APBRmetrics

[Crow]

Broad-brush what has happened in recent years to teams that now figure prominently for analytic assistance & orientation?


(The point differential changes are based on what I found in late December, though I will occasionally talk about what has happened since.)


For Dallas how much credit to give to the use of analytics and how much just to the acquisition and maturation of Nash & Nowitski or the coaching? No surprise that the team saw quicker improvement on offense but how big a role did Winston & Sagarin's Adjusted +/- have to do with that or the harder to understand / foresee defensive improvement? And what to make of the occasional bounce downward in the defensive performance and the recoveries? How much did Don Nelson, Avery Johnson, Donn Nelson and Mark Cuban use advanced analytics? We hear that it was helpful for Cuban but how much did the others join in that use and in the same direction? How are things different now with Carlisle and Beech?


For the Sonics compared to 2003-4 the offense got a lot better the next season (the first season with a full-time analytic consultant) then started to taper off thru 2006-7. The defense got worse then it corrected back for 2/3rds of what it had slipped the final season before the sell-out. One good season, then blah again... then a lot worse (the sale / move). You are your talent level to a large extent. Analytics can help with talent level depending on GM trading ability and opportunities.

The Thunder, whether they truly are joining the analytic leaders or not, or what they do similar to others or different, gave up a lot of offensive efficiency but has since recovered all but a point compared to what they were handed. The defense is showing significant improvement so far this season. Overall the Thunder took two steps back, stayed there for a bit and has now taken two or three steps up. But presumably they will need more offense to go further. What role did analytics have with the defensive improvement if any? What role will it play with improving the offense?


The Cavs have bounced around but this season stood 2.5 to 3 points better on both offensive and defensive efficiency compared to before Ferry / Brown and analysts. The Cavs stepped up, up, regressed a year, then stepped up big and are now where they are at- somewhat disappointing earlier but fine now. Adjusted +/- mainly likes LeBron and few others and they don't have a big-minute, big-winner lineup right now but the system gets it done across the diffuse set of lineups and many players used.


The Rockets stood 1 point better on offensive efficiency / 5 points worse on defensive efficiency compared to before Morey / Adelman, et al. Of course though with major injury issues. But is it disappointing so far or is their success so far mainly in avoiding even weaker performance? In the last month they've lost another point on defensive efficiency. Is the real success still ahead?


The Celtics got worse on offense til Garnett and Allen arrived via Ainge's deals with McHale and Presti then got sharply better on both and won a title. Since then they've maintained most of the change. (Morey moved onto Houston before the bounty was received.) Much of the credit would seem to deserve to go to Ainge for his deal-making skills in a particular moment, using his friendship with McHale and people skills in general, before other GMs feared the Celtics again or dealing with him. Not sure how much analytics contribute to those decisions, though I would be interested to know more about what Ainge used in terms of "brain-typing" and the importance of traditional positional performance and player types. Going for veterans at their peak (or past it) and using them together for relatively very large minutes were choices that paid off with one title and at least the possibility of other shots affected by injuries.


The Blazers had gotten a lot better on offense under McMillan and Pritchard. The defensive slippage that started after McMillan arrived had been undone by last season and showed notable improvement before the center injuries. The offense lost a notable share of last season's luster due to wing injuries and change but it has come back quite a bit, in part due to the center injuries. I'd say there is a good basis for concluding analytics helped with player acquisitions. Would want to look an even closer at lineup construction and mix and shot distribution though certainly the strong 3 point attack with offensive rebounding worked well when healthy and Oden / Joel P. was helping improve the defense. At least the first part of that combo is common among teams with analytic shops.


The Nuggets have moved up essentially entirely on offensive efficiency and are at their peak to date right now (last season and this one). The defense had gradually gotten a bit worse thru the period but was a tick better so far this season to that point. They seems to have many agents of influence with good recent end results, however it gets done. They did remarkably well with the Camby-Andersen transition. Lawson was a good pickup. Will there be a good trade before the deadline?


Each story is different and involved. Some show mostly one-sided efficiency changes, some are balanced.

Did the teams who got edge from defense do it largely with "rules" and "teaching"> How much did advanced stats and analytics add?


This of course is still just a quick sketch, with most of the heavy lifting still be to done, but if the point is to make an impact then it seems worth reviewing the record for impact.

[Crow]

http://tinyurl.com/ycyy4e8

There are different ways to organize things and advantages and disadvantages I'd imagine but it seems worth noting the Orlando Head Coach wanted it this way- presumably integration of traditional scouting and stats and one main person to get stuff from and give requests to.


Is this just a ho-hum organizational choice or does it actually affect the deliverables, how they are blended? Does it affect how much the stuff gets used- to do it this particular way or simply the way the Coach prefers?

I wonder how different the communication structures are between teams with analytic resources. How much do they use a single point of contact for the Coach and who is it? I assume it matters who it is that conveys the info, but not sure how much.

Not saying that is best or what every Coach wants. And of course communication with and for the Coach is only one part of the system. Using this to raise some issues, not knowing if any inside can / will comment.



Of course, can't tell how far Orlando's gone before with "stats", whether it was still mainly "scouting information" or if they had done higher level analytics. Wonder if Van Gundy wants higher level analytics and has or will use this a lot.


(Did Orlando pick up another person to help with the stat analysis part of the effort recently? I'm guessing they might have.)


I could be wrong but so far I'd guess that advanced statistical analysis has probably been more requested by, controlled, directed at and used by the GM than the Head Coach.

If you wanted the use of advanced analytic information by the Head Coach to increase beyond what they do now, I'd think their preferences about what is researched, how it is organized and communicated, etc. would be a major consideration, though they may or may not really want "advanced analytics" and their preferences may or may not yield more positive results.

The politics of the information flow seems likely to affect things. Ultimately I would think it is important who "controls" it, whether the Coach feels they "co-own" or "co-direct" it rather than just "receive" from it.

[Serhat Ugur (hoopseng)]

Here's a list of NBA teams with analytic guys. I would like to receive any feedbacks to keep it updated.
_________________
http://www.nbastuffer.com

[DSMok1]

[Joe]

There are definitely more teams who have analysts either part time or full time. The information just isn't especially public.
_________________
http://www.hoopdata.com

[Crow]

I've gotten the impression that Houston has even more. "holy moly" (Steven Houston) said he has done (is still doing?) work for them. I think I recall some mention of Ken Pomeroy working for them (or was it Dallas?).

There are others who might be working for teams. Database guys, metric guys, draft guys. But ultimately that is up to them to reveal.

The list is going to hit guys identifiable based on past public work and miss some smart ones who stayed quiet or mostly quiet.

There have been others in the past and knowing who is still current won't always be easy.

What qualifies as an "analytic guy" when we can't see / don't hear about the high technique stuff they may do? (Higher technique than what is in public or just different and "secret"?) Whether it should be beyond boxscore stat-tracking to qualify is a matter of taste.

Should pre-existing insiders (especially bosses) who are conversant in the basics of modern basketball analytics available here and 6-10 other sites count? If they use the stuff to a moderate degree I'd say they probably could. What's more important the basics or the high-technique stuff? Can't say the team values for each from the outside and it is an arbitrary distinction but at this stage using the basics to a moderate degree or higher might be notable. The list can help with public recognition but given the reserved nature of most teams and analysts the desire to make it complete will be difficult to achieve. It can and will grow though.

[Serhat Ugur (hoopseng)]

[Serhat Ugur (hoopseng)]

[erivera7]

I know, more or less, that Orlando has worked on higher level analytics in the past (at least, from what has been explained to me). I also know that Van Gundy is aware of PER, adjusted plus/minus, and other metrics, but I don't know the extent by which he refers to them in his coaching decisions (I know he likes to use per minute statistics quite a bit). He has told me in the past that the only thing he doesn't have confidence in are defensive-oriented numbers because it's tougher to quantify, given that it is team-dependent and what not. The offensive stuff, though, makes a lot of sense to him so he tries to learn more about those stats.

I have more from what I learned from Van Gundy here, if anyone wants to check it out.
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball

[erivera7]

[Crow]

I wonder if Atlanta or Toronto analytic have or might soon add significant analytic capability. Minny and Sacramento might benefit a lot from adding it as they try to climb up the hill. I'd guess New Jersey goes for it when the new owner settles in.

[Serhat Ugur (hoopseng)]

[Qscience]

[IrishHand]

[Crow]

Rick Sund had experience with analytic input in Seattle. Even though he comes across as old-school and may not feel he needs it, maybe there are pieces he does want. In a race with the Cavs and Boston who have analytic shops and maybe now Orlando it could be considered desirable. Perhaps a defensive move.

In Toronto Colangelo is portrayed as hip, cutting edge. I've wondered why use of analytic help hasn't happened yet or at least been revealed. A lot riding on this season and next.

Minny and Sacramento need to find better fit, balance or chemistry and have a new GM and a new assistant GM respectively.

In NJ, I am assuming the new owner used big-time number crunching in his financial moves. And that he is going to want to make a big splash and as quick a run to the top as he can.

Analytic resources could help and appear anywhere. These were just my guesses about where it might more likely. And it could be a cue if anybody had more knowledge of these situations to share it if they want to or just keep ears open / look into.