mreinman wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I thought this list was very interesting. You can see that some teams have analytics experts at the top, others (like us) rely on one or two scouts/consultants, and a few appear to have no analytics departments.
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Department/

I don't think you can really conclude anything from that list- show me the metrics that say employing x amount of metrics = x amount of success because of the metrics deployed.

the last 4 title winners all have a culture of advanced metrics driving their cause-- i mean dallas, miami, san antonio.

Oh come on, Miami had Wade, Bosh and Lebron- see how they look without Lebron? Oh they must be doing badly now because they didn't read the latest metrics...

Ever consider that they put their star player in the best position to capitalize based on advanced metrics and research?

The 2003 NBA draft class would go on to change the NBA forever by first popularizing the player-generated super team.

This movement would be instrumental in causing the NBA to lock out its players in 2011, as well as helping to write the new collective bargaining agreement that currently governs the league.

nixluva wrote:I want to make this clear so that the hordes will stop misrepresenting my thoughts on the matter. I'm not anti Metrics!!! However the current use of Metrics is only one tool. It's not everything when it comes to building a great team. I do believe tho that Phil will use Metrics and has interest in such things. I think Phil wants to go further than the current use of metrics that most talk about. There's more to winning than just trying collect a bunch of efficient players on the same team. A GM is not always going to get everything they want on their roster. The human aspect of the game is also important. Measuring the impact a player can have on his teammates or a coach for that matter. Phil strikes me as someone who is always looking for better ways to improve his teams.

“Makes teams better” is fast-becoming both an essential ingredient to getting hired and a mission-critical skill-set worth measuring. After spending the weekend at the annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, “quantifying chemistry”—identifying those talents, attributes and combinatorial skills that make a team play so much better than a group of talented individuals—has clearly become the new Holy Grail of sports analytics.

How do you identify, blend, develop, train and coach a mix of talents into wholes measurably greater than the sum of their parts? What combinatorial characteristics of high-performers empower everyone else to over-perform?

That’s the “franchise of the future” challenge haunting sports’ brightest minds and biggest wallets.

Of course, identifying Moneyball-like metrics and boosting individual performance remains vital. But this was the first time attending the event where so many of the top-tier athletic luminaries—particularly coaches and managers—spoke so wistfully and ambitiously about the analytic alchemy that can turn teammates into champions.

“The next step in analytics will be how to build chemistry,” asserted Phil Jackson, the former Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles coach who’s won the most NBA championships in history. As an 11-time champion, says Jackson, he was always looking for “what creates the bonds” between players that can meaningfully separate them from their competition. Jackson was famous—or notorious—for encouraging “mindfulness” training and meditation to get his players in harmony. But, at his Building a Dynasty panel, Jackson stressed that he was always open to numbers and analyses that offered actionable insight into getting his teams to play better together. Motivating individual players such as Shaquile O’Neill or Kobe Bryant was one thing, he observed, but identifying those ingredients that got everyone motivated both during practice and game time was a qualitatively and quantitatively different challenge.

“We should be able to do much more now,” Jackson said.

https://hbr.org/2014/03/team-chemistry-is-the-new-holy-grail-of-performance-analytics/

newyorknewyork wrote:Here is a good metric question though. Based on metrics who was the best player on the Pistons championship roster?

Dennis Rodman

dk7th wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Metrics absolutely have there use. More so for finding diamonds that fit your style. I am no metric expert but metrics aren't needed to know that Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion and Jason Kidd were perfect players to have around a Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry. Just like they would be around Carmelo Anthony or Chris Bosh or any other skilled F. Or that if you have a Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan that Robert Horry's ability to guard multiple positions from the perimeter to the post with great help defense as well as the ability to stretch the floor was the perfect compliment to those bigs.

Here is a good metric question though. Based on metrics who was the best player on the Pistons championship roster?

this is a good question. as you can see http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html#advanced::19

oh ... that detroit team ...

Hands down Chauncey Billups

newyorknewyork wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Metrics absolutely have there use. More so for finding diamonds that fit your style. I am no metric expert but metrics aren't needed to know that Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion and Jason Kidd were perfect players to have around a Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry. Just like they would be around Carmelo Anthony or Chris Bosh or any other skilled F. Or that if you have a Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan that Robert Horry's ability to guard multiple positions from the perimeter to the post with great help defense as well as the ability to stretch the floor was the perfect compliment to those bigs.

Here is a good metric question though. Based on metrics who was the best player on the Pistons championship roster?

this is a good question. as you can see http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html#advanced::19

oh ... that detroit team ...

Hands down Chauncey Billups

Hmm interesting, as I felt Rasheed Wallace was there best player. Sheed was able to guard the 3-5. His help defense and verbal communication was the best I have seen. His ability to be a go to guy in the post and create offense or for others if the offense got stagnant. His ability to stretch the floor to provide spacing or pick and roll, pick and pop. He could do so many things on the basketball court. Its almost impossible to find guys with his skill set and length in the NBA today. He could probably fit in any system or style of play.

I would say that sheed was 2nd but thats is just MHO.

CB was the orchestrator. The fact that he got Denver to the WCF just shows how valuable he was.

mreinman wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Here is a good metric question though. Based on metrics who was the best player on the Pistons championship roster?

Dennis Rodman

mreinman wrote:

Uptown wrote:Metrics is a great tool to use but it also helps to have league MVP talent on your team ( Dirk, Lebron,and Duncan)

Obviously

i was responding to the post that pointed out the last 4 champions as having a culture of metrics.

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I thought this list was very interesting. You can see that some teams have analytics experts at the top, others (like us) rely on one or two scouts/consultants, and a few appear to have no analytics departments.
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Department/

I don't think you can really conclude anything from that list- show me the metrics that say employing x amount of metrics = x amount of success because of the metrics deployed.

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Metrics absolutely have there use. More so for finding diamonds that fit your style. I am no metric expert but metrics aren't needed to know that Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion and Jason Kidd were perfect players to have around a Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry. Just like they would be around Carmelo Anthony or Chris Bosh or any other skilled F. Or that if you have a Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan that Robert Horry's ability to guard multiple positions from the perimeter to the post with great help defense as well as the ability to stretch the floor was the perfect compliment to those bigs.

Here is a good metric question though. Based on metrics who was the best player on the Pistons championship roster?

this is a good question. as you can see http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html#advanced::19

oh ... that detroit team ...

Hands down Chauncey Billups