K. Pelton: Lakers non believers in advanced stats

[dockingsched]

So Kevin Pelton broke down all NBA teams into tiers based on ther belief and adoption of advanced stats.

Only three teams were placed into the bottom category, "Non believers", which were the Lakers, Knicks, and Nets.

Here's what he said about the Lakers:

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings#!nba

The Lakers were the only NBA team without a representative at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, symbolic of their disregard for advanced stats. Two years later, they say they have begun to take steps toward adopting a new approach, but the progress is invisible so far.

Former Lakers head coach Rudy Tomjanovich and his son, Trey, have been providing basic statistical analysis to the front office for years, but it's only recently that the Lakers have invested in an analytics department. GM Mitch Kupchak told ESPN.com that SportVU data has "changed this whole business" and that he has brought aboard a group of four employees to interpret the data.

But the Lakers were slow to embrace SportVU data, not being willing to pay for the cameras before the NBA stepped up and installed them in every arena. And while Kupchak indicated most SportVU analysis is directed toward the coaching staff, with assistant coach Mark Madsen as a conduit, it's hard to find any evidence of Byron Scott putting those insights in play on the court.

Scott's preseason declaration that he doesn't believe an offense heavy on 3-point attempts wins championships runs counter to statistical analysis and recent history. Following through on Scott's directives, the Lakers are taking the NBA's third-highest percentage of their shots from the midrange, the least efficient area of the court....

There's more at the link about the Lakers and every other team.

Here's how the teams ranked in terms of their integration of advanced stat analysis:

ALL IN:
Mavs, rockets, Spurs, 76ers

BELIEVERS:
Hawks, Celtics, cavs, pistons, Warriors, Grizzlies, thunder, blazers

ONE FOOT IN:
Hornets, Pacers, heat, bucks, magic, Suns, Kings, raptors, jazz

SKEPTICS:
Bulls, pelicans, nuggets, clippers, wolves, Wizards

NON BELIEVERS:
Lakers, Knicks, nets

[TyCobb]

Sounds about right. The least cheap owners, who are willing to pay luxury tax penalties, will pay up to get the talent instead of looking for the value role player.

[Slava]

This is kind of embarrassing but this is the same franchise that cleaned out all the scouts over an 8 month lockout so hiring a proper analytics team is likely not in the list of priorities.

[ALL HAIL]

I'd be one of those "one foot in" teams, using it as a tool but not as something that I guide my entire operation upon.

Although I'm sure many here will think this is just another example of the Lakers being complacent, too "old school", or just plain lazy, I don't hold any disregard for the Lakers for not adopting these philosophies.

To me, wholly embracing analytics isn't necessary to attain success.

[TyCobb]

The Lakers would have 5 banners taken away if they had traded the biggest statistical anomaly away.

[Pointgod]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

[TyCobb]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

Their success stems from their star players taking paycuts.

[Pointgod]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

Their success stems from their star players taking paycuts.

Really? Their star players took paycuts to resign Boris Diaw and Tiago frickin Splitter? The Spurs could literally make every single move they've made over the past couple years even if their stars had taken their market value. How did a pay cut help them trade for future finals MVP Kawai Leonard? Please the whole paycut idea is bull. It's just a way for owners to cheap out. Great drafting, smart free agent signings and targeting the right type of players makes the difference.

[TyCobb]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

Their success stems from their star players taking paycuts.

Really? Their star players took paycuts to resign Boris Diaw and Tiago frickin Splitter? The Spurs could literally make every single move they've made over the past couple years even if their stars had taken their market value. How did a pay cut help them trade for future finals MVP Kawai Leonard? Please the whole paycut idea is bull. It's just a way for owners to cheap out. Great drafting, smart free agent signings and targeting the right type of players makes the difference.

Their stars wouldn't be on the same team if they got what they earned.

[Pointgod]

Their success stems from their star players taking paycuts.

Really? Their star players took paycuts to resign Boris Diaw and Tiago frickin Splitter? The Spurs could literally make every single move they've made over the past couple years even if their stars had taken their market value. How did a pay cut help them trade for future finals MVP Kawai Leonard? Please the whole paycut idea is bull. It's just a way for owners to cheap out. Great drafting, smart free agent signings and targeting the right type of players makes the difference.

Their stars wouldn't be on the same team if they got what they earned.

Stars would remain on a team if owners are willing to pay to remain contenders. See Okc

[dockingsched]

I think it's unwise to limit the scope of stat analysis to simply finding value role players or diamonds in the rough.

For a lot of teams, including the Spurs, stat analysis influences their on court strategies and approach. That's probably the area where advanced stats is mostly used. Here's what it said about the Spurs:

The Spurs' famously fluid style of play comes in large part from the wisdom provided by the numbers. The Spurs get into their offense quickly and relentlessly seek out open shots from the 3-point line and at the basket. No team has attempted more corner 3s than the Spurs over the past decade, and under Gregg Popovich they've also excelled at taking away 3-pointers and shots at the rim, forcing opponents to the midrange.

As an illustration of the depth of the Spurs' process, Buford explained how the team adjusted to the data and improved their defense after slipping to 11th in defensive rating in 2011-12:

"I think we were valuing some things that weren't nearly as important as what the data showed. We learned from the Celtics on defensive rebounding. While they were really high in defensive efficiency, they weren't very high in defensive rebounding. It made us question, 'Is that really where we should be paying attention?' Those were discussions that were then brought to Pop from our coaches and from our analytics team. Some great discussions came from that that then led us to re-evaluate what's important for us."

[TyCobb]

Stars would remain on a team if owners are willing to pay to remain contenders. See Okc

Well, yeah, that's my point. But since they (Spurs star players) took paycuts, they're able to use the extra money to spend on multiple, complimentary role players. Same with Dirk and the Mavs. Same with the Heat big 3 when they all took paycuts. I think we all know how dominant OKC would be if they kept Harden around. The next test will be for the Clippers with Paul, Griffin, and Jordan.

[ALL HAIL]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

I absolutely think they're being stubborn to change, but, in my opinion, "changing" (in this regard) is not a prerequisite for success.

Analytics are a tool but not a necessity.

If you're going to use the Spurs as an example of how to run a franchise while disregarding the successful formula the Lakers have adopted for decades, you're being remarkably short-sighted.

[dockingsched]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

I wish it was just about stubbornness against the numbers movement but Jim Buss gave an interview to ESPN a few years ago where he described himself as a numbers guy. He then went on to explain he developed his own statistical tool for evaluating players and gauging their value.

I think that's far more concerning than the Lakers simply shrugging off advanced stats.

[ALL HAIL]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

I wish it was just about stubbornness against the numbers movement but Jim Buss gave an interview to ESPN a few years ago where he described himself as a numbers guy. He then went on to explain he developed his own statistical tool for evaluating players and gauging their value.

I think that's far more concerning than the Lakers simply shrugging off advanced stats.

Isn't this, by definition, analytics?

[Pointgod]

Stars would remain on a team if owners are willing to pay to remain contenders. See Okc

Well, yeah, that's my point. But since they (Spurs star players) took paycuts, they're able to use the extra money to spend on multiple, complimentary role players. Same with Dirk and the Mavs. Same with the Heat big 3 when they all took paycuts. I think we all know how dominant OKC would be if they kept Harden around. The next test will be for the Clippers with Paul, Griffin, and Jordan.

To dismiss the role of analytics in the Spur's success and attribute it to paycuts is ridiculous. The Spurs star players taking paycuts has nothing to do with trading for Kawai Leonard which was the ultimate difference maker. Dirk took a massive pay cut and all the Mavs had to show for it was Chandler Parsons big deal. Montae Ellis, Tyson Chandler and Rondo were all traded for so again the point you're trying to make doesn't hold water.

I absolutely think they're being stubborn to change, but, in my opinion, "changing" (in this regard) is not a prerequisite for success.

Analytics are a tool but not a necessity.

If you're going to use the Spurs as an example of how to run a franchise while disregarding the successful formula the Lakers have adopted for decades, you're being remarkably short-sighted.

Analytics is absolutely a necessity. There are countless examples of big companies that were on top of an industry, but failed to adapt and died. The Laker's success was in a different era, under a different set of rules and a CBA. Analytics should play part in everything you do and the decisions an organization makes. I'm not suggesting we take it to the extreme like Houston and Philadelphia who trade players like baseball cards and have little disregard for team chemistry. I made this post in another thread, but 34 million of our cap is tied to Lin, Nash, Boozer, Jordan Hill and Nick Young. That's horrible mismanagement of the cap. What analytics could do is help us find undervalued players and identify players that compliment each other while using our capspace optimally.

[ALL HAIL]

Stars would remain on a team if owners are willing to pay to remain contenders. See Okc

Well, yeah, that's my point. But since they (Spurs star players) took paycuts, they're able to use the extra money to spend on multiple, complimentary role players. Same with Dirk and the Mavs. Same with the Heat big 3 when they all took paycuts. I think we all know how dominant OKC would be if they kept Harden around. The next test will be for the Clippers with Paul, Griffin, and Jordan.

To dismiss the role of analytics in the Spur's success and attribute it to paycuts is ridiculous. The Spurs star players taking paycuts has nothing to do with trading for Kawai Leonard which was the ultimate difference maker. Dirk took a massive pay cut and all the Mavs had to show for it was Chandler Parsons big deal. Montae Ellis, Tyson Chandler and Rondo were all traded for so again the point you're trying to make doesn't hold water.

I absolutely think they're being stubborn to change, but, in my opinion, "changing" (in this regard) is not a prerequisite for success.

Analytics are a tool but not a necessity.

If you're going to use the Spurs as an example of how to run a franchise while disregarding the successful formula the Lakers have adopted for decades, you're being remarkably short-sighted.

Analytics is absolutely a necessity. There are countless examples of big companies that were on top of an industry, but failed to adapt and died. The Laker's success was in a different era, under a different set of rules and a CBA. Analytics should play part in everything you do and the decisions an organization makes. I'm not suggesting we take it to the extreme like Houston and Philadelphia who trade players like baseball cards and have little disregard for team chemistry. I made this post in another thread, but 34 million of our cap is tied to Lin, Nash, Boozer, Jordan Hill and Nick Young. That's horrible mismanagement of the cap. What analytics could do is help us find undervalued players and identify players that compliment each other while using our capspace optimally.

Everything you stated about analytics can be done without it's use.

And what new rules have been adopted since the Lakers' last championship?

[EArl]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

Yes, but all that works because they have Duncan and Pop on the team. They are more responsible about the team than Advanced Stats.

[ALL HAIL]

You guys are crazy if you don't think this is the classic example of an organization too stubborn to change. Advanced analytics provides a competitive advantage over the teams that aren't fully engaged. The Spurs are an organization that's all in and surprise surprise they always manage to find the diamonds in the rough that fit their system. That alone should tell you its value.

I can tell your a kid. You think the new way is the only way. It isn't.

[TyCobb]

To dismiss the role of analytics in the Spur's success and attribute it to paycuts is ridiculous. The Spurs star players taking paycuts has nothing to do with trading for Kawai Leonard which was the ultimate difference maker. Dirk took a massive pay cut and all the Mavs had to show for it was Chandler Parsons big deal. Montae Ellis, Tyson Chandler and Rondo were all traded for so again the point you're trying to make doesn't hold water.

To dismiss the role of having a foundation madeup of three stars and an all-time great coach is ridiculous.

Ellis and Parsons were both signed as Free Agents. And Rondo is trash. Which even advanced analytics would imply.