The Sonics Play Moneyball

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I know Rant will be interested in this one...

 

John Hollinger, the NBA's most prominent statistical analyst in the media, wrote that about the Sonics in his Pro Basketball Prospectus: 2003-04 Edition. Several months before the 2003-04 Prospectus was published, Michael Lewis had already introduced the A's front office and their use of statistics to the world with his best-selling book, Moneyball.

 

The phenomenal success of Moneyball forced sabermetrics - the statistical analysis of baseball, so named for the baseball research society, SABR, which spawned many of baseball's top analysts - into the parlance of even casual baseball fans. It also helped spur fans in other sports, including basketball, to ponder whether a similar revolution was possible.

 

However, Moneyball wasn't the catalyst for attempts to reinvent statistics in the NBA and the NFL. By the time Moneyball was published in the late spring of 2003, Hollinger already had one Prospectus in print and was working on the follow-up while writing for CNNSI.com. And Dean Oliver, considered by his peers the leading NBA analyst, was in his third year of consulting for the Sonics.

 

Since Hollinger wrote about the Sonics prior to the 2003-04 season, they have actually stepped up their use of statistics. Through this fall, Oliver consulted for the team on a limited basis while working as an environmental engineer and writing his basketball opus, Basketball On Paper. Just before the Sonics started training camp this fall, they brought on Oliver full time. While he still lives in the Bay Area and remains a consultant in title, Oliver's influence has grown, as he has worked with the coaching staff - with their blessing - as well as the front office.

 

There is at least one person in virtually every NBA front office that is well-versed in the language of statistics, but Oliver remains an anomaly. No one else plays as large of a role as Oliver based solely on their ability to use statistics, but Oliver is not alone in Seattle in his use of statistics. Sonics President and CEO Wally Walker holds an MBA from Stanford University and used analytical methods during his time as a money manager for Goldman, Sachs. Assistant GM Rich Cho worked as an engineer for Boeing before joining the Sonics and is also known for his analytical skills.

 

It was when Walker hired Cho as an intern nearly a decade ago, at the end of his first full season as general manager, that the Sonics began their development into the NBA's most statistically-minded organization. Cho's first project was, with the help of Microsoft engineers, to create a program, Sonics Explorer, that tracks the statistics and contracts of players throughout the league - a first of its kind.

 

"In the old days - I know, my first year here - you start talking about a player in a trade and you start breaking out the old NBA Guides," says Walker. "'Here were his stats the last three years.' That's just the way it was always done. To be able to see, 'Well, maybe there's a trend on a per-minute basis over the last four years, the player's productivity is going down or going up,' is a little better than just dragging out the old books."

 

It was another analytical mind in the Sonics organization, area scout Yvan Kelly - who teaches economics at a small college by day - that introduced Oliver to the Sonics front office, adding another dimension to the Sonics use of statistics.

 

So what does this mean, that the Sonics play Moneyball? Using the name of the book in the title of this series means more curiosity. The average NBA fan, having read or at least heard of Lewis' book, will have their interest piqued by the controversy Moneyball spawned. At the same time, Moneyball has become a loaded word, one that divides a new guard interested in what the numbers have to say and the traditional theory that favors sight and feel. Like many characterizations of Moneyball, drawing that divide is an oversimplification, but that's what's bound to happen when complicated theories are brought to the general public through the media.

 

To some, Moneyball merely means the use of statistics, but that's too simplistic. After all, some statistics have always played a role in managing basketball teams, just in a more haphazard and less scientific manner. There's also the statistical star of Moneyball, on-base percentage, but its role was overrated by the book and there is no exact basketball equivalent. In this case, the most accurate description of "Moneyball" is probably this - using statistics to find undervalued skills, strategies or players so as to make the most efficient use possible of money and salary-cap space.

 

"When I thought about it (Moneyball) in basketball terms," says Walker, "I do think we get carried away with athleticism at times, which you need - you always want athletes - but sometimes at the expense of looking at a player's productivity and skill level."

 

Statistics have traditionally been less useful in basketball than in baseball, where play is not continuous and most action occurs in the isolated pitcher-hitter matchup. Context is key in basketball. While in baseball, a good hitter is a good hitter with little regard to who surrounds him in the lineup, an NBA specialist like Fred Hoiberg (shooting) or Bruce Bowen (defense) has more value when playing alongside a superstar like Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan.

 

That's where Oliver's work, as well as analysis of lineups and plus-minus data, has helped the Sonics grow beyond individual statistics in recent years. Oliver's player analysis starts with looking at how the player fits into the six individual roles he identifies as necessary for a successful team - outside shooter, ball distributer/passer, rebounder, foul drawer, interior defender, perimeter defender.

 

"I think if you're consistent with your analysis as you put together a team, you stand a better chance of having a balanced team," Walker says.

 

One measure of Moneyball is something Lewis wrote in the introduction to the book: The A's caught his eye because of their remarkable performance in a metric invented by the late sabermatician Doug Pappas, Marginal Wins/Marginal Dollars, which evaluates team efficiency in spending money. The A's ranked second by this measure in 2002 and first in 2003.

 

Last year, I adapted Pappas' method to the NBA. Thus far this season, the Sonics have faced intense competition from other front offices, as two of the other top four teams in the league - Phoenix and San Antonio - also boast payrolls barely above the NBA's salary cap. Real GM.com's Kevin Broom reports that, excluding the expansion Charlotte Bobcats, who are bound by a different salary cap during their first two years, the Sonics rank third in the NBA in Marginal Wins/Marginal Dollar, trailing the Suns and Spurs.

 

For a team like the Sonics, which has had one of the league's lowest payrolls in recent years, front office efficiency is critical to the success they've achieved this season.

 

"We have to be efficient," says Walker.

 

The Sonics aren't the Oakland A's, but don't be surprised if you see Michael Lewis hanging around The Furtado Center in the next few weeks.

 

This is the first of a multi-part series detailing how the Sonics have used statistical analysis. Next Thursday, we take a look at how Dean Oliver went from outsider to NBA insider.

 

http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/moneyball050119.html

[Shanghai Kid 0]

I post over on RealGM and have heard Kevin Broom talk about this before. He's even been coming up with his own statistics that measure defense for individual players.

 

It's very interesting, the Sonics dramatic improvement this year wasn't a lucky fluke. They took statistics and really used them to improve the team.

[UZI Suicide 0]

It's impossible to play "moneyball" in the NBA because teams don't have minor league systems like in Baseball where you can let a big name guy go because you have a young guy waiting in the wings.

 

The Sonics season this year is a combination of things. You've got Rashard Lewis having a career year, young players like 2nd year guys Reggie Evans and Luke Ridnour stepping up and playing solid. You've got Ray Allen with his usual spectacular play. The only guy they really added of any significance was Danny Fortson. Now you combine that with the new NBA rules which strongly cater to run and gun style of teams like Seattle and Phoenix, and a little bit of "flukeyness" and there you go. This is not a much different roster than the one that went 40-42 last year.

 

What's going to happen if/when Ray Allen is gone next year or even by this year's trade deadline like it seems he will be? Can't dig in the minor league system, and I highly doubt Flip Murray can match his production.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

It's impossible to play "moneyball" in the NBA because teams don't have minor league systems like in Baseball where you can let a big name guy go because you have a young guy waiting in the wings.

 

That's a misunderstanding of Moneyball. Moneyball isn't a set strategy. It's the idea that you seek out inequities in your market, and exploit them. Empirically seek out the best methods of evaluating players, rather than rely on the conventional wisdom. That's the essence of moneyball.

[UZI Suicide 0]

It only works with a strong minor league system. Where would the A's be without their system? You can talk about all the moneyball shit you want but take away Hudson, Mulder and Zito and they weren't going anywhere.

[Brett Favre 0]

It only works with a strong minor league system. Where would the A's be without their system? You can talk about all the moneyball shit you want but take away Hudson, Mulder and Zito and they weren't going anywhere.

The Moneyball technique is what got them Hudson, Mulder, and Zito....

[UZI Suicide 0]

Exactly, but you can't do that in the NBA, because of no minor leagues.

[Brett Favre 0]

Well, they got Mulder, Hudson, and Zito by drafting a specific way. You can somewhat draft the same way in the NBA.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I think NBA's moneyball principles are a bit different than MLB's. Some of the elements remain, some are omitted. Minor leagues are omitted from NBA's moneyball principles I would assume, and factoring in something else that wasnt there in MLB's principles.

[MrRant 0]

You also use the "Moneyball" philosphy while signing free agents or retaining members of your own team as well.

[Precious Roy 0]

The Sonics drafted a lot of the guys on their team, Lewis, Ridnour, Radmanovich, Evans, Collison and James. They got Allen and Murray for Gary Payton. They traded Calvin Booth for Fortson. Their only major free agent signing was Antonio Daniels, who I think they got kind of cheap. They've put a nice group of young players together under the radar, but "moneyball"? Are the Bulls playing moneyball now?

[Brett Favre 0]

I don't think so. Curry and Chandler, weren't NBA ready players, and I think the Moneyball strategy is to draft players who are professional ready, out of college. Although Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich are.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I don't think so. Curry and Chandler, weren't NBA ready players, and I think the Moneyball strategy is to draft players who are professional ready, out of college. Although Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich are.

Maybe this element they took from MLB, developing your players to be "NBA-ready". For instance you have your minor leaguers in MLB that you're developing to be MLB-ready. It's possible that since NBA doesn't have the luxury of development leagues (at least none that is not associated with NCAA or a legitimate league unlike the NBA summer leagues), that they develop the players differently, some by pushing out on the court before they're ready and learning on the spot or riding the bench and coming off as 6th man or 7th man to take in a learning experience without it being at the expense of the team.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I never understood why NBA teams draft high schoolers, considering they only hold the player's rights for three years. By the time Sebastian Telfour gets good, he could leave. High schoolers aren't necessarily bad investments, but there's an advantage in college players in that you have a better idea of their level of skill. The problem NBA teams have is that they decide the college guys aren't good enough, and draft a high school player who MIGHT become better.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I don't think so. Curry and Chandler, weren't NBA ready players, and I think the Moneyball strategy is to draft players who are professional ready, out of college. Although Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich are.

Luol Deng and Chris Duhon, also look NBA ready. Andres Nocioni was NBA ready.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

There were 8 high school picks in the 1st round of the 2004 draft.

 

2003 draft = 4 high schoolers taken in the 1st round.

2002 draft = 1 high schooler taken in the 1st round.

2001 draft = 4 high schoolers taken in the 1st round.

2000 draft = 2 high schoolers taken in the 1st round.

 

Guys from 2000 - 2003: Darius Miles, Deshawn Stevenson, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, DeSagana Diop, Amare Stoudamire, Lebron James, Travis Outlaw, Ndudi Ebi, and Kendrick Perkins.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

I don't think so. Curry and Chandler, weren't NBA ready players, and I think the Moneyball strategy is to draft players who are professional ready, out of college. Although Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich are.

Luol Deng and Chris Duhon, also look NBA ready. Andres Nocioni was NBA ready.

The Bulls are going to be a dangerous team in a few years, maybe evn this year. Imagine if they still had Jay Williams.

[Vern Gagne 0]

They might not of drafted Ben Gordon if Jason Williams was playing.

[Precious Roy 0]

Or Hinrich, who was drafted after Williams' accident.

 

Teams get their first round picks for four years, not three, so for certain teams high school kids are a wise investment, but it's case by case, and I also think the science has become more refined as teams have learned what to do and not to do from the mistakes and successes of the past 10 years. Character and emotional makeup are the major consideration IMO, because even the most promising player can burn out and develop bad habits, and guys who are lacking in that department definitely need to be mentored by the organization. KG was a wise investment for Minnesota because the team was in the dumps and was willing to commit the entire organization to his long-term development, and McHale basically took him under his wing and showed him the ropes. Jermaine O'Neal was a great project for Portland with veteran players who let him develop behind the scenes, except they fucked up and traded him as soon as he was ready to take it to the next level after spending three years developing him, an incredibly stupid move. The biggest problem though is when bad teams expect an 18 yr old to be their savior and put a ton of pressure on them. The Bulls traded ELTON BRAND, an established, mature, productive player, for the right to pick Tyson Chandler, who was regarded by everyone as a 2-4 year project. That's just stupid.