Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, theBigLip, Snakebites
This is largely a top-down approach and the Pistons have a couple of old-school guards in the top chairs. I've never heard Joe Dumars utter the word "analytics," much less apply one. Maurice Cheeks, asked about advanced statistics earlier this year, responded with something about 3-point percentage. They govern by eyeballs.
princeofpalace wrote:There are numerous reasons to can Joe D, analytic isn't one of them. Only 1/3rd of all NBA teams have guys in the FO that specialize in advanced stats. Yet another trash piece from DBB.
This is largely a top-down approach and the Pistons have a couple of old-school guards in the top chairs. I've never heard Joe Dumars utter the word "analytics," much less apply one. Maurice Cheeks, asked about advanced statistics earlier this year, responded with something about 3-point percentage. They govern by eyeballs.
Lawrence Frank was attuned to analytics and who/what succeeded/failed under specific conditions or stimuli. He had a coaching staff that was attuned to it, too. Cheeks' coaches are, too. Cheeks has admitted his coaches would inundate him with such statistical analysis if he showed interest in it, which he admits he generally doesn't. Cheeks' stated approach is that he'll listen to anything interesting that's brought to him. If you bring him good information, he's more likely to listen. That's the analytics department here.
Morey (Houston) and Hinkie (Philadelphia) are the first in what generically is called the "Moneyball" approach (hiring statistically savvy front-office personnel) to ascend to a general manager's job. When Hinkie worked under Morey in Houston, they signed a pig in a poke with Jeremy Lin, an average point guard at an inflated pay rate, and now the Rockets are trying with little success to move Omer Asik's contract. I doubt anyone needed advanced statistics to know Dwight Howard and James Harden are unique. The 76ers are purging, positioning for the draft, and stopping no one defensively. We'll see how it all works but it's been a mixed bag.
Memphis also made a big splash last season by hiring John Hollinger, the former ESPN columnist who created the Player Efficiency Rating, as vice president of basketball operations early last season. While I've known a good number of writers who fancied themselves as potential head coaches or front-office types (and a few who actually probably could have been, if trained extensively for such a position), I generally wouldn't recommend hiring writers fresh off the keyboard to help run a team. But Memphis got an analytics-happy owner in Robert Pera, Hollinger was hired, and Memphis quickly made a couple of big trades, most notably involving Rudy Gay, as if you need a statistical analyst to tell you Gay requires lots of shots and lots of cash. Just watch the games and the bottom line and you'd know that trading Gay made the Grizzlies leaner offensively and fatter in cap space. There were reports that former Grizzlies coach Lionel Hollins and Hollinger were at odds, too. Hollins is a gruff person by any measure and the conflicts of old school and new school were inevitable.
Having a staffer tuned in to analytics is advisable, but whether it warrants more than a subscription to Synergy Sports, Sports VU and other statistical clearinghouses, and that one "Rain Man" cat who never forgets a statistic and can slice the numeric clutter and find that game-winning nugget, is debatable. Whether it has to be the GM, or his right hand, is even moreso. The Grizzlies went to the Western finals last year but they're skeptically viewed as playing a fantasy game in the front office. Of course, if you're Memphis, your view is that your early crossing into basketball's brave new world got you to the final four. Again, the truth rests in the middle.
If a player consistently makes 3-pointers in transition but not off the pick and roll, you need to know. If a certain player grouping is particularly good or poor, either offensively or defensively, analytics might help explain it. If you're getting killed over the top on pick and roll, and are playing an opponent whose point guard doesn't like getting blitzed on pick and roll, then you're going to jump him. Again, I also don't know how much you'd need analytics to tell you that, since your advance scouts will.
princeofpalace wrote:There are numerous reasons to can Joe D, analytic isn't one of them. Only 1/3rd of all NBA teams have guys in the FO that specialize in advanced stats. Yet another trash piece from DBB.
But as our last example, contrast the San Antonio Spurs' approach to retooling with the Pistons'. On the one hand, the Spurs are a franchise that employs a variety of statistical tools (most of which are proprietary and which they guard carefully).
Clarity wrote:Im with HK re the Spurs.
HeroicKennedy wrote:princeofpalace wrote:There are numerous reasons to can Joe D, analytic isn't one of them. Only 1/3rd of all NBA teams have guys in the FO that specialize in advanced stats. Yet another trash piece from DBB.But as our last example, contrast the San Antonio Spurs' approach to retooling with the Pistons'. On the one hand, the Spurs are a franchise that employs a variety of statistical tools (most of which are proprietary and which they guard carefully).
I want whatever system they have employed in Detroit.
Not only that, I read a interesting note from a redditor who noticed that the Spurs change from a defensive juggernaut to an offensive powerhouse over the years. It almost seems like they interchange periodically to whatever offensive/defensive scheme is trending. It's really fascinating to see how they can be a slow defensive monster one year to a offensive jumpshooting team the next.ImHeisenberg wrote:HeroicKennedy wrote:princeofpalace wrote:There are numerous reasons to can Joe D, analytic isn't one of them. Only 1/3rd of all NBA teams have guys in the FO that specialize in advanced stats. Yet another trash piece from DBB.But as our last example, contrast the San Antonio Spurs' approach to retooling with the Pistons'. On the one hand, the Spurs are a franchise that employs a variety of statistical tools (most of which are proprietary and which they guard carefully).
I want whatever system they have employed in Detroit.
It's a system implemented and designed by an organization full of intelligent people that are always willing to adapt to change and try to be on the cutting edge of where the league is trending. You can even see it their play style over the years. A decade+ ago, the Spurs were used a twin tower to a couple titles. Now, they like post players who can stretch the D, using a lot of dribble penetration with Parker.
Detroit will never have anything close to a system like that until Dumars and everything he's tainted in that organization is washed away.
HeroicKennedy wrote:
It says something when two key players to the championship run are now several years removed from their best years and they're still able to build teams that compete for NBA titles. Without lottery picks. Without huge free agent signings.
kurtis48239 wrote:I dont really get this articule,its supposed to put down dumars for not using analytics,but then goes on to say gores brought in guys who use this and wanted joe to go with frank and dumars did.Then it says phil came in and suggested the cheeks hiring and dumars went with it,to me it sounds like dumars hasant really made a decision regarding anything and has went with what the owner wanted.I do relize that joe signed smith/jennings but do we really know if thats who he really wanted.But why is joe getting the blame for coaching hires that he never picked.
princeofpalace wrote:There are numerous reasons to can Joe D, analytic isn't one of them. Only 1/3rd of all NBA teams have guys in the FO that specialize in advanced stats. Yet another trash piece from DBB.
Clarity wrote:HeroicKennedy wrote:
It says something when two key players to the championship run are now several years removed from their best years and they're still able to build teams that compete for NBA titles. Without lottery picks. Without huge free agent signings.
Stability is such an underrated thing in pro sports.
kurtis48239 wrote:I dont really get this articule,its supposed to put down dumars for not using analytics,but then goes on to say gores brought in guys who use this and wanted joe to go with frank and dumars did.Then it says phil came in and suggested the cheeks hiring and dumars went with it,to me it sounds like dumars hasant really made a decision regarding anything and has went with what the owner wanted.I do relize that joe signed smith/jennings but do we really know if thats who he really wanted.But why is joe getting the blame for coaching hires that he never picked.
princeofpalace wrote:The Mlive article provided a much better picture than DBB's nonsenseThis is largely a top-down approach and the Pistons have a couple of old-school guards in the top chairs. I've never heard Joe Dumars utter the word "analytics," much less apply one. Maurice Cheeks, asked about advanced statistics earlier this year, responded with something about 3-point percentage. They govern by eyeballs.
Lawrence Frank was attuned to analytics and who/what succeeded/failed under specific conditions or stimuli. He had a coaching staff that was attuned to it, too. Cheeks' coaches are, too. Cheeks has admitted his coaches would inundate him with such statistical analysis if he showed interest in it, which he admits he generally doesn't. Cheeks' stated approach is that he'll listen to anything interesting that's brought to him. If you bring him good information, he's more likely to listen. That's the analytics department here.
Morey (Houston) and Hinkie (Philadelphia) are the first in what generically is called the "Moneyball" approach (hiring statistically savvy front-office personnel) to ascend to a general manager's job. When Hinkie worked under Morey in Houston, they signed a pig in a poke with Jeremy Lin, an average point guard at an inflated pay rate, and now the Rockets are trying with little success to move Omer Asik's contract. I doubt anyone needed advanced statistics to know Dwight Howard and James Harden are unique. The 76ers are purging, positioning for the draft, and stopping no one defensively. We'll see how it all works but it's been a mixed bag.
Memphis also made a big splash last season by hiring John Hollinger, the former ESPN columnist who created the Player Efficiency Rating, as vice president of basketball operations early last season. While I've known a good number of writers who fancied themselves as potential head coaches or front-office types (and a few who actually probably could have been, if trained extensively for such a position), I generally wouldn't recommend hiring writers fresh off the keyboard to help run a team. But Memphis got an analytics-happy owner in Robert Pera, Hollinger was hired, and Memphis quickly made a couple of big trades, most notably involving Rudy Gay, as if you need a statistical analyst to tell you Gay requires lots of shots and lots of cash. Just watch the games and the bottom line and you'd know that trading Gay made the Grizzlies leaner offensively and fatter in cap space. There were reports that former Grizzlies coach Lionel Hollins and Hollinger were at odds, too. Hollins is a gruff person by any measure and the conflicts of old school and new school were inevitable.
Having a staffer tuned in to analytics is advisable, but whether it warrants more than a subscription to Synergy Sports, Sports VU and other statistical clearinghouses, and that one "Rain Man" cat who never forgets a statistic and can slice the numeric clutter and find that game-winning nugget, is debatable. Whether it has to be the GM, or his right hand, is even moreso. The Grizzlies went to the Western finals last year but they're skeptically viewed as playing a fantasy game in the front office. Of course, if you're Memphis, your view is that your early crossing into basketball's brave new world got you to the final four. Again, the truth rests in the middle.
If a player consistently makes 3-pointers in transition but not off the pick and roll, you need to know. If a certain player grouping is particularly good or poor, either offensively or defensively, analytics might help explain it. If you're getting killed over the top on pick and roll, and are playing an opponent whose point guard doesn't like getting blitzed on pick and roll, then you're going to jump him. Again, I also don't know how much you'd need analytics to tell you that, since your advance scouts will.
