BRIGGS wrote:

Splat wrote:Yo Briggs! I'm primarily set to lurk mode right now, but I can't help noticing that you are in fifth gear pumping out scenarios. It is kind of overwhelming to be frank. I think you might be getting manic. Not getting on your case, just saying you are extrapolating like crazy on every prospect and every little thing that occurs to you turns into a new thread. When you're pumping out so many opinions, how can you expect people not to start to pecking at you when you're throwing up so many things to see what sticks? So maybe this is not the time to be throwing down with rainman over perceived disagreements. They may have got under your skin, but I don't see them baiting you so much as countering you. Just my perspective on what I see actually happening.

Kanter #1 free agent
Okafor #1 pick
We need speed
I'd like to trade the 2018 pick into this years for an additional big
Do not trade the pick
What new here?

I was talking to YOU, not responding to some flurry of statistics and testosterone. Did you even hear what I was saying? You seem completely amped up like a meth head the way you're generating threads, scenarios and throwing down with everyone. Has it even occurred to you that you're maybe spinning a little too much theoreticals and need to slow it down a sec?

As far as your reply is concerned, I don't care about free agency or the draft like you do. I have the basic serenity of mind that it is out of my control therefore I don't spend much time worrying about what happens. I deliberate on behavioralism for a reason Briggs. Because it is the truest indicator of future performance and those indicators are not driven by opinions on players we don't have yet, but by the past conduct of this organization and its key decision makers.

I'd love a great choice in the draft and a fruitful free agency. I don't want to trade the pick. So there's nothing new here at all. Precisely.

So why are you flapping your feathers at people when you've presently got the biggest flapping wings on the board?

BRIGGS wrote:

Splat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Splat wrote:Yo Briggs! I'm primarily set to lurk mode right now, but I can't help noticing that you are in fifth gear pumping out scenarios. It is kind of overwhelming to be frank. I think you might be getting manic. Not getting on your case, just saying you are extrapolating like crazy on every prospect and every little thing that occurs to you turns into a new thread. When you're pumping out so many opinions, how can you expect people not to start to pecking at you when you're throwing up so many things to see what sticks? So maybe this is not the time to be throwing down with rainman over perceived disagreements. They may have got under your skin, but I don't see them baiting you so much as countering you. Just my perspective on what I see actually happening.

Kanter #1 free agent
Okafor #1 pick
We need speed
I'd like to trade the 2018 pick into this years for an additional big
Do not trade the pick
What new here?

I was talking to YOU, not responding to some flurry of statistics and testosterone. Did you even hear what I was saying? You seem completely amped up like a meth head the way you're generating threads, scenarios and throwing down with everyone. Has it even occurred to you that you're maybe spinning a little too much theoreticals and need to slow it down a sec?

As far as your reply is concerned, I don't care about free agency or the draft like you do. I have the basic serenity of mind that it is out of my control therefore I don't spend much time worrying about what happens. I deliberate on behavioralism for a reason Briggs. Because it is the truest indicator of future performance and those indicators are not driven by opinions on players we don't have yet, but by the past conduct of this organization and its key decision makers.

I'd love a great choice in the draft and a fruitful free agency. I don't want to trade the pick. So there's nothing new here at all. Precisely.

So why are you flapping your feathers at people when you've presently got the biggest flapping wings on the board?

This is Knicks basketball forum. Knicks basketball relayed? If you want to post OT stuff there is a board for that. I think Martin kind of mentioned that to you already?

I wrote a response, but I don't see it, so I'll keep it short. You're not posting just about hoops yourself, so that is not a valid response. You're baiting. You started a thread last week solely to shame mrein so if you want to talk hoops exclusively, that's great, but right now you're not. You're posting quite a few eat chit posts and I was trying to bring it to your attention in a civil way. I have nothing more to say.

sidsanders wrote:

sidsanders wrote:to add to that chart is this:
Only 79 of the 280 lottery picks made one All-Star appearance (1989-2008, draft picks 1-14)
that is 28.2%

something to consider as well is how long does it take to achieve any of these levels: all star, franchise changer, role player, bust, etc...

quoting myself... got bored with work and looked up as appearances from 2000-2014 lottery picks 1-4.
% made at least 1 as == 35% (21/60) : of note, 0 over the past 2 drafts and that is all 120 players drafted.
% won at least 1 mvp == 5% (3/60) : lbj, rose, durant
% made all nba 1st team == 13.3% (8/60) : this should go up with unibrow and westbrook this season.

may have missed some since it is late... could do the same for a combined 2/3rd team all nba and all def nba honors.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/
you can drill down to each class and it shows the # of as's and who they were, so its easy to see where in the class they were drafted.
you can drill down to each player for other honors, as if folks didnt/dont use that site...

you can argue how many top 3 mvp finishes did some of these guys get, how many 2/3 team all nba teams, dpoys, etc... however this is just a raw stat grab.

Granted that this can be refined, but would you agree then that a franchise player is not always in the top 4? That is what the numbers seem to say to me.

This is the study I'd like to see made. I don't know if anyone would do it. I know I can't.

But what I'd like to understand is what the numbers are for how franchise players are actually generated in the draft. Period. As in, how many franchise players exist at all.

Because many teams don't have one. The ones that do may be contenders or they may still be less than that because they don't have complementary players.

But how many actual franchise players have been drafted?

That's a good question. I think.

Because they don't always get picked in the top 3-4 positions.

sidsanders wrote:

Splat wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

sidsanders wrote:to add to that chart is this:
Only 79 of the 280 lottery picks made one All-Star appearance (1989-2008, draft picks 1-14)
that is 28.2%

something to consider as well is how long does it take to achieve any of these levels: all star, franchise changer, role player, bust, etc...

quoting myself... got bored with work and looked up as appearances from 2000-2014 lottery picks 1-4.
% made at least 1 as == 35% (21/60) : of note, 0 over the past 2 drafts and that is all 120 players drafted.
% won at least 1 mvp == 5% (3/60) : lbj, rose, durant
% made all nba 1st team == 13.3% (8/60) : this should go up with unibrow and westbrook this season.

may have missed some since it is late... could do the same for a combined 2/3rd team all nba and all def nba honors.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/
you can drill down to each class and it shows the # of as's and who they were, so its easy to see where in the class they were drafted.
you can drill down to each player for other honors, as if folks didnt/dont use that site...

you can argue how many top 3 mvp finishes did some of these guys get, how many 2/3 team all nba teams, dpoys, etc... however this is just a raw stat grab.

Granted that this can be refined, but would you agree then that a franchise player is not always in the top 4? That is what the numbers seem to say to me.

This is the study I'd like to see made. I don't know if anyone would do it. I know I can't.

But what I'd like to understand is what the numbers are for how franchise players are actually generated in the draft. Period. As in, how many franchise players exist at all.

Because many teams don't have one. The ones that do may be contenders or they may still be less than that because they don't have complementary players.

But how many actual franchise players have been drafted?

That's a good question. I think.

Because they don't always get picked in the top 3-4 positions.

one part of this is what defines a franchise player. i would throw out as games, mid season exhibition event. all nba team appearances i value more and even then is there a magical count that says 'franchise guy'? is rose still one, if anyone thought he was?

do other awards/honors make a diff in the franchise player definition: dpoy, all def 1st/2, multiple player of the month, mvp finish (if no wins), finals mvp, winning a title as a key contributor. so many things that make it quite subjective and perhaps a few folks are gonna have a bias to fit their fav players both current and historically.

for me, i wouldnt give up picks in the 1-4 range at this point. certainly excellent guys have been selected outside of there: wade, curry, lillard, noah, etc... lots of pressure to get this right and the higher the pick the more blame if they miss for sure.

I agree that you don't give up the pick. Under any circumstances. Because, if anything, the current NBA has shown that talent + youth = value.

In other words, you can't count your chickens on longevity due to the brutality of the NBA schedule, thus a new stud who is cheap is often worth more than a proven all-star at max salary.

That is the nature of the NBA today. Players fall to injuries like fruit flies. If a franchise doesn't initiate a pipeline of cheap talent, they are essentially doomed to failure from the get go.

So even if that franchise player is not found in the top 4, your odds are still better that you get one there.

And retaining a drafted superstar when it comes to show me the money time is still better than paying them via free agency. This is particularly so because if you're going to pay through the nose for a free agent then if they are your own player you should have a pretty good idea if they are damaged physical goods or not.

Unless you're the Knicks though. The Knicks will sign a leper and pretend they're healthy.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:Any blogger out there who thinks that a pro NBA organization is not going to invest in analytics whether automated or manual (scouts/spreadsheets/databases) in today's day and age is being unrealistic.

trust me... the software is too damn cheap to not have any investment in that space, hardware.... even cheaper!

and then for someone to think that it's not being factored into the equation... its even more unrealistic.

There are a couple of teams without analytics departments. The question is how intelligently are you using the analytics, not whether you're using them, though.

a. how do you know the first statement you made for sure?
b. how would you know intelligently analytics is being used, if it is.

a. Teams have to make public who they're hiring. You can find the analytics departments here:
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Department/
b. The same way you judge how intelligently a coach is making decisions or how intelligently a GM is using the eyeball test: You examine the evidence and make an argument. You would look at what direct statements they've made about the analytics, how many and which experts they're hiring, what do the team's trades and signings indicate they are emphasizing, etc.

a. hmmm... dubious but somewhat reliable at least.
b. eyeball test is on what you see... i.e. coach's actions. as far as team's internal actions... unless you work for dolan and know everyone in the analytics org... everything you are saying is speculation on the team's approach toward analytics.

do you really want to be in the same boat as playa? :D :D :D

Just for reference Mark Warkentien who has been here in our scouting and personnel department comes from a situation where he was immersed in the Analytics use early on in the NBA with Dean Oliver.

Nuggets' numbers man Oliver quantifies NBA's future
Dean Oliver's drive to squeeze truth from stats convinces Nuggets

By Benjamin Hochman
The Denver Post
POSTED: 10/12/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT6 COMMENTS| UPDATED: 5 YEARS AGO

Dean Oliver's intense and involved computer work has had a voice in how the Nuggets draft and make acquisitions. (Joe Amon, The Denver)

"Hey, Carmelo, do you know who Dean Oliver is?"

"Dean Oliver?"

"Yeah, uh, he's the Nuggets' stat guy who . . ."

"Oh, yeah, yeah, I know who you're talking about. He's George Karl's brains."

Two times zones away, in a little college town, actually Collegeville, Pa., Oliver is fixated on his Dell Inspiron 1420, swimming through a sea of numbers you wouldn't recognize and sports stats you've never heard of, and in doing so, he's making the Nuggets better.

The 40-year-old Oliver is Denver's director of quantitative analysis — the Stat Guy — who cooks up formulas and newfangled statistics to provide a different perspective of potential draft picks, free agents and possible trade acquisitions.

The author of "Basketball On Paper," Oliver also helps Karl, the Nuggets' coach, set priorities for on-court strategies. Oliver rethinks thinking. And by "Moneyball"-ing basketball, Oliver is helping change the way NBA front offices make decisions.

"When I was growing up in L.A., the Rams' coach, George Allen, hired the first special-teams coach, and he was ridiculed by old-school football coaches," said Mark Warkentien, the Nuggets' vice president of basketball operations. "Decades later, it became a huge part of the game. I think the quantitative analysis guys will go through a similar situation. I don't think it will reach the level of a special-teams coach.

"But right now, it's being scoffed at by old-school guys. We'll look at it 20 years from now, it'll be what you do — part of the deal."

To the average fan, a basketball game is a circus. Ten showmen swoosh up and down the court, a whirlwind of entertainment, from long-range shots to high-flying dunks.

To Dean Oliver, basketball is a math equation.

In his eyes, games are a series of possessions, and the simple way to win this game is to maximize your possessions and minimize your opponent's possessions. Asked if fans are looking at the wrong stats, Oliver said, "To some degree, yeah."

The best-selling book "Moneyball," about the forward-thinking Oakland Athletics' front office, preached the benefits of on-base and slugging percentages over batting average and home runs, statistics most fans have been told for decades are the standards of offense.

In basketball, Oliver has "the four factors" he regards as the holy grail — turnovers per possession, offensive rebounding percentage, free throws made per field goals attempted and effective field-goal percentage (which gives 50 percent more credit to 3-point shots than normal field-goal percentage).

"If you can control those four things — offensively and defensively — you win," he said.

Last season, the Nuggets won a lot — 54 times during the regular season — in part because they looked great on Oliver's computer back in Pennsylvania. Denver was seventh in effective field-goal percentage — and fifth-best in opponent's effective field-goal percentage. Denver was first in the free-throw category and seventh-best in the turnover category. The Nuggets, perhaps not coincidentally, advanced to the Western Conference finals.

"Winning in the NBA usually has a personality, and I think Dean does a good job at explaining that personality as the season goes on," Karl said. "A lot of our 'win the free-throw line' mentality and our 'win the paint' mentality has somewhat come from statistical information Dean has given us."

Have statistics, will travel

For a guy who religiously plays things by the numbers, Oliver sure took one heck of a gamble.

In the mid-1990s, after earning his Ph.D. in environmental engineering from North Carolina, Oliver became a senior manager at a corporation called Environ. By day, he evaluated engineering statistics; by night, basketball stats.

By 2002, he was writing his book, with chapter titles such as "Insight on a Boxscore," "The Problem With Scorers" and "The Significance of Derrick Coleman's Insignificance." Legendary North Carolina coach Dean Smith then called the book "a unique and surprisingly practical addition to a coach's library."

Said Karl, with a smile, "I probably understood half of it."

"Basketball On Paper" came out in 2003 — the same year as "Moneyball" — and in 2004, Oliver took his big risk, quitting his job to find a job in basketball that really didn't exist.

"I got in my car and started driving, visiting people," Oliver said.

One of his stops was the NBA predraft camp, and with his book as his business card, Oliver shook hands with the who's whos of the league. "Some people were interested," he said, "some people less."

Ultimately, Wally Walker of Seattle's front office realized Oliver, just like a strength coach, could be an asset to a team; Oliver could help him think better. He was hired as Seattle's "statistical consultant" for two seasons before he was scooped up by another forward-thinking GM, Warkentien.

Along with front-office execs Rex Chapman and Bret Bearup, the three have the responsibility of "managing (owner) Stan Kroenke's portfolio," Warkentien said. "You've got 13 guys on a team; every time you do make a move, you're investing 7-8 percent of your portfolio. The more information gives you more knowledge, which gives you more power."

For years, Warkentien has evaluated players with an approach he calls "eyes-ears-numbers." Heading into the 2009 NBA draft, scouts suggested to Warkentien that North Carolina's Ty Lawson was a point guard's point guard. Fast. Heady. A winner. But the kid wasn't a great shooter and wasn't even 6-feet tall. So Denver went to the numbers.

The case for Ty Lawson

At a recent breakfast, Oliver opened his Dell, and on the screen were statistics as scrambled as his eggs.

"This ain't points and rebounds, huh?" an onlooker asked.

"Nooooooo," Oliver said with emphasis.

It was his personal breakdown of North Carolina's team last season, first ranking individual offensive efficiency. What's that?

"It's how many points per 100 possessions did the player use, in order to create points," he said. Field goals count, as do turnovers and free throws.

"So, you have to count the opportunities that it takes to create those," he explained. "This is their efficiency in doing that, in creating points. Ty created 139 points per 100 possessions that he used — any factor of creating points. That is a huge number."

Next was "individual defensive efficiency per 100 possessions," in which "we estimate how often he forced his guy into a bad shot, or how many turnovers he created," Oliver said. He also liked Lawson's numbers there.

After that, there were columns dissecting a player's scoring possessions, total possessions, points produced, percentage of the team offense a player is responsible for and, finally, defensive stops (how many times he was part of stopping the opponent). As Oliver often says, the stats see every game, and the Nuggets were pleased with what the stats saw when they looked at Lawson.

Oliver, who will do some college scouting for the Nuggets this season, also used "pure point rating" — which Warkentien believes is a stronger gauge of a point guard than assist-to-turnover ratio, if only because a turnover is arguably more harmful than an assist is helpful, so why should they be equal?

"It's how much are you creating for your teammates, versus screwing up," Oliver said of pure point rating, and sure enough, Lawson's pure point rating ranked historically among the best in NCAA history.

"The numbers on Lawson absolutely reinforced our eyes and ears," Warkentien said.

Asked if Lawson, the 18th overall pick, should have gone higher in the draft, Oliver could only smile and say, "I don't care — we got him."

Benjamin Hochman: 303-954-1294 or bhochman@denverpost.com

Weights and measures

Dean Oliver, the Nuggets' director of quantitative analysis, turns basketball into numbers. Here's a close look at what he finds and feeds to the Nuggets' executives and coaches:

Tendencies: "Stats see every game," Oliver said, and he uses data to try to dissect and expose tendencies of opponents. This is especially helpful in the playoffs, when a team plays the same opponent up to seven times.

Overrated: As much as Oliver helps executives decide whom they should try to acquire, he helps even more pointing out which players the Nuggets should avoid. "There is not a huge predictive value," Nuggets executive Mark Warkentien said. "There is a huge — bigger than downtown Denver — eliminating value."

Self-evaluation: Oliver points out information for the Nuggets' coaches on what they can learn from past performances about their current players, using his "Historical and Statistical" numbers crunching. This information can also help in determining whom to add to a roster.

Efficiency: Oliver believes teams should focus on the optimum way to maximize possessions. "He's helped upgrade the upper echelon of decision-making," coach George Karl said, "and I think in the world of business today, those guys are becoming more and more important. The computerized formulas are sometimes the reason why you do something, or the reason why you don't do something."

- The Knicks have a veteran analytics department headed by Mike Smith

- The Knicks were at the forefront of investing in tracking systems like SportVU and Catapult

- The Knicks still have at least one stat-friendly executive in Mark Warkentien, the guy who once hired Dean Oliver for the Nuggets

GM Steve Mills is also a believer in Analytics, despite the bad rap he gets.

Mills has his own ideas, of course. To start, he expressed a desire to incorporate more analytics into the fabric of the team. He said he believes in the power of numbers, citing the influence of Dean Oliver’s seminal book on the topic, “Basketball on Paper: Rules and Tools for Performance Analysis.”

Mills said he had been visiting last week with Allan Houston, the Knicks’ assistant general manager, when he noticed a copy of the book in Houston’s office. Seeing it reminded Mills that he had given copies to members of his staff in his first stint at the Garden. In his new role, Mills said he hoped to use advanced metrics to look at matters like lineup combinations, the length of player contracts and the efficacy of the scouting department.

Mills said much of his understanding of the game dated to his time at Princeton, where the culture of the basketball team had required an adjustment. Accustomed to scoring 20 points a game as a high school guard on Long Island, Mills soon realized that Coach Pete Carril’s methodical offense meant that no individual would shine above the others. The system worked, though, and that was paramount.

Mills, who helped steer Princeton to two Ivy League championships, recalled having a conversation with a former colleague who had played at Harvard.

“He said, ‘I don’t know how you played in that system; I could never play in that system,’ ” Mills said. “I said, ‘I played in it because we won.’ ”

Splat wrote:I doubt anyone has been implying analytics are not used.

The primary reason this probably still being discussed is because Phil himself de-emphasized his reliance on analytics early on. Nobody put words into his mouth. He downplayed his interest in analytics pretty clearly.

It is pretty improbable that any club does not have somebody on staff or consulting dedicated to analytics.

The only issue is whether they use data well or not. And if good data gets ignored in deference to ineffective ideologies.

His staff is bringing him players based on how they make determinations and if they use Analytics than basically Phil is being aided by those analytics. It's all part of a process. Phil is not stupid. He is the kind of man that will make use of any information he can get to help him improve. People read too much into his comments and don't pay enough attention to how he actually operates. He didn't fire any of these men. He's not a scout and he's still relying on them to do their jobs.

Mills, Smith and Warkentien all believe in Analytics and they are doing the bulk of the grunt work. The Knicks literally have everything they need at their disposal. They have all of the tech and men willing to make use of it.

Splat wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Splat wrote:I doubt anyone has been implying analytics are not used.

The primary reason this probably still being discussed is because Phil himself de-emphasized his reliance on analytics early on. Nobody put words into his mouth. He downplayed his interest in analytics pretty clearly.

It is pretty improbable that any club does not have somebody on staff or consulting dedicated to analytics.

The only issue is whether they use data well or not. And if good data gets ignored in deference to ineffective ideologies.

His staff is bringing him players based on how they make determinations and if they use Analytics than basically Phil is being aided by those analytics. It's all part of a process. Phil is not stupid. He is the kind of man that will make use of any information he can get to help him improve. People read too much into his comments and don't pay enough attention to how he actually operates. He didn't fire any of these men. He's not a scout and he's still relying on them to do their jobs.

Mills, Smith and Warkentien all believe in Analytics and they are doing the bulk of the grunt work. The Knicks literally have everything they need at their disposal. They have all of the tech and men willing to make use of it.

So Phil's words are meaningless. Except when you want to highlight the parts you like. 10-4

No you're just going overboard as usual. Phil is not the one scouring the world for prospects his staff is and that staff uses Analytics. I've posted tons of proof of their views and credentials in that regard. So it's not like i'm just making this stuff up. However, that isn't the only way to evaluate talent and players potential fit for your team. It's a part of a more comprehensive process. We won't know how that all comes together until this summer when the major moves are made.