--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
, "Dean Oliver"
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003"
> > .
> > .
> > From my perspective, the types of increased competitive
> > am anticipating do not necessarily relate to making the big
> > uncovering that diamond in the rough. Rather, it is
> > true, apparently minor improvement in an "undramatic"
> > category (where the herd knows not its true value) akin to
> > baseball. So, yes, you want to predict a Rodman but you are
> > interested in consistently getting, say, the Tony Batties or
> > McCartys of the world for short money (and I am not certain
> > these are the right examples, I am just currently
> > my imagination).
> OK. This is what I generally think, too. Managing the middle
> players is where it's at. But people do see the rebounding
> these guys and they don't change much -- what varies is how
> perceive the rest of their games. So predicting rebounding
> gonna help get them time (which was, I think, the original
I guess I am a little less optimistic about the current state of the
art. I wouldn't be surprised if for the average NBA franchise there
aren't significant analytical improvements to be had, not merely
in the weighting of various statistical categories (both existing
and prospectively refined) but in the actual measurement of the
individual categories themselves.
> > > > Will any NBA team do this?
> > >
> > > Yes. And the first time it's done will launch 28 other times.
> > Err,
> > > 27. The Clippers don't care.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > You have greater faith in the responsiveness of teams
> > .
> How many other baseball teams now use sabermetrics? A
> would guess 5. OK, that's a few, not a bunch, but it's growing
> because of Moneyball.
Sure enough, but baseball is patently transparent in
comparison, and for me the shock is that Moneyball is
apparently revelatory to the industry itself. Can you think of any
other example where a journalist writes a book about a known
figure in a supposedly competitive industry, whose obvious
success is based on non-proprietary, indeed public, information,
and this telling of the story - not the success itself - has apparent
transformative influence on the industry itself? This implies an
ossified, non-competitive aspect that to me is a bit
mind-boggling. And then there is basketball.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > It seems to me that Bean is the $300,000 guy I referred to,
> > only got in, I suppose, because he entered the traditional
> > player tapped for management track, blah, blah.
> > .
> I think he's a bit more than $300K, but he did get in the
> way. I definitely tout my traditional quals when I talk to teams,
> too. It just helps to talk the language.
He is now!
> > Boy, I am reluctant to possibly reintroduce the unpleasantries
> > that winter string, but to sum up my understanding of the
> > history of the NBA from looking at league averages, from the
> > to mid-80s, game pace plummeted and offensive productivity
> > though not as dramatically (around 11% if I recall, but this is
> > huge.) This slowing game pace was essentially a free
> > was imposed on offenses with turnovers decreasing and
> > percentages ring (with offenses eliminating bad passes and
> > selection). So, yes, if the analysis bears out (and my hunch
> > will) the decrease in pace was an inherently beneficial thing
> > should have been recognized earlier for most teams,
> > the size of the counterfactual benefit. (Thus, apparently there
> > misunderstanding above, going slow is typically a
> > disadvantage. Though more to the point, going stupid is the
> > competitive disadvantage. Returning to the case in point, my
> > tentative hypothesis as to why the game pace stayed up as
> > did was that the league was imitating the Celtics, when in
> > offense was rather mediocre, and it was their defense which
> > championships.)
> I vaguely remembered this. But, as you say, pace decrease
may be an
> effect, not a cause, "going stupid is the competitive
> Turnovers have been reduced a lot and that is reflected in
> do think you're right with the Celtics' dynasty dictating pace, too.
> And I think it was a case of teams seeing the symptom and not
> In general, as I document in the book, when you look carefully,
> do see a tendency for better offensive teams to actually be
> quicker teams (faster paced). You have to look pretty carefully,
I actually believe that the pace decrease is pretty much a cause
and not an effect. Though strictly speaking the hypothesized
cause is coaches instituting controls such as "make the extra
pass", "hold off on helter-skelter play which is turnover-inducing",
etc.,directions such as these necessarily cause a decrease in
And also, I don't mean to be argumentative, but it is definitely not
my belief that the Celtics dictated pace (or that anyone can in a
meaningful sense) rather it was a dramatic league-wide stylistic
error to try to mimic the aspect of their play that did not contribute
substantively to their success (with a couple of caveats that I
won't elaborate on here.)
Finally, I anxiously await your publication date to see the
evidence that better offensive teams tend to be faster paced. It is
certainly a plausible empirical result, though I am not sure how
prescriptive this is. Might you preview the explanations and