re: Moneyball and the New York Knicks

Moneyball!!

You couldn't be more wrong. The Knicks were 7-1 without Carmelo Anthony. During those eight games, the Knicks averaged 97.1 PPG which is a little above average in the NBA. However they allowed only 90.1 PPG during that streak which is lower than all but three teams has allowed on average during the season. The Knicks haven't been winning because if Jeremy Lin's offense. They've been winning because their defense was playing at an elite level and they finally had stable PG play instead of the likes of Toney Douglas and Mike Bibby. And during the game Carmelo only shot the ball 11 times which was less than Jeremy Lin and Amare Stoudemire. He wasn't hogging the ball at all. His biggest fault was the turnovers more than anything else.

quote:

---

It has nothing to do with Moneyball.

---

I think he made a typo and wrote "it" instead of "what".

I think you're confusing Moneyball's principles with Bill Simmons's Ewing Theory, but this thread isn't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

quote:

---

a baseball team who can only spend around 30 million and have to find a way to replace those 3 all star guys with people who aren't superstars because of high costs and they can only afford so much so they get guy from superbad and his statistical info comes in handy when trying to find non superstars to win baseball games by getting on base %.

By having Amare and Carmelo back (big superstars who always need the ball) ruins the chemistry of the team.

---

Yeah - those two things do not equate.

You can call CP3LSU25 many things, but a quitter you can not.

quote:

---

Yeah - those two things do not equate.

---

Basketball and baseball couldn't be more different as sports. One basketball player can have a huge impact on the game like a Lebron James for instance. With the Cavs, he shot and handled the ball a lot more than the rest of his teammates. In baseball, no player can make that type of impact on the game. A position player only has four or five plate appearances out of what 40 plate appearances per game? A baseball pitcher can only take the mound once out of every five games. Barry Bonds, Pedro Martinez from 1999-2002, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, none of them won a World Series. You know why? Because they could only do so much. In basketball, a player can take as many shots as they want and take over whenever they want to. That's why rings mean everything in judging a superstar in basketball and means nothing in baseball.

quote:

---

His basic premise is that "stars" are overrated. It's an interesting premise that a lot of teams have not discovered (or continually choose to ignore). If he just substituted the word Moneyball with Ewing Theory, we'd be set for a decent discussion.

---

Carmelo and Amare might be overrated but "stars" definitely aren't overrated in basketball. The 2004 Pistons are the only team to have won a championship without a superstar in the last 30 years. There have been only a handful of teams that have won a championship without multiple stars on their team ('94-95 Rockets, '03 Spurs, '11 Mavericks). Stars mean everything in basketball.

at the OP, what a retard

quote:

---

His basic premise is that "stars" are overrated. It's an interesting premise that a lot of teams have not discovered (or continually choose to ignore). If he just substituted the word Moneyball with Ewing Theory, we'd be set for a decent discussion.

---

However, the chance of success in the NBA with superstars argues just the opposite of that. Additional superstars dramatically increase the chance of making the playoffs, advancing in the playoffs, and winning the championship. Shockingly, I believe for every marginal star (up to 3 stars, since we really have never seen four) that there is actually an increasing rate of marginal utility. I would have to verify the numbers (in Scorecasting), but stars (especially two or three on the same team) are far from overrated in basketball.