Lakers Believers In Analytics? Espn Ranks Us Bottom 10

Ireland reported a year or two ago that the Lakers use a lot of analytics (an MIT team in fact) but they also lean heavily on their staff that's won more Championships than anyone else since 1980.

ESPN: "Lakers bad = clicks".

 

Lakers have historically had a superstar. There's not much analytics needed when you have Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, West, etc.

But, we should start adapting to changing times and begin using all the tools at our disposal. Otherwise, we aren't doing all that we can to be the best we can be. Teams that turned things around (Hawks, Pistons, etc.) have recently embraced analytics. A lot of the top teams have been believers of it (Mavericks, Rockets, Spurs, Thunder, etc.).

This article talks about how each team approaches analytics and ranks them based on how much faith they put into analytics. Where do the Lakers rank? Dead last with the Knicks and the Nets.

All In:
Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
Philadelphia 76ers
San Antonio Spurs

Believers:
Atlanta Hawks
Boston C Bags
Cleveland Cavaliers
Detroit Pistons
Golden State Warriors
Memphis Grizzlies
Oklahoma City Thunder
Portland Trail Blazers

One Foot In:
Charlotte Hornets
Indiana Pacers
Miami Heat
Milwaukee Bucks
Orlando Magic
Phoenix Suns
Sacramento Kings
Toronto Raptors
Utah Jazz

Skeptics:
Chicago Bulls
Denver Nuggets
Los Angeles Clippers
Minnesota Timberwolves
New Orleans Pelicans
Washington Wizards

Nonbelievers:
Brooklyn Nets
Los Angeles Lakers
New York Knicks

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings

 

Well, Rockets are the 3rd seed in the West. Is that not a top team? It's also not any one team. It's a trend. Like I said, analytics are a tool. It isn't "God". Saying things like how analytics should predict injuries or pull off impossible feats isn't an argument. Nobody and no thing can do that so how is that somehow a con for analytics? It's a tool that gives you an advantage, and the teams that are using analytics are starting to pull ahead. Aside from the Clippers (which may change with Ballmer), every single playoff team in the West have embraced analytics.

SVG said in an interview a few years ago that he loves analytics and he thinks it's great. He even commented on the analytics of the recently acquired Reggie Jackson so yes, he's a guy who believes in it. This does not mean that he "relies" on analytics. It's just another tool that he uses.

Yes, he said that they had four members in 2014. This is in contrast to having sent nobody to the MIT analytics conference in 2013. As noted by the article, the Lakers are a "newcomer" in this department and only have 4 staff members. I think that's a step in the right direction, but we're still far away from where we need to be. If you take a look at other teams, Carlisle looked at the analytics and decided to make a lineup change. Popovich looks at analytics to make strategic adjustments. Steve Kerr, Stan Van Gundy, Tom Thibodeau, etc. are all coaches that look at analytics. Byron Scott strikes me as the type of coach who would immediately discredit it, and I think the type of coach we hire reflects the beliefs of our front office. While charismatic, I would still want our coach to be open analytics. At the least, I would want some assistant coaches to take a look at them.

 

There does seem to be an odd standard set with using the term "analytics". It's so polarizing for some reason.

If Jim Buss was a huge analytics guy, would that ingratiate him among the fans or would he hated even more?

Jerry West is probably the single greatest NBA talent evaluator of all time, but how much analytics did he use? Honest question, I seriously don't know the answer but I'm guessing he went mostly off of what he saw and felt.

I'm certainly not ANTI-analytics, there shouldn't be anyone in the world of sports left who feels that way. I just think there's two sides to talent evaluation and both need to be taken just as seriously as the other. If I tell someone who is heavily into analytics that "my eyes say _____" about a person, I usually get scoffed at. If I tell a person who says "my eyes say _____" about a person that the numbers say differently I get a similar reaction.

Por que no los dos?

Analytics might not have been great to Kobe Bryant coming out of high school. Analytics might also tell you which role player is going to fit in well with which superstar. Everything needs to be taken into account.

Right now the Lakers have 16 rings and have been wildly successful for 30 years. Obviously they know some things about building a good team. Houston might be doing alright right now, but I'll hold judgement until they actually climb the mountain.

 

Not to mention that the players they get (Harden, Howard, Ariza) are essentially the players that everyone thinks are the "best at position" they could get at the given time they got them, stat head or not. I also think analytics and advanced analytics are two different things. Everyone pays attention to analytics on some level. If a dude averages 25 ppg on 49% shooting, anyone is going to want him. I think the advanced analytics are for filling out role players.

 

Definitely. I think advanced analytics are perfect for figuring out the role players and how players can best fit together.

 

Well, yea, you don't need analytics to know that Jordan or Kobe or whoever was the best during a certain era. But what happens if we don't get the next Kobe? What if our next superstar is only the 5th best player in the league? How do we get an advantage over the other 4 players who are better than him? We need a better 2nd option, 3rd option, role players, coach, etc. You have to find any advantage you can get, and when it comes to that, how do you exactly quantify who is better for your team?

It's not just role players. I think for the most part, you are right, but there are times when it also applies to stars. Harden was the 3rd string / 6th man on his team. Analytics suggested that he's a max contract player, and now, he's #2 on the MVP list. You don't do that for just any 6th man / 3rd option. A ton of people here were doubting him as a max contract player.

 

They reaching...

 

Not sure why you keep bringing up Houston. They are one team out of many, and despite how you keep mentioning them, they have yielded positive results. Morey became the GM in 07. He acquired a team with two superstars near the end of their careers because of injuries. Despite losing those two players, the Rockets have never once went below .500 and are now on pace to win 55 games with Harden as one of the top candidates for MVP. And somehow, you see this as a bad thing? O.o

"Advanced stats" also don't say that you want prime Wade over Kobe. It all depends on which stat you look at because yes, Wade did do some things better than Kobe. For example, Kobe was in elite category in spot up jumpers and off screen jumpers. Can Wade ever do that? Kobe lead the league in isolation ppp and was among the best in post up ppp. Kobe has consistently dominated in terms of impact whereas Wade has been up and down. Which "advanced stat" are you looking at? PER? A stat that was invented 20 years ago?

Regardless of what surprised you, the majority of this board did not expect Harden to be worthy of a max contract. Go back and look at the previous topic when Harden was signed. Nearly everyone thought that while he was good, he didn't deserve it. "Timing" really has nothing to do with it. He was worthy of a max contract last season too. Is Harden is worthy of a max contract? Most said no. Advanced stats said yes. Is this somehow supposed to be a jab at analytics?

"Three years ago", Spurs and Thunder were the top 2 seeds in the West. Both teams that use advanced stats. Danny Ferry is about to become the GM of the Hawks and turn things around by getting rid of players like Joe Johnson and Josh Smith. Grizzlies hired Hollinger, and they do better than ever. Yes, the Lakers were a powerhouse. That is without a doubt true, but I have no idea why you are bringing up NY in this. Nobody in the world thought NY looked great. They have always sucked outside of 1 season.

Anyway, is this argument supposed to discredit analytics? What most "stat heads" are trying to say is that the Lakers have extra tools that they could use, which they are reportedly not using. Or are you trying to argue that Lakers should not use analytics?