PC Board OT thread

[sp6r=underrated]

Sp6r, those are some radical ideas and would completely change the sport. The reality is that it will never happen.

My proposal is quite radical for North American sports but is quite common for European sports league. My hope is that the globalization of basketball will put significant pressure on the NBA to remove policies that hinder the quality of the league in the hopes of reducing labor costs.

[E-Balla]

Sp6r, those are some radical ideas and would completely change the sport. The reality is that it will never happen.

My proposal is quite radical for North American sports but is quite common for European sports league. My hope is that the globalization of basketball will put significant pressure on the NBA to remove policies that hinder the quality of the league in the hopes of reducing labor costs.

And that's why European sports leagues suck compared to American sports leagues. Why copy a business model used for a lesser league. The MLB and NFL are still the two most profitable leagues in the world.

[penbeast0]

Bullet Points of what I would want in a new CBA

- Elimination of the Players Draft
- Elimination of the Salary Cap
- Elimination of the Age Limit
- Elimination of minimum/maximum salaries
- Elimination of territorial rights

This would force teams to attempt to win which will lead to better strategies and players over the long run. It would also allows teams trapped in uncompetitive markets to move to richer cities.

Or, could go the opposite direction and accept that the NBA is a single entity rather than 30 separate ones. It's competition is other entertainment markets and I find MLB unentertaining because most of the teams are almost never competitive; unlike the NFL which provides the most competitive league.

Instead, have all revenues other than local stadium (live ticket) revenues go into the league pocket and have a share equal to or larger than the current one be paid directly to the players based on the minutes they played. The remainder can be shared with all the owners to lessen the big market advantage. So that the true stars stay in the NBA and don't go to Europe, double the base salary for being voted by fans to the all-star team (minimum of 1 player for each team so there is an incentive to go to teams without superstars), 4x the base salary for MVPS (since base salary for a guy playing 35 mpg would already be in the neighborhood of $40 million a year, then the MVP would make 40 which is some incentive for Curry, LeBron, etc., and some sort of provision to pay players who are established but injured (salary can decline by no more than 1/2 each year; reduced to zero by voluntary retirement or being waived and not picked up if healthy).

This way, owners are paying the league for the right to put on games with the teams. They choose the teams but their revenue stream is purely ticket sales and in stadium concessions/parking/etc. The draft stays with 3 year rights for 1st rounders, 2 years for 2nd rounders, but after that any player is free to move although there should be an annual % increase in pay relative to minutes for staying in one city because fan loyalty to their teams comes from identification with their players. Stars who can generate endorsements might still make more in big cities but not in terms of NBA salaries. Voting for all-star and MVP should be done by ticket holders so only fans who show up for games which implies a level of loyalty and interest can vote (there may be more examples of a player buying seats for his fans -- good, no problem with that).

I put this together once as an alternative business model last time the contract was up for negotiations and it was a bit more organized but you get the idea.

[Doctor MJ]

Sp6r, those are some radical ideas and would completely change the sport. The reality is that it will never happen.

My proposal is quite radical for North American sports but is quite common for European sports league. My hope is that the globalization of basketball will put significant pressure on the NBA to remove policies that hinder the quality of the league in the hopes of reducing labor costs.

I don't see it as likely that Europe is going to influence major American leagues. Partly because both sides are so set in their ways it's tough to change, but also because if you want to emulate the most successful leagues in the world, you look to the US. The NFL and MLB destroy any soccer league with revenue and do so with far greater parity - which the non-NY/LA market teams will find preferable.

It is really ironic though that the US, which is so much more free market loving in theory, has sports leagues that are so much more centrally controlled.

[Doctor MJ]

On Max Contracts specifically, I still feel like the players talking about this are likely utterly clueless. Who was it? Kobe & Cuban? Bantering in public as if no Max's would be a concession by the owners for which they'd get something else. Any superstar who believes this just seems like someone who has no idea what his teammates' situations are. While the owners do get a benefit from Max Contracts, so do non-superstars as it leaves more money for "the rest".

I honestly can't fathom the eye-rolling that would go on if a group of superstars went up there in a union meeting and talked about how Max Contracts were keeping the players down.

Of course the players as a whole would want no salary cap, and if that happened I could see the non-superstars getting behind no Max Contracts, but the very idea that superstars are whining about Max Contracts within the current context is just amazing. Yeah Superstar, you're getting screwed a bit here... by the guys who you depend on to get you the trophies and shoe deals they'll never have.

[E-Balla]

On Max Contracts specifically, I still feel like the players talking about this are likely utterly clueless. Who was it? Kobe & Cuban? Bantering in public as if no Max's would be a concession by the owners for which they'd get something else. Any superstar who believes this just seems like someone who has no idea what his teammates' situations are. While the owners do get a benefit from Max Contracts, so do non-superstars as it leaves more money for "the rest".

I honestly can't fathom the eye-rolling that would go on if a group of superstars went up there in a union meeting and talked about how Max Contracts were keeping the players down.

Of course the players as a whole would want no salary cap, and if that happened I could see the non-superstars getting behind no Max Contracts, but the very idea that superstars are whining about Max Contracts within the current context is just amazing. Yeah Superstar, you're getting screwed a bit here... by the guys who you depend on to get you the trophies and shoe deals they'll never have.

Exactly. No max contracts is why the average NFL player salary is 1.9 million but the median is $700,000 and the median NFL player makes less than 2 million over their whole careers. Lebron and the like would make 35-45 mil but players like Brandon Bass would struggle to make 3-4 mil on a competitive team.

[sp6r=underrated]

Or, could go the opposite direction and accept that the NBA is a single entity rather than 30 separate ones. It's competition is other entertainment markets and I find MLB unentertaining because most of the teams are almost never competitive; unlike the NFL which provides the most competitive league.

It is important for the purpose of discussion to define the term parity and competitive balance because while they are often used interchangeably they represent different thing. Parity in sports is best defined as the standard deviation to the mean. A league with a higher standard deviation has less parity than a sport with a lower standard deviation. Competitive balance is best of thought of as the ability of separate teams to generate revenue. Again a sport with a lower standard deviation will have more competitive balance than a sport with a higher competitive balance.

The salary cap and other salary limitations if viewed in a positive light are an attempt to bring greater parity to the sport through changing the competitive balance rules. Supporters believe these rules about parity.

From a competitive balance perspective in North American sports represents one extreme with very weak competitive balance with the NBA in the middle and the NFL at the further end in favor of competitive balance. In the NFL the vast majority of revenue is raised at the national level which is an important consideration that I’ll return to later. In MLB local TV deals are where most of the revenue comes from. The NBA is again in the middle.

19 franchises in MLB have won the World Series since 1980 in comparison to 11 in the NBA and 16 NFL clubs. MLB actually has the most parity of the three leagues when it comes to winning titles despite doing the least to help poorer clubs. The differences in winning percentage between clubs during the season are smaller in baseball. Please check that this number is right if you have doubts. It is based on a quick scan of wiki. Baseball actually has tons of parity.

The belief that competitive balance rules can greatly influence parity isn’t borne out by the evidence. Parity is primarily defined by the nature of the game. Basketball is inherently anti-parity due to the large influence of superstars, the small roster size and the relative lack of randomness. Baseball is actually a sport that favors parity due to the large fluctuations in season to season performance and in-game randomness.

The salary cap and players draft has not brought parity to basketball and is incapable of doing so. If you are hell bent on bringing parity to basketball there are far more effective means of doing do than the salary cap. I wouldn’t support this rule but if you want parity at the end of every season allow the five worse teams to pick any two players from the top five teams. That would quickly bring more parity to basketball.

I wouldn’t like it but if parity is what you care about support that rule change. If you think that is silly why isn't silly to force the best young players to join bad clubs?

I don't see it as likely that Europe is going to influence major American leagues. Partly because both sides are so set in their ways it's tough to change, but also because if you want to emulate the most successful leagues in the world, you look to the US. The NFL and MLB destroy any soccer league with revenue and do so with far greater parity - which the non-NY/LA market teams will find preferable.

I wasn’t argue that the players and owners will look to Europe for ideas but rather that the emerging basketball leagues would ultimately break the cartel of the NBA. Cartels are notoriously difficult to keep together because there are always incentives to breaking the cartel and attempting to dominate the market.

There are pressures on the NBA cartel. Already, NBA clubs are unable to get the top European players to come over to they are well into their career. Rookie salaries are uncompetitive. As basketball becomes more popular it is likely these clubs will be able to offer young American players better contracts than the rookie deals they currently get. Eventually the discrepancy will get so large the NBA will have to change their rules are see a loss of talent. A similar thing pressure may eventually break maximum salaries if basketball increasingly becomes popular in Europe.

I am not saying it will happen but it is one possible future and one that would be for the benefit of basketball consumers. The pressure of competitive markets spurs innovation. Currently the CBA limits those pressures by eradicating a good deal of incentive for a club to improve. This is most obvious when it comes to the lack of player development engaged in by teams because of the draft. If there wasn’t a draft all teams would be forced to scout the globe to recruit players. That worldwide recruiting would mean a larger talent pool and better overall basketball. That doesn’t currently occur because there are no incentives to engage in that recruitment. If you find a diamond in the rough the player still has to go through the draft. As such there is no point and that does not occur. This is a massive loss to our viewing enjoyment and isn’t really appreciated by most people because they don’t take it into account.

It is really ironic though that the US, which is so much more free market loving in theory, has sports leagues that are so much more centrally controlled.

There isn’t anything ironic about it. No one really cares about free markets beyond economic professors. People care about the division of wealth. When competitive market places favor labor, capitalists will instantly call for central control because their chief motivation is getting the money.

[PaulieWal]

Spoiler:

Or, could go the opposite direction and accept that the NBA is a single entity rather than 30 separate ones. It's competition is other entertainment markets and I find MLB unentertaining because most of the teams are almost never competitive; unlike the NFL which provides the most competitive league.

It is important for the purpose of discussion to define the term parity and competitive balance because while they are often used interchangeably they represent different thing. Parity in sports is best defined as the standard deviation to the mean. A league with a higher standard deviation has less parity than a sport with a lower standard deviation. Competitive balance is best of thought of as the ability of separate teams to generate revenue. Again a sport with a lower standard deviation will have more competitive balance than a sport with a higher competitive balance.

The salary cap and other salary limitations if viewed in a positive light are an attempt to bring greater parity to the sport through changing the competitive balance rules. Supporters believe these rules about parity.

From a competitive balance perspective in North American sports represents one extreme with very weak competitive balance with the NBA in the middle and the NFL at the further end in favor of competitive balance. In the NFL the vast majority of revenue is raised at the national level which is an important consideration that I’ll return to later. In MLB local TV deals are where most of the revenue comes from. The NBA is again in the middle.

19 franchises in MLB have won the World Series since 1980 in comparison to 11 in the NBA and 16 NFL clubs. MLB actually has the most parity of the three leagues when it comes to winning titles despite doing the least to help poorer clubs. The differences in winning percentage between clubs during the season are smaller in baseball. Please check that this number is right if you have doubts. It is based on a quick scan of wiki. Baseball actually has tons of parity.

The belief that competitive balance rules can greatly influence parity isn’t borne out by the evidence. Parity is primarily defined by the nature of the game. Basketball is inherently anti-parity due to the large influence of superstars, the small roster size and the relative lack of randomness. Baseball is actually a sport that favors parity due to the large fluctuations in season to season performance and in-game randomness.

The salary cap and players draft has not brought parity to basketball and is incapable of doing so. If you are hell bent on bringing parity to basketball there are far more effective means of doing do than the salary cap. I wouldn’t support this rule but if you want parity at the end of every season allow the five worse teams to pick any two players from the top five teams. That would quickly bring more parity to basketball.

I wouldn’t like it but if parity is what you care about support that rule change. If you think that is silly why isn't silly to force the best young players to join bad clubs?

I don't see it as likely that Europe is going to influence major American leagues. Partly because both sides are so set in their ways it's tough to change, but also because if you want to emulate the most successful leagues in the world, you look to the US. The NFL and MLB destroy any soccer league with revenue and do so with far greater parity - which the non-NY/LA market teams will find preferable.

I wasn’t argue that the players and owners will look to Europe for ideas but rather that the emerging basketball leagues would ultimately break the cartel of the NBA. Cartels are notoriously difficult to keep together because there are always incentives to breaking the cartel and attempting to dominate the market.

There are pressures on the NBA cartel. Already, NBA clubs are unable to get the top European players to come over to they are well into their career. Rookie salaries are uncompetitive. As basketball becomes more popular it is likely these clubs will be able to offer young American players better contracts than the rookie deals they currently get. Eventually the discrepancy will get so large the NBA will have to change their rules are see a loss of talent. A similar thing pressure may eventually break maximum salaries if basketball increasingly becomes popular in Europe.

I am not saying it will happen but it is one possible future and one that would be for the benefit of basketball consumers. The pressure of competitive markets spurs innovation. Currently the CBA limits those pressures by eradicating a good deal of incentive for a club to improve. This is most obvious when it comes to the lack of player development engaged in by teams because of the draft. If there wasn’t a draft all teams would be forced to scout the globe to recruit players. That worldwide recruiting would mean a larger talent pool and better overall basketball. That doesn’t currently occur because there are no incentives to engage in that recruitment. If you find a diamond in the rough the player still has to go through the draft. As such there is no point and that does not occur. This is a massive loss to our viewing enjoyment and isn’t really appreciated by most people because they don’t take it into account.

It is really ironic though that the US, which is so much more free market loving in theory, has sports leagues that are so much more centrally controlled.

There isn’t anything ironic about it. No one really cares about free markets beyond economic professors. People care about the division of wealth. When competitive market places favor labor, capitalists will instantly call for central control because their chief motivation is getting the money.

In honor of your old avi:

[sp6r=underrated]

Spoiler:

Or, could go the opposite direction and accept that the NBA is a single entity rather than 30 separate ones. It's competition is other entertainment markets and I find MLB unentertaining because most of the teams are almost never competitive; unlike the NFL which provides the most competitive league.

It is important for the purpose of discussion to define the term parity and competitive balance because while they are often used interchangeably they represent different thing. Parity in sports is best defined as the standard deviation to the mean. A league with a higher standard deviation has less parity than a sport with a lower standard deviation. Competitive balance is best of thought of as the ability of separate teams to generate revenue. Again a sport with a lower standard deviation will have more competitive balance than a sport with a higher competitive balance.

The salary cap and other salary limitations if viewed in a positive light are an attempt to bring greater parity to the sport through changing the competitive balance rules. Supporters believe these rules about parity.

From a competitive balance perspective in North American sports represents one extreme with very weak competitive balance with the NBA in the middle and the NFL at the further end in favor of competitive balance. In the NFL the vast majority of revenue is raised at the national level which is an important consideration that I’ll return to later. In MLB local TV deals are where most of the revenue comes from. The NBA is again in the middle.

19 franchises in MLB have won the World Series since 1980 in comparison to 11 in the NBA and 16 NFL clubs. MLB actually has the most parity of the three leagues when it comes to winning titles despite doing the least to help poorer clubs. The differences in winning percentage between clubs during the season are smaller in baseball. Please check that this number is right if you have doubts. It is based on a quick scan of wiki. Baseball actually has tons of parity.

The belief that competitive balance rules can greatly influence parity isn’t borne out by the evidence. Parity is primarily defined by the nature of the game. Basketball is inherently anti-parity due to the large influence of superstars, the small roster size and the relative lack of randomness. Baseball is actually a sport that favors parity due to the large fluctuations in season to season performance and in-game randomness.

The salary cap and players draft has not brought parity to basketball and is incapable of doing so. If you are hell bent on bringing parity to basketball there are far more effective means of doing do than the salary cap. I wouldn’t support this rule but if you want parity at the end of every season allow the five worse teams to pick any two players from the top five teams. That would quickly bring more parity to basketball.

I wouldn’t like it but if parity is what you care about support that rule change. If you think that is silly why isn't silly to force the best young players to join bad clubs?

I don't see it as likely that Europe is going to influence major American leagues. Partly because both sides are so set in their ways it's tough to change, but also because if you want to emulate the most successful leagues in the world, you look to the US. The NFL and MLB destroy any soccer league with revenue and do so with far greater parity - which the non-NY/LA market teams will find preferable.

I wasn’t argue that the players and owners will look to Europe for ideas but rather that the emerging basketball leagues would ultimately break the cartel of the NBA. Cartels are notoriously difficult to keep together because there are always incentives to breaking the cartel and attempting to dominate the market.

There are pressures on the NBA cartel. Already, NBA clubs are unable to get the top European players to come over to they are well into their career. Rookie salaries are uncompetitive. As basketball becomes more popular it is likely these clubs will be able to offer young American players better contracts than the rookie deals they currently get. Eventually the discrepancy will get so large the NBA will have to change their rules are see a loss of talent. A similar thing pressure may eventually break maximum salaries if basketball increasingly becomes popular in Europe.

I am not saying it will happen but it is one possible future and one that would be for the benefit of basketball consumers. The pressure of competitive markets spurs innovation. Currently the CBA limits those pressures by eradicating a good deal of incentive for a club to improve. This is most obvious when it comes to the lack of player development engaged in by teams because of the draft. If there wasn’t a draft all teams would be forced to scout the globe to recruit players. That worldwide recruiting would mean a larger talent pool and better overall basketball. That doesn’t currently occur because there are no incentives to engage in that recruitment. If you find a diamond in the rough the player still has to go through the draft. As such there is no point and that does not occur. This is a massive loss to our viewing enjoyment and isn’t really appreciated by most people because they don’t take it into account.

It is really ironic though that the US, which is so much more free market loving in theory, has sports leagues that are so much more centrally controlled.

There isn’t anything ironic about it. No one really cares about free markets beyond economic professors. People care about the division of wealth. When competitive market places favor labor, capitalists will instantly call for central control because their chief motivation is getting the money.

In honor of your old avi:

[Dr Positivity]

Watched first two episodes of AMC's Halt and Catch Fire - excellent so far. Would recommend

[Clyde Frazier]

Watched first two episodes of AMC's Halt and Catch Fire - excellent so far. Would recommend

I binge watched the 1st season in a weekend right as it was ending. Really hooks you. Haven't had a chance to check out the 2nd season yet (which is airing now).

[Dr Spaceman]

New column: 2015 free agency wrap-up.

https://rootingforgoliath.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/the-comprehensive-free-agency-wrap-up/

[RSCD3_]

Met Lou William's girlfriends mom at work today. She was in checkout and brought up her daughter was moving to LA and when I asked what team she said lakers. I asked who it would be and low and behold Lou Williams. Lol small world.

[ceiling raiser]

http://www.sportando.com/m/en/usa/nba/170499/kings-vp-vlade-divac-halted-all-communication-with-dean-oliver.html

[Quotatious]

http://www.sportando.com/m/en/usa/nba/170499/kings-vp-vlade-divac-halted-all-communication-with-dean-oliver.html

Kings are really a joke of an organization. Other than the early 2000s, they were mediocre basically the all the time expect for a few seasons (mainly 1951, when they won the title as the Rochester Royals, and 1964 in Cincinnati, when Oscar led them to 55 wins and division finals - but it seems like they were just lucky to get a transcendent superstar like Robertson - they didn't even do a good job building around him).
It's amazing how little success they've had considering they are one of the oldest franchises in the NBA.

Their fans deserve something better.

[Dr Spaceman]

http://www.sportando.com/m/en/usa/nba/170499/kings-vp-vlade-divac-halted-all-communication-with-dean-oliver.html

Obviously this is infuriating from a basketball perspective, but first I want to point out something totally baffling to me:

Vivek is a man who made unconscionable amounts of money in business, primarily in the tech industry. He's written several books about how to thrive in the business world. And yet his actions clearly demonstrate he's basically totally incompetent at one of the most basic business-related things.

If your organizational policy is going to be pro-analytics, then hire the right guys for the job. Dean Oliver is a good start. More importantly, you have to understand the personalities involved and build a culture from that perspective.

If you're going to go the "chain-smoking ex-player's intuition" route, nothing says that's inherently wrong either, but you have to understand that represents a gigantic shift in your philosophy and structure and requires an entirely different mix of personalities.

What this situation reads as is an inherent power struggle, because if Oliver was strictly a consultant and didn't have organizational pull this is a conflict that doesn't need to happen. Fine to bring a guy like Oliver on as a consultant, but clearly that's not his role if Vlade is this threatened by him and frankly giving Vlade power to fire a guy that Vivek hand-picked is just all kinds of toxic. And on top of this his coach is going behind his back to field trade offers for the franchise player. Who the **** is actually in charge here???

We know it's not that Vivek doesn't care, so his decision making can be essentially read as: I don't know what I'm doing here, so I'm going to throw **** at the wall and see what sticks. Guys like Karl are sharks, and there's no doubt in my mind that he read the situation and realized that a blatant power grab on his part was not going to be disciplined. How a guy who's clearly not dumb could be so easily taken advantage of (especially as a silicon valley vet) is beyond my understanding.

[GSP]

Brad Stevens is considered among many in the NBA world as an up-and-coming coach. He also has a good reputation among players, according to Washington Wizards forward Jared Dudley. “I’ve been hearing great things about Brad Stevens — that’s the buzz going around the league now,” Dudley said on a Grantland podcast, per ESPN.com. “Players, ex-players. I played with Jerryd Bayless, who played with him, different guys that have played for him. “He, obviously, back then, he was a rookie coach … but he was coaching like a vet. He knew when to give rest to the guys, not be in practice too long; his Xs and Os; his confidence he instilled in his players; he was playing a lot of different guys. He just knew it. “I think some people just get it at the young age. As you saw with (Golden State Warriors head coach Steve) Kerr, he had a great team, but he got it.” Dudley then went a step further: “I keep hearing the buzz on (Stevens) a lot. He’d definitely be in my top two or top three (coaches you’d want to play for).” Dudley also praised the Celtics for what they’ve been able to do in their continuous rebuild, applauding recent additions such as Isaiah Thomas last season and David Lee this summer. Yet it still comes back to Stevens. “And then, let’s just be honest, can anyone say — I know (Milwaukee Bucks coach Jason) Kidd’s up there — but is Brad Stevens not one of the best young coaches out there?” Dudley asked, according to ESPN.com. “I mean, come on, I’m super impressed with him and how he does his play-calling.”

Happy to hear this.................i had Stevens as my Coy in 15. It was very telling how we did against Cleveland in comparison to Atlanta and we faced a Cleveland team with Love and Kyrie. Weve picked up some talent this season but i could see us upsetting a team in the playoffs. Stevens just makes the best adjustments in the league his coaching style is fit perfectly for playoff basketball as opposed to someone like Bud who specializes in building a culture and system but doesnt react well when its not working. Pop also coached a really bad series that ppl ignore for obvious reasons, not sure hes the same guy he was.

Thibs minute management will always be a question/problem. Carlisle is a good coach but he makes some very questionable decisions especially late in games. I think his 11 run had way more to do with Dirk at the peak of his abilities just scaring defenses crapless in hindsight. Kerr is def up there had the Goat rookie coaching season but lets see next season how he does. We know he shouldnt get much if any of the defensive credit. Thats all Ron Adams and the talent, even his assistants were making the adjustments defensively in the finals. But lets see how great an offensive coach he really is next season with Gentry gone, most of these Warriors should be better than they were this past season. No reason to think they cant get better offensively...............if they stay healthy and get worse offensively it could really just mean Kerr is great at selection between options but not really the true mind behind the offense or defense. Stevens is on both ends actually the more i think about it i dont even think itll even be close next season.

[Texas Chuck]

^^^

Look I really like Brad Stevens too, but he doesn't need you to do a complete smear job on other top coaches to prop him up.

[Doctor MJ]

http://www.sportando.com/m/en/usa/nba/170499/kings-vp-vlade-divac-halted-all-communication-with-dean-oliver.html

Obviously this is infuriating from a basketball perspective, but first I want to point out something totally baffling to me:

Vivek is a man who made unconscionable amounts of money in business, primarily in the tech industry. He's written several books about how to thrive in the business world. And yet his actions clearly demonstrate he's basically totally incompetent at one of the most basic business-related things.

If your organizational policy is going to be pro-analytics, then hire the right guys for the job. Dean Oliver is a good start. More importantly, you have to understand the personalities involved and build a culture from that perspective.

If you're going to go the "chain-smoking ex-player's intuition" route, nothing says that's inherently wrong either, but you have to understand that represents a gigantic shift in your philosophy and structure and requires an entirely different mix of personalities.

What this situation reads as is an inherent power struggle, because if Oliver was strictly a consultant and didn't have organizational pull this is a conflict that doesn't need to happen. Fine to bring a guy like Oliver on as a consultant, but clearly that's not his role if Vlade is this threatened by him and frankly giving Vlade power to fire a guy that Vivek hand-picked is just all kinds of toxic. And on top of this his coach is going behind his back to field trade offers for the franchise player. Who the **** is actually in charge here???

We know it's not that Vivek doesn't care, so his decision making can be essentially read as: I don't know what I'm doing here, so I'm going to throw **** at the wall and see what sticks. Guys like Karl are sharks, and there's no doubt in my mind that he read the situation and realized that a blatant power grab on his part was not going to be disciplined. How a guy who's clearly not dumb could be so easily taken advantage of (especially as a silicon valley vet) is beyond my understanding.

Yup, this is the type of stuff I fixate on too. We all know that there's luck involved with this stuff, and we all know that most CEOs have had success elsewhere. If we see a guy screw up stuff in the NBA on a bad enough level, it tells us quite a lot about how problematic the billionaire's thinking is.

I'm reminded of a guy I was talking to back when I was in tech circles. He said that you'd be surprised by how much having a previously failed start up can help you in getting VC funding. Sometimes more than having a previous success, because VCs are afraid that the guy with the early success thinks that his intuition is just dead on every time and doesn't have a proper sense of his own weakness.

Despite the fact that Vivek has had multiple successes over a long period of time, he really is coming off like someone who doesn't particularly excel at coming into complicated situations and quickly figuring out which was is up. And by that I mean not simply that his intuition is weak, or that he struggles to systematically figure things out, but that he doesn't actually understand that you have to systematically figure things out by having coherent plans.

[E-Balla]

http://www.sportando.com/m/en/usa/nba/170499/kings-vp-vlade-divac-halted-all-communication-with-dean-oliver.html

Obviously this is infuriating from a basketball perspective, but first I want to point out something totally baffling to me:

Vivek is a man who made unconscionable amounts of money in business, primarily in the tech industry. He's written several books about how to thrive in the business world. And yet his actions clearly demonstrate he's basically totally incompetent at one of the most basic business-related things.

If your organizational policy is going to be pro-analytics, then hire the right guys for the job. Dean Oliver is a good start. More importantly, you have to understand the personalities involved and build a culture from that perspective.

If you're going to go the "chain-smoking ex-player's intuition" route, nothing says that's inherently wrong either, but you have to understand that represents a gigantic shift in your philosophy and structure and requires an entirely different mix of personalities.

What this situation reads as is an inherent power struggle, because if Oliver was strictly a consultant and didn't have organizational pull this is a conflict that doesn't need to happen. Fine to bring a guy like Oliver on as a consultant, but clearly that's not his role if Vlade is this threatened by him and frankly giving Vlade power to fire a guy that Vivek hand-picked is just all kinds of toxic. And on top of this his coach is going behind his back to field trade offers for the franchise player. Who the **** is actually in charge here???

We know it's not that Vivek doesn't care, so his decision making can be essentially read as: I don't know what I'm doing here, so I'm going to throw **** at the wall and see what sticks. Guys like Karl are sharks, and there's no doubt in my mind that he read the situation and realized that a blatant power grab on his part was not going to be disciplined. How a guy who's clearly not dumb could be so easily taken advantage of (especially as a silicon valley vet) is beyond my understanding.

Yup, this is the type of stuff I fixate on too. We all know that there's luck involved with this stuff, and we all know that most CEOs have had success elsewhere. If we see a guy screw up stuff in the NBA on a bad enough level, it tells us quite a lot about how problematic the billionaire's thinking is.

I'm reminded of a guy I was talking to back when I was in tech circles. He said that you'd be surprised by how much having a previously failed start up can help you in getting VC funding. Sometimes more than having a previous success, because VCs are afraid that the guy with the early success thinks that his intuition is just dead on every time and doesn't have a proper sense of his own weakness.

Despite the fact that Vivek has had multiple successes over a long period of time, he really is coming off like someone who doesn't particularly excel at coming into complicated situations and quickly figuring out which was is up. And by that I mean not simply that his intuition is weak, or that he struggles to systematically figure things out, but that he doesn't actually understand that you have to systematically figure things out by having coherent plans.

Well he doesn't have a coherent plan because he barely knows basketball. Problem is that instead of recognizing that and giving all control to someone he trusts he has multiple people in his ear.