as I'm concerned this could have been stated:

"It really was STUPID to waive Shannon Brown. He is a combo guard who can score and put pressure on defenses. On top of that, he won two NBA championships with the Lakers and has experience that Maynor doesn't have, plus more scoring ability. He also played as a rookie with Ariza. He also started for the Suns when Marcin Gortat had his breakout season. Gee, that guy couldn't help but add to the Wizards team chemistry and he'd balance the roster well."

One day, maybe the Wizards will figure out I really do know what I'm talking about and I'm worth a lot of money to them. I'm frustrated with myself on some levels, but as a fan of this team I wish they'd do better and I KNOW i could help.

mhd, they had a combo guard and they waived him because IMO he wasn't one of EGs or Wittman's guys.

[jivelikenice]

I'd love a move of Booker for Nate Rob. Nuggets are headed nowhere and trading a patch piece in Nate for a potential long term prospect in Booker seems like a no brainer, especially with the Javale injury.

If Book isn't a potential long term prospect for us, why would he be one for any other team? Don't see Denver with having any need for Booker with Faried, Randolph & Hickson already on their roster.

Agree, but Denver may decide to go in the tank if things continue to go bad. If that's the case they may be willing to get out of Nate's 2nd year for an expiring (Is it a two year deal or is there an option involved?) Throwing in a 2nd rd pick may seal the deal....

[Nivek]

Don't agree with you on Shannon Brown. He's inefficient on offense. The +/- data (specifically the RAPM stuff) suggests Brown's teams are worse on offense when he's in the game. He doesn't rebound or assist.

Kind of an academic conversation -- I wouldn't have wanted Maynor or Brown on my team.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Don't agree with you on Shannon Brown. He's inefficient on offense. The +/- data (specifically the RAPM stuff) suggests Brown's teams are worse on offense when he's in the game. He doesn't rebound or assist.

Kind of an academic conversation -- I wouldn't have wanted Maynor or Brown on my team.

Yep. No doubt his numbers are bad. I don't have a logical, numerically-based comeback. Just a persuasive argument...

About Shannon Brown: Just like Ray Allen looked done when he went to the Heat, the guy has something special. Ray came up big in the past and turns out he saved the Heat last season. Brown, like Ariza, gave the Lakers life and a spark on the way to a title run. The guy's only 28, but he's already played for Tom Izzo and Phil Jackson, on two NBA championship teams. Not before having to work his way up from the D-League. This is a potential teacher on the bench. He's a spirited guy. Just like Cartier Martin, some players fought long and hard to earn their way in the league and they make rosters for a reason. They have heart with ability.

Nivek, this is the part where I think like a chef, sometimes you throw a little something into the mix and it makes a good chili or a good gumbo. Yeah, I'm a fat guy and my kids eat like ravenous wolves. One is skinny. (He looks like me in the face so I'm not gonna call in Maury Povich … just yet.) Every now and then something you just don't think belongs in the dish makes the food taste good. For instance, instead of insisting on store bought croutons, make your own. Put some bread in the toaster and make your own darned croutons. Season it with whatever you're feeling at the time. Near-200 pound 13-year old, mostly muscles FWIW, scarfed up several plates of salad yesterday. Throw some packaged salmon or whatever on top. All kinds of peppers .. I'm hungry again.

Nivek, I just think function (combo guard who throws down dunks with authority), experience (2 rings and MSU defense), and disparate skills (who else is like him in this roster?) for Brown would have made him a darned good fit. If you go to war or a fight you want to have a well balanced attack. More tools/weapons to wage business with. Just on two rings he has credibility if not efficient offense. He survived Izzo and can play defense. Jackson coached him two seasons, and he survived Kobe. This is a guy Wittman and Grunfeld were wrong to waive IMO.

[Ruzious]

Shannon Brown is not a 3rd guard. He's a shooting guard. In a pinch, he might be able the 3 in certain matchups, but he does not have the skills or inclinations to play the point - even in a pinch.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Shannon Brown is not a 3rd guard. He's a shooting guard. In a pinch, he might be able the 3 in certain matchups, but he does not have the skills or inclinations to play the point - even in a pinch.

You don't say …

http://arizona.sbnation.com/phoenix-sun ... nnon-brown

The Cleveland Cavaliers drafted Shannon Brown 25th overall in the 2006 draft, and his time there was ultimately a failed experiment. Brown never made an impact until he joined the Los Angeles Lakers, and now with the Phoenix Suns, he told The Arizona Republic's Paul Coro that the Cavs push for him to play the point guard spot just didn't work.

Still, Brown's insertion into Phoenix's starting lineup more than a week ago has paid dividends beyond the box score. He has yet to score more than 10 points as a starter and in the past three games has shot just 35 percent from the floor, but his presence has taken pressure off point guard Goran Dragic in the backcourt by giving more ball handling duties to Brown.

"Guys are hassling him," Brown said. "I'm glad I can take the pressure off him. It's a physical and mental pressure."
Though he has too much a scorer's mentality to play the point, Brown still sees himself as a playmaker.

Brown recorded seven assists against the Philadelphia 76ers on Sunday, a career high.

Ruz, I beg to differ.



(PS - I think yesterday they wouldn't have lost with a Brown-type mentally tough player in there with Wall at the end. Martell is a SF. Beal IS the guy, but he's just young and teams key on him. They needed leadership that sometimes Wall doesn't show yet at the end of games.)