Kirk Lacob and the analytics revolution taking place in GSW

[EvanZ]

Ok, the title is a (slight) exaggeration, but check this out:

KL: As an example, Houston is probably at the forefront of almost everything analytically. When they heard about what we've been able to do over the summer, they were talking to our guys and, 'How did you do that? We ran into this problem..' I mean, to hear them - we're talking Daryl Morey and Sam Hinke - saying, 'How did you do this? We ran into this wall...' And our guy just said, 'I'm not gonna tell you - I'm not going to solve it for you. This is worth a lot of money!'

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2012/9 ... -sports-vu

A must-read for everyone here.

[Bobbofitos]

Yeah the GSW team that fails to make the playoffs and pigeonholes itself into the 9th or 10th seed for the next 4 years is really a great demonstration of upper level analytics

[EvanZ]

Yeah the GSW team that fails to make the playoffs and pigeonholes itself into the 9th or 10th seed for the next 4 years is really a great demonstration of upper level analytics

You don't think you should wait to see how this season plays out before jumping to that conclusion? The West is extremely tough. I'm not sure what you would have them do other than try to put together the best pieces they can and then go out and maximize those talents. Not every team is going to land Dwight Howard and Steve Nash or LeBron, Wade, and Bosh in a single off-season.

[Bobbofitos]

Just ribbing the piece a little. You're right, that's not totally warranted. Having said that, the GS track record is very poor, so I'm very reluctant to throw any praise on their organization. I'm also not so confident of their acquisitions, but we'll see.

[Crow]

It seems like going with an old-school head coach makes adoption of recommendations of innovative analytics more difficult. Some GM and owners are trying to get the best of both worlds and blend them. In most cases it seems like the traditionalists still have the upper hand. Which coach is considered most receptive to new analytics? I'd like to see a head coach go whole hog with it, understand the analytics, contribute to its direction, use it massively. I am not sure any current head coach does that or is willing / capable to do that.

[EvanZ]

One of the critical factors is that no matter what kind of coach you get, there is no doubt that the players themselves can only understand the stats to a certain point. Perhaps, that is the rate-limiting step. If every player was on the level of Shane Battier, in terms of buy-in, the analytics approach would probably be adopted faster. But it's getting there. Eventually analytics will just be the cost of doing business, not so much to give a competitive advantage, but a necessary component to compete at a certain level.

The teams know this day is coming more or less, which for example, is why the fact that Philly didn't hire an "analytics" guy was apparently a big deal. Mark Jackson may not exactly like "coaching by the numbers", but I think his job depends on it actually.

[Crow]

Wonder if anybody has tried to convert a track & field coach into an NBA coach, even at the assistant level. I'd think they'd be more number literate, focused and receptive.

In which sport are the best game managers in your opinion? I would think the best American football coaches would rate highly. Any coach you know of who was successful at college level or above who ever turned to basketball? I think that might be interesting. Even with a standout football player, like a QB.

Any team have a really explicit split between practice (& development) manager and game manager in the NBA these days? That might be worth trying too.

[xkonk]

Wonder if anybody has tried to convert a track & field coach into an NBA coach, even at the assistant level. I'd think they'd be more number literate, focused and receptive.

In which sport are the best game managers in your opinion? I would think the best American football coaches would rate highly.

I think a track & field coach would be an odd choice. If basketball is such a team/chemistry-oriented sport, a T&F coach would know nothing about it. With the possible exception of relay teams, which even then would be a tiny exception, you literally do just take your best people at any event and put them out there at a meet. I also doubt that they're any more familiar with advanced stats than NBA coaches. I don't think the issue with NBA coaches is a lack of familiarity with numbers, it's more of a problem getting them to accept and act on advanced numbers as opposed to 'basic' numbers.

Football coaches, at least in general at the NFL/D-1 college level, would also be a potentially odd choice. The extremely slow acceptance of 4th down strategy (namely, not punting as often as currently happens) seems a strike against most coaches if what you want is someone willing to implement what the numbers suggest.

[Crow]

I has mainly thinking of a track & field coach as a practice / development coach.

I hear a lot about player's working on the typical stuff in the weight room. improving flexibility, etc. I do not recall any coach or GM ever bragging loudly that their players got demonstrably faster / quicker / more agile thru detailed analysis and training of their footwork. Though I have occasionally heard of teams working on striding technique of particular players, I have never heard that it was being done by top experts. I would think that should be a big thing. I would think every NBA should have a legit track coach specialist, even just for summer / training camp. Do any of them have one? I occasionally hear about players going to the track and maybe a few seek out the advice of college track coaches but I have never heard of it being treated with great expertise and great focus.

Good football coaches impress me with being far better prepared and demanding, far more knowledgeable about stats and tendencies and far more engaged in the use of game theory in games than the average NBA coach. But I guess it might be a mistaken or somewhat exaggerated impression.


The place to start with the next level of stat / analytics awareness (awareness demand) by players is with the PG. It strikes me that very few college or NBA PGs are anywhere near as aware of that information or able to apply it productively as the average NCAA or NFL QB. My impression is that the average QB does lots more video work per week than the average PG, in season and off.

[EvanZ]

The place to start with the next level of stat / analytics awareness (awareness demand) by players is with the PG. It strikes me that very few college or NBA PGs are anywhere near as aware of that information or able to apply it productively as the average NCAA or NFL QB. My impression is that the average QB does lots more video work per week than the average PG, in season and off.

From what I have heard, the Warriors intend to do something like this with Curry. They really want him to be the QB on the floor (assuming he can stay on it).