A very odd headline appeared in the New York Daily News on Wednesday. In an article authored by Frank Isola we learned that Isiah Thomas Predicts a Title. Here are some excerpts from Isola’s story:
“My belief and what I see and where I believe we can go as a team and an organization, I believe one day that we will win a championship here and I believe a couple of these guys will be a part of that,” Thomas said before the Knicks were walloped at the Garden by the depleted Sacramento Kings, 107-97. “I believe I’ll be a part of that.”
Thomas admitted that his comments, which border on the absurd, leave him open for ridicule.
“As I sit here and I say it today, I know people will laugh even more at me, but I’m hell-bent on getting this accomplished and making sure that we get it done. And I’m not leaving until we get it done.”
….The Knicks are now 8-22. The franchise has yet to win a playoff game since 2001 and its record with Thomas as coach is 41-71.
Also, many of his player transactions have backfired, especially deals for Eddy Curry and Stephon Marbury. Coincidentally, when Thomas talked about the team’s strong nucleus he failed to include Marbury and David Lee.
“I believe we’re on the right path and I believe we have the right players,” he said. “Our record doesn’t show that, but I’m not ready to give up on these players.
“We have good talent. We have good players. We have young players … and we have a good nucleus. We just need to get them to play well together. It’s not about breaking them up or tearing them down, it’s about getting them to play better as a team because individually I believe they’re pretty good.”
The Knicks in 2007-08
When we look at what the Knicks have done this year – reported in Table One – we see only three players – David Lee, Renaldo Balkman, and Randolph Morris – who are above average with respect to WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. And Morris has only played five minutes this year. The other eleven players on the roster have been below average. With such performances, the team’s won-loss record is not a surprise.
Table One: The New York Knicks in 2007-08
So is Thomas just confused? Should he be ridiculed? The answer is yes if you read Frank Isola’s blog entry from Thursday. But I have a different take on what has happened to the Knicks.
Defending Isiah
About seven months ago I published an article in the Yale Economic Review examining Isiah Thomas and the New York Knicks (I noted this article in this forum last May). Unfortunately, I can’t find this article on-line. So let me briefly explain the gist of this piece.
When we look at the determinants of free agent salaries in the NBA we see that scoring dominates the story. Although blocked shots, rebounds, and maybe assists impact salary, it’s scoring that’s most important. What’s interesting (at least to me) is that shooting efficiency and turnovers are not found to statistically impact player pay. In sum, players can waste possessions and not suffer any penalty. And this tendency to ignore inefficient shooting and turnovers appears to be at the heart of the Knicks problems.
A few weeks ago I posted the following comments on Stephon Marbury. These comments argue that Marbury — a player who tends to be an inefficient scorer who is also prone to turnovers — has generally been overpaid in an NBA market focused on scoring.
The Wages of Wins is Factorial
A similar story could probably be told about Isiah Thomas the player. Thomas certainly had the ability to score and get assists. But Isiah’s adjusted field goal percentage was 0.465 for his career, a mark that was below average. Plus he was prone to turnovers. In sum, Thomas tended to waste possessions. Given these weaknesses, his career WP48 of 0.132 was above average (average is 0.100), but perhaps not as far above average as his Hall-of-Fame credentials would suggest.
Although Isiah had shortcomings as a player, he was always regarded as the leader of the Pistons. And with Isiah, the Pistons did win two championships. Given these titles, I don’t think it’s a stretch to suppose that Isiah believes he was the primary reason his team was successful on the court (although as I noted last June, Isiah did not lead the championship teams in Wins Produced).
Given this belief, Isiah has gone out and acquired players in his own image. His roster is stocked with scorers who are not efficient shooters and/or prone to turnovers. The common starting line-up of Stephon Marbury, Jamal Crawford, Quintin Richardson, Zach Randolph, and Eddy Curry consists of five players who can score. With the exception of Curry, though, these players are below average with respect to shooting efficiency. Curry is efficient, but he’s prone to turnovers (and can’t rebound very well).
If scoring is all that mattered in basketball, the Knicks with these five players on the court would be a dominant team. All five players are capable of a per-game scoring mark in double digits. With such talent on the court, opposing defenses should be overwhelmed. Furthermore, the shooting efficiency of these players should rise as opposing defenses cannot decide who should be guarded.
It’s my sense that Isiah believes the story I just told. And furthermore, and this is the point I would strongly emphasize, I would argue he’s not alone. As I argued in the Yale Economic Review, I think if most general managers had the money given to Isiah, they would also go out and buy every scorer they could lay their hands upon. And when that team of scorers didn’t win, they would make the same arguments you hear from Isiah. The problem is not a lack of productive talent, the problem is team chemistry and effort.
The Lack of Productive Talent
If we look at the Wages of Wins measures, though, we see that chemistry isn’t the real problem with the Knicks. The real problem is a lack of productive talent. In sum, many of these players are simply not that good.
Table Two reports the career productivity – entering the 2007-08 season – of each player on the Knicks roster who is currently playing at least 12 minutes per contest.
Table Two: Career Performance of the New York Knicks
From Table Two we see that only two players on the Knicks – Lee and Balkman – have a career WP48 that is substantially above average. And neither of these players has started the majority of New York’s games (Balkman only plays twelve minutes a game).
Looking at the other players on the roster we see that Richardson, Marbury, Randolph, and Malik Rose hover around the average mark (although Rose has declined considerably late in his career). And the remaining five players are substantially below average.
In addition to reporting the career averages, Table Two also notes how often each player finished a season with a WP48 in excess of 0.100. As you can see, of the 63 player seasons played, only 24 of these were above average. Furthermore, Curry and Crawford, two starters on the Knicks, have combined to offer only one above average season in their careers. In sum, most of these players have been below average most of the time.
The PER Story
Again, though, the perception is that these players are generally “good.” And when we turn to John Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating (PER), that’s a story we hear. PER tells us that five of these players – Lee, Balkman, Marbury, Randolph, and Curry – have been above average for their career. Crawford, with a career mark just below average, has been above average five out of the seven seasons he has played. When we look at all players on the Knicks, this team has posted above average PER marks in 36 of the 63 seasons played.
The PER measure emphasizes player scoring. Hence, I think it’s consistent with what Thomas seems to be saying. If we focus on scoring then we have to conclude the Knicks are an above average team. Unfortunately, year after year, the team’s won-loss record tells a very different story. And it’s that story that has made New York fans so angry with Isiah Thomas.
But I would argue again that this is not his fault. He seems to believe, like so many others, that scoring is the most important thing to look at in evaluating a player. And I would argue, it’s not Isiah’s fault that he was given enough money to show that the team with the most scorers is not always the team with the most points when the game is over.
- DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
30 responses so far ↓
Paulo // January 4, 2008 at 1:03 am
Dave, have you ever looked at Player-turned-Executives and how their teams do? Maybe we can put in a tenure-based (3 years maybe?) cut-off to spare newly-appointed GMs? I’m curious because Larry Bird, McHale, Isiah, MJ, (pre-Don Nelson return) Chris Mullin, Elgin Baylor, and Kiki Vandeweghe haven’t been exactly models for their peers. Looking at the other end of the spectrum, Dumars, (post-KG/Allen trade) Ainge, (up to a certain extent) Riley and John Paxon have been doing good with their jobs.
Am I crazy to think that Dennis Rodman (ultimate role player, not cross-dressing party animal) would have made a great GM?
dberri // January 4, 2008 at 1:22 am
Paulo,
So you are suggesting a negative link between career scoring average and GM success? Maybe there is something to that story.
Kent // January 4, 2008 at 1:27 am
This is a really good post. The Knicks are a case study that show the shortcomings of Hollinger’s PER and that completely inane paper by pseudo-economist Rosenbaum.
Paulo // January 4, 2008 at 1:47 am
I guess so, but right off the bat I could see some outliers. Dumars at his peak was a pretty darn good scorer, while Danny Ferry wasn’t someone you wouldn’t bet on to score 20 on a consistent basis. But it would be nice to try, right?
And in sort of defending Isiah, I think you failed to credit his (excellent?) draft history: Damon Stoudamire, Camby, T-Mac, Balkman, Lee, Ariza — players who have been productive throughout their careers. In fact, if I was James Dolan, that’s the only reason I won’t fire him yet: let the team stink for a few more years, get a few lottery picks, THEN fire Isiah. Or is this the plan already?
Animal // January 4, 2008 at 2:45 am
Didn’t the Knicks resign Isiah late last season? If they hadn’t, would his contract have expired after this year?
mikel123 // January 4, 2008 at 6:32 am
It is his fault – it’s totally his fault.
If you’re getting paid a ton of money to be the chief decision-maker for an organization, you should do your homework and figure out how to be good at your job. The classic example of course is Billy Beane. I guess you can lay some blame on the owners, for hiring a guy to run the team whose main qualifications were (a) being good at basketball, and (b) being a hard worker. Maybe the owners saw something else in Isiah, I don’t know.
But the fact is, I fully believe that you, or Hollinger, or Dean Oliver (I think that’s his name) would be a better GM than Isiah… all because of a little work you do in your spare time. We’re seeing how bad GMs are at managing sports franchises because people enjoy looking deeper at the numbers and figuring out how to do a good job as a GM. I’d imagine corporate CEOs have probably just as many Isiah Thomas’ as pro sports teams have. We just haven’t really found them yet.
Paul // January 4, 2008 at 7:37 am
You’re pathetic, Kent.
sa11 // January 4, 2008 at 7:47 am
Except in professional sports, very few organizations with $50 to $100 million annual budgets are run by people with one year of college — except if the individual actually started the company, like Bill Gates or some other entrepreneurs. One can, of course, compensate for lack of education in business or economics by gaining relevant experience and working your way up, but surprisingly (or not) a number of owners hire individuals as general managers who have not gained that type of experience.
tastycakes // January 4, 2008 at 8:34 am
Though this article takes a dig at PER, it doesn’t do much of anything to honestly discredit John Hollinger or his statistic. The Knicks are dead last in Hollinger’s 30-team power rankings! Lee and Randolph are the only players more than a point above the 15 point average!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/hollinger?team=nyk
Acting like “Hollingeresque” thinking is what got the Knicks where they are is pretty dishonest. I’d find it hard to believe Isiah has ever even heard of PER (much less WOW).
Also, is it terribly surprising that Marbury’s career PER is above average? He had a number of strong years in the league and is no longer the same player, remotely. Curry is barely above average, and when your “franchise player” is barely above average, good luck.
I do agree that Isiah is complicit in exhibiting an inherent bias towards scoring in valuing players, and does not pay nearly enough attention to the compatability of skill sets, complementary abilities, or defensive ability in his players. But we’ve known that for years: the guy is one of the worst GMs in the history of the league!
Jason // January 4, 2008 at 10:46 am
It seems there’s a couple things going on. One is that the Isiah isn’t a very good GM, but the second is that it’s a difficult problem to solve even for a good GM.
Perhaps someone who has followed the Knicks more carefully can elaborate on this, but it seems to me that when Thomas took control of the Knicks they were already a gigantic salary team that wasn’t doing very well.
One of the ‘problems’ (a problem if you are in ownership, not so much if you’re a player) with the NBA collective bargaining agreement is that it’s very difficult to shed salary and correct old mistakes. When most teams are over the cap, trades, for the most part, involve swapping similar salaries. The differences in salaries then come from the comparative length of contracts that with few exceptions have raises built into them over their life. Isiah seems to ignore this back end when acquiring players.
(Given the willingness to spend) teams can very easily retain players and keep paying them at high rates, but it’s not so easy to erase the mistake or to lure in new players to cover them up. I don’t know how many of the current Knicks owe their contracts to Isiah (I believe Curry does) but some of the overpaid masses were acquired through trade. Most of the players he has acquired were considered problems of some sort, usually because their production didn’t match salary *before* he got them, but usually, he’s sent out similarly worthless overpaid players in the deal. Where Isiah erred significantly was in trying to stop the bleeding by swapping problem for problems with longer contracts and enticing teams with draft picks to take on his problems.
A better strategy would be to wait, as painful as it would be, for the contracts to go away and build slowly through the draft until some point when momentum favored actually trying to acquire something of value in an existing player. This strategy doesn’t mesh with a ‘we want to win *NOW* attitude that may put pressure on immediate returns even if the “win now” is such a long shot that the results are likely going to be the same. The difference is that in trading for “Starbury” and similar hyped scorers, it appears that he’s trying to do something, though in reality, the results are predictable *and* it further postpones the opportunity to improve.
What’s interesting is that he drafted Lee and Balkman, “role players” that PER and WP identify as being productive (though the measures differ on how much) but then seems to favor other players in his rotation. He seems able to draft reasonably well given his other limitations and draft independent of the scorer’s bias. However, once a player enters the league, he seems to believe the hype of “Starbury puts up 40!” [sub headline is ignored: 'his team loses.']
rob // January 4, 2008 at 1:38 pm
defending isiah is kind of like defending ned colletti (dodgers gm) for his decision to sign juan pierre for 5 years and $55mm. in that case, there was so much evidence out there (if only one were to look) that rewarding base hits (and not on base %) and stolen bases (and not sb%) is bad business. there is (was) enough evidence out there to show that eddy curry is not a franchise center, that stephon marbury does not excel without the ball in his hands, that jamal crawford is streaky, that zach randolph does not play d, etc. given that nyc revolves around the finance industry, and that industry is all about exploiting market inefficiencies to make money, shouldn’t isiah know these things? shouldn’t he know that almost EVERYONE ELSE is measuring players based on their scoring averages but that his job is to find the inefficiency and exploit it? isn’t that what makes a good businessman?
ty w // January 4, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Outstanding point by Jason.
Professor Berri, I have a question for you regarding the Golden State Warriors.
Because of Don Nelson’s Kangaroo lineups, I did a cumulative Win Score calculation for the entire team, ignoring position but adjusting to 8.1 — the average WS that every five man lineup has to achieve to be above average producers.
The weird thing is, unless my math is way off, the Warriors are cumulatively so far above average they should have around 26 wins, but they only have, if I’m not mistaken, 18.
My question is: (A) is my cumulative calculation valid, and (B) if so, what accounts for the Warriors disparity between Win Score and Wins Produced? Has Don Nelson finally outfoxed himself with his cockamamie lineups?
Jason // January 4, 2008 at 2:57 pm
My thoughts on the Warriors are that Biedrins should get a position correction as a center, Baron and Ellis as point guards (even if this somewhat penalizes Ellis, it’s minimal).
Many of the rest of the major players should get some sort of average between a 2, 3 and 4 as their rotations and assignments mean that on any trip up the floor, Jackson or Barnes or Pietrus or Azubuike could find themselves in that role. It may be that for everyone but Biedrins, who is in a position where he’s going to get rebounds like a center, the way to evaluate the team isn’t with a position adjustment at all. This makes it hard to compare to players on other teams, but at least as far as the Warriors go, it’s probably the fair way to assess relative contributions.
It may be that Nelson’s lineups are the closest to the “5 ” that I’ve argued fall beyond the realm that Wins Produced was designed to evaluate. At the team level the assessment should hold, but I suspect credit isn’t accurately doled out with traditional position corrections.
jp // January 4, 2008 at 3:42 pm
As an LA guy, i couldn’t agree with rob more. Luckily for the Los angeles, Isaiah traded away Ariza, who was then traded away for two below average players.
As for professionalism at being a good GM and a good businessman, nobody sets the standard like the aforementioned Billy Beane. He just traded away Swisher and told the public it’s for the long term good:
“If anything we’re taking a step back with the idea we have a chance to build something very good for a long time. … The cost of indecision for us probably would be a bigger mistake.”
Very few GMs have the job security Beane has and can’t say those kind of statements. Oddly enough, Isaiah’s employer is insanely devoted to him but he still makes terrible GM moves as if this weren’t the case.
Jeff // January 5, 2008 at 7:39 am
Mikel123 and sa11:
Billy Beane became the moneyball gm because he doesn’t have $ to work with. I’m pretty sure he would have kept Giambi if he had Steinbrenner’s money to play with. He tried to replace Giambi’s production with like four other players.
Plenty of multi million enterprises are run by people without college degrees: Ted Turner, Sir Richard Branson, Sean Carter aka Jay-Z (I could list a lot of record execs here, but jigga also has impeccable taste in vodka, champagne, basketball . . . ).
The game theory literature doesn’t place much weight on the value of a college education. It is treated simply as a way of signalling to employers that a person has more ability than someone that didn’t go to college. One could even say that those that decide to attend college are risk averse.
mrparker // January 5, 2008 at 7:52 am
Jeff,
I’m pretty sure the gentelmen qualified his statement by excluding those who started the company.
Jason,
I’ve always tried to play around the idea of a position adjustment. Since coaches can’t always optimize lineups by putting players in their “natural” position, sometimes the position adjustment is too much of a punishment for someone who moves up or too big for someone who moves down. I’m an advocate of finding some sort of universal scale that credits players whose skills are more versatile. I’m working on something like this, but so far I can only make it work for finding talent in college that can play in the NBA.
MJ // January 5, 2008 at 9:07 am
Must be something in the air this week. I weighed in on several of these topics in my NY Sun column on Thursday.
Pardon the self-promotion but I think y’all will enjoy this article.
http://www.nysun.com/article/68904
-MJ
antonio // January 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm
You say Iaiah is not alone in stockpiling scorers and believing that will work. Really? While GMs may be willing to pay a lot of money for a single scorer, I don’t think they are willing to pay tons of money for 5 or 6 scorers like the Knicks. That is why no other team is even close to the mess that the Knicks are, and that is why when teams want to get rid of these scorers, they always end up only hooking up with Isiah Thomas.
While many GMs may believe that scorers deserve the most money, I have a hard time believing any of them would construct a team that is even close to resembling what the Knicks have. That is why no one else has a team with so many scorers who are overpaid.
Mark // January 6, 2008 at 6:32 pm
antonio, check out the dallas roster.
Obviously they are having more success than New York, but they are definitely going for the bloated scorers paid for by lots of cash model as well.
antonio // January 6, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Really? Outside of Terry and Stackhouse, who else have they signed or traded for that are bloated scorers? You have Dampier, Diop, Jones, Hassel and George all logging 10+ minutes a game, and none were brought in because or their scoring.
Then when looking at the draft, Nowitzki is a just great player, Howard is certainly not considered a scorer, although he happens to do that quite well, and Harris is a solid player. I am not seeing all these bloated scorers that you see. Completely different from the Knicks roster.
Most of the moves Isiah has made via trade/free agency has been considered awful from the minute the move was made.
Clearly, he thinks a lot differently than anyone else and no other team agrees to just stockpiling players whose best skills are scoring
Daniel // January 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Just thought I’d mention really quickly that the Zach Randolph trade with Portland was getting nothing but positive reviews from all the analysts. Isiah has done a horrible job with this Knicks team but he’s also had some pretty bad luck. I strongly believe that his biggest flaw is not being able to be the leader that all these veterans and players really need.
Mark // January 6, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Nowitzki has been struggling so far this year and it’s because they’ve been asking him to contibute other than by lighting it up scoring. Hasn’t been working fo rthem as well as they’d hoped.
Stackhouse and Terry, you seem to agree with me on.
Howard I will agree is an all around player, but he’s also looking to ‘get his’ on offense.
Dallas’s offense stinks, it’s a bunch of guys playing one on one and overwhelming the other team with talent.
I repeat, New York has the same game plan as Dallas, they just have slightly worse players and worse contracts.
Phoenix is another example. They’ve had to give away first round picks (mortgaging the future) to maintain the bloated nucleus they have. Too much money, overvaluing offensive ability.
antonio // January 6, 2008 at 8:06 pm
They do not have the same game plan. Dallas’ game plan is not to stock their roster with over the hill veterans stuck in bad contracts. Dallas never would trade for Marbury, Francis, Hardaway, Curry, Crawford, or Randolph. Dallas is an extremely balanced team that plays hard defense. That is the opposite of the lazy Knicks who don’t rebound or play any defense. And the Suns? The Suns give away first round picks because their owner is cheap and refuses to go over the luxury tax at all. How is a team that has won 60+ games and been a championship contender the past few years have a bloated nucleus. And I won’t comment on Nowitzki, but I guess he is “struggling” leading their team to a 23-11 record. The only reason you even say he is struggling is because he has set the bar so high for himself as a player that when he is just a little bit off you say he is struggling.
Scott // January 6, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Mr. Berri, since you’re a Pistons fan, I’m interested in your opinion of Isiah Thomas the player. Many NBA experts still consider him the 2nd greatest PG of all time. Yet, he was never an efficient player. Even his PER ratings were never that high, especially in the championship years. Has the development of Wins Produced changed your opinion of Thomas’s value from when you watched him play? Does Wins Produced, PER, and Dean Oliver’s rating system fail to show Thomas’s real value or is he simply one of the more overrated players in NBA history?
Mark // January 6, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I put it to you that New York’s “game plan is not to stock their roster with over the hill veterans stuck in bad contracts.” either. And do you really think that it’s Isiahs plan to have the knicks play poor defense?
I was using the term ‘bloated nucleus’ (which is a stretch I agree) to describe dallas giving so much money to shooters. I still think that Dallas and the Knicks have had the same approach (spend your way to a championship), I just think that Dallas has done a much better job of it.
And I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on Phoenix, since although they are easily one of the best 5-10 teams in the last few years I couldn’t seem them winning a championship in any recent year without major injuries to other teams. Their overemphasis on offense means that they are not and have not been championship contenders to my mind.
They gave too much money to pieces other than their big three, which is why they are jettisonning their future and relying on Amare turning into Dwight to have a chance of hoisting the trophy.
antonio // January 6, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Well yes, if you are purely speaking in amount of money spent, than Dallas is like New York. Although I think any team would like the luxury to be able to spend money. The ability to spend money is not what hurt the Knicks. The Suns did not want to trade away all those draft picks for cash. Their owner made them. If the owner was willing to spend more money and keep those draft picks, I think clearly the Suns would be a better team,
But Mark Cuban relies on much more than trying to get “scorers”. The philosophy of “spending money” is not a philosophy. It is how you spend your money. And Dallas and New York spend their money in much different ways. That is why Dallas doesn’t make the trades for washed up players like Steve Francis or Stephon Marbury, or overrated players like Eddy Curry, or even give away mid-level contracts to garbage players like Jerome James. If Dallas’ philosophy was simply “spend money”, their roster would look a lot different.
Also, last year, the Suns defensively were not a bad team, they were middle of the pack. And while yes, San Antonio was the better team last year, was there really much of a difference between them and San Antonio? Clearly Phoenix is right there in the mix of the championship race, and some people will still argue that they were the best team last year. (These are the ones blaming David Stern for the Suns losing). Clearly, whatever Phoenix has done to put together a championship caliber team has worked. And while it may be your opinion that they won win a championship, to say they don’t have a shot would seem ridiculous when they consistently post one of the best records in the NBA and last year gave the NBA champions their toughest series. All a GM can do is get his team into the post-season, preferably with a high seed, (as the Suns have), and hope their team plays well and catches a few breaks. That is how the Heat won the championship, and can certainly be how the Suns could win the championship this year.
Two From the Sun on the Knicks « The Wages of Wins Journal // January 6, 2008 at 11:50 pm
[...] The NBA Draft ← Sort of Defending Isiah Thomas [...]
magicmerl // January 7, 2008 at 12:05 am
I think that we are in consensus on dallas.
Erm, the suns currently only have 3 teams below them in terms of PA (points against). I know that Defensive efficiency (points against per 100 posessions) would make them a little better, but still, that doesn’t even seem like ‘middle of the pack’ defense. I don’t have that at my fingertips right now, but given that the suns almost certainly have higher number of posessions per game than the average team, they still aren’t that much better.
Looking at this list:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings?season=2008&group=league&column=avgPointsAgainst&order=true&seasontype=2
I’d say that if these trends stay true for the rest of the regular season I could only see Boston, Detroit or San Antonio winning the championship this year. Even San Antonio looks like a push, but I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt because they start slowly every year and really only hit their stride towards the end of the regular season.
Dan // January 7, 2008 at 6:45 am
You can throw all the fancy statistics and analysis at the Isiah situation, but in the end, he is a poor executive and a horrible coach. To add a little levity to the situation, take a look at this cartoon.
http://dangerstman.typepad.com/my_weblog/
For Knick fans it comes down to laughing about the situation so we don’t cry!!
mikel123 // January 8, 2008 at 6:41 am
Jeff, don’t know what to tell you. Maybe you’re right – if Beane had Steinbrenner money, he’d be lazy and would stop doing math and stuff. I dunno.
How about Theo Epstein then? He has close to Steinbrenner money behind him, and he still does a pretty good job at thinking critically before making decisions.
My point was, any reader of this blog, or of Hollinger, or Oliver, could have told Isiah that Francis was a bad decision. This is not hindsight bias – the numbers were all there, and most people who read what these guys have to say would agree.
It’s not a college degree thing; someone mentioned Gates, there’s also Barry Diller and a host of others. It’s just the fact that “decision-makers” have been allowed to make decisions without a whole lot of analytical/quantitative reasoning behind them. In sports, the results of it are obvious. Not so much in the business world. Companies with a crappy CEO can survive just like the Knicks can survive and continue to make money. But the W-L record over time shows pretty clearly who is doing well and who isn’t.