James Brocato graduated from Washington State University in 2009. He is currently attending Law School at Gonzaga University. He grew up a passionate supporter of the Seattle Supersonics, but their relocation to Oklahoma City in 2008 put him in an awkward position. Failed attempts to root for Phoenix and Portland made him realize that his heart is still with the team he grew up loving, even if they’re not the hometown heroes anymore.
In the 2008-09 season, the Oklahoma City Thunder won 23 games. In 2009-10, they won 50. This 27 game swing was good for the best improvement in the NBA over that time period, and an unexpected surprise for a promising young team. Much of the surprise is not that the team achieved a 50 win season, but when the 50 win season was realized. The Thunder have recently undergone a rigorous rebuilding process with an impressive and confident front office. The success of this process promises hope for struggling teams everywhere – if the right people are put in charge and the pieces fall into place — a bad team can become good in only a few years. Of course, a player like Kevin Durant is only available so often. Regardless, one has to give credit where credit is due. But, while the front office has clearly done wonders for a team that has only recently gone through hard times, it is important to determine exactly where the team improved, and what it can do to further its progress. So the begging question remains: how did Oklahoma City improve so much in one year?
The allocation of more minutes in 2009-10 to Oklahoma City’s productive bench players from 2008-09 accounted for just over five extra wins. This can all be attributed to one player – Thabo Sefolosha. The rest of the improvement — which accounts for the bulk of the Thunder’s progress — is the increase in production from two starters. The two players, Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, combined to produce 15 more wins than they had produced in the 2008-09 season. This increase in wins did not come from a dramatic increase in minutes; rather, these two actually improved their per-minute production by doing things like shooting more efficiently and earning more possessions for their team. This is especially notable in that, as Dave Berri has argued repeatedly in the past, player production is relatively stable over time. Stumbling on Wins does note that younger players get better with age. However, for one player to triple his production is very rare. And for another player — in this case the most productive player on his team during the previous season — to double his production, is also uncommon.
Kevin Durant won the rookie of the year award in 2007-2008, but he was not a good rookie (see Kevin Durant was not the Best Rookie).
However, as disappointing as his rookie campaign was, he improved more than any other player in the NBA over the next two seasons. Durant prides himself on being a hard worker and determined to win. His hard work has paid off. But now he has a great responsibility to maintain his brilliant level of production, as he is the most important piece to a team with big dreams. In fact, his subpar play in the playoffs (though the sample size is very small) may have been a factor in their first round exit. Durant produced only 0.043 wins per 48 minutes, compared to 0.280 during the regular season. Again, the sample size is very small, so it is hard to draw a worthwhile conclusion from those numbers. The main point, however, is clear: Durant plays the lead role in the Thunder’s future, and their success will largely depend on his play.
Durant’s success may not be a surprise to anyone (he finished second in MVP voting for the 2009-10 season). In fact, most of what has been established thus far in this post – the improved play of Westbrook and solid contribution from Sefolosha – is probably not surprising to casual fans.
What may come a surprise, however, is the very unproductive play of Jeff Green. Green produced less than two wins in over 3,000 minutes of play time. He played more minutes than all but six players in the entire NBA, and only produced ONE win. Scarier still is that this bad season isn’t an anomaly. He posted nearly identical numbers in 2008-09, and was the worst player in the NBA the previous season. The reason this is so alarming is that the front office puts a great deal of confidence in Green. He was drafted with the 5th overall pick in the 2007 NBA draft, a pick that was traded by Boston for Ray Allen. In addition, they have made no moves to secure a player to start at power forward – a sign of their trust in Green to play the position. Obviously the coaching staff shares this confidence, or he wouldn’t have seen such a huge volume of playing time. He is considered (along with Durant and Westbrook) a member of the core of this young team by the front office, coaching staff, and the media. This is extremely unfortunate, as Green’s poor play may well put a damper on Oklahoma City’s success for years to come.
The best case scenario would be to trade Green, though this is unlikely given what we have just established. A more foreseeable, yet still positive possibility is that the front office realizes it needs a true power forward (Green is naturally a small forward, but plays PF so he and Durant can be on the floor at the same time). In this case, a productive power forward could be brought in, and Green could be moved to the sixth man position. This would diminish the effect of Green’s lack of productivity enough to make everyone happy.
While we’re on the subject of players that hurt the Thunder, we might as well mention Nenad Kristic. Kristic, despite his continued negative production, continues to be employed as Oklahoma City’s starting center. He has literally lost the Thunder a win over his last two seasons. However, the poor play of Kristic will probably not be as detrimental to Oklahoma City in the years to come.
There are two reasons for this: 1.He is not perceived as that good of a player, and 2. The success of Serge Ibaka, particularly in the playoffs, might soon earn him the starting position, and more of Kristic’s minutes.
As for the offseason, Sam Presti’s job is clear: get a good big man! Oklahoma City’s backcourt is great. Their swingman is fantastic. Their big men are terrible. Fans can keep their fingers crossed that Serge Ibaka’s development will follow suit with Durant’s and Westbrook’s. Chances are, though, that it won’t. Additionally, it is very improbable that one of the Thunder’s four late first round picks will develop into a star.
Fortunately, there is hope. The Thunder have $17 million free in the salary cap this offseason ($22 million in the unlikely event that Kristic doesn’t resign with his player option). This is enough to sign a huge free agent. Of those available, the most desirable would be David Lee, Carlos Boozer, or Chris Bosh. Bosh is out of the picture, he already narrowed down his list to five, and the Thunder didn’t make the cut. Boozer, although extremely desirable, is also probably unattainable, signs point to him seeking a larger market. Lee, on the other hand, would be a perfect match. In fact, theoretically, if Lee simply replaced Kristic’s minutes, one would expect the Thunder to produce around 60 wins. Giving Lee the same amount of minutes he received last season, which would involve replacing all of Kristic’s minutes at center, and some of Collison’s at power forward, would render the Thunder a 64 win team. However, before people jump to conclusions and assume adding Lee would make Oklahoma City the best team in the NBA, there are two important points to note:
1. This conclusion is based on Wins Produced from the 2009-10 season, and this may not remain constant in the 2010-11 season (though, as mentioned earlier, evidence supports it to stay at least relatively constant), and
2. Diminshing returns – a real but small effect (as noted in The Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins) — may decrease Lee’s production, or the production of someone else, if he were to be added to the team. Specifically, only so many rebounds can be grabbed each game. Oklahoma City is already one of the premier rebounding teams in the NBA, and a great deal of Lee’s production comes from rebounding. Still, the addition of Lee, or Boozer, certainly could make the Thunder one of the best teams in the league.
–James Brocato
Dre
June 20, 2010
Excellent article! If OKC gets Lee, Portland comes back even 75% healthy then the West will certainly be an interesting place next year. I do think Denver, Phoenix and Dallas are probably unlikely to stay in the top (all of them oddly due to extreme loyalty to an overpaid forward)
So Lebron started below average and then got much much better. So did Durant. Why did this never happen with Melo :)
chibi
June 20, 2010
As Lee is a good screen-setter, roll-man, and mid-range jumpshooter, he will definitely add something to OKC’s 1-dimensional, pindown, stagger-screen Durant-centric offense.
He’d help OKC win more games, I think. How do you think OKC matches up with the Lakers with Lee in the fold?
If I were the Thunder, I’d prefer a couple of international stars instead of the domestic ones.
OKC has enough cap space to sign Ioannis Bourousis. And they have enough picks to tempt the Spurs to hand over the rights to Thiago Splitter. Finally, Josh Childress–who plays in Greece but is technically a restricted free agent for the Hawks–would be just as stout a defender as Sefolosha, but much more efficient offensively.
Tomas
June 20, 2010
Regarding a potential matchup with the Lakers, his post defense is shockingly poor. Whether this is reflected in WP or not, he is one of the weaker post defenders in the league. Whichever Laker big was on him, would be counted on to have a huge advantage. As noted above, diminishing returns would come into play with Lee since his primary contribution to wins comes in defensive rebounding, an area that the Thunder are already proficient in.
If you are looking to mix up the offense, Carlos Boozer would be the choice. You would choose Boozer if you think Ibaka is ready to be the primary defensive big and use Boozer as the secondary offensive option behind Durant.
marparker
June 20, 2010
Tomas,
Who doesn’t have problems in the post against the Lakers?
robbieomalley
June 20, 2010
Hey guys I found some things on userscripts.org that might be useful/interesting to you. They are various scripts that improve webpages. The one’s I found involve adding WoW to ESPN player profiles. It’s not as accurate as Dre’s numbers but it’s not far off and it is convenient. Just click my name.
Anyways, great post! David Lee is who I would go after if I were Presti but for some reason they all love Green. He’s essentially an average SF (.099 wp48) so bringing him off the bench wouldn’t be too bad. Also I’ve heard rumors that the Timberwolves would listen if they offered Green for Kevin Love. Again, their love for Green I think stops this. Another hope for improvement is Harden. He played well as a rookie but can possibly be a .2 level player. He reminds me a lot of Paul Pierce.
Anyway, you have a good team to be a fan of. Consider yourself lucky.
marparker
June 20, 2010
Robbie,
Another great addition to WoW. Thanks for your hard work and time.
robbieomalley
June 20, 2010
Ha, thanks Parker but I didn’t write the scripts, I just found them.
marparker
June 20, 2010
Well, I have alot more access to data then I did before I read your comment so kudos are in order regardless. Now, I have to learn how to write scripts so I can have the same information for historical players.
robbieomalley
June 20, 2010
I’ve read through the script and the numbers it derives follows exactly what DB explains to do in this article…
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/02/25/introducing-pawsmin-%E2%80%93-and-a-defense-of-box-score-statistics/
Alvy
June 20, 2010
Several has spoken about LeBron James and the other free agents, but something tells me the biggest story aside from James will be OKC and Portland.
Filipe
June 20, 2010
I disagree on a couple of points.
— I think the long term plan in OKC right now is that Ibaka will be their starter PF in due time. Thunder best formation whole year was with Ibaka-Collison frontcourt combo, not surpring the one they went in clutch time in every close game in the Lakers series (with Green often on bench). Ad he plays better when he is PF and either Collison or Kristic is at C than when he is the C and Green the PF. The other side of this is that I expected then to eventually move Harden to starter and Sefalosha to bench which would offset some of the gains of cutting Green minutes.
– Altough its true that WP is very constant good rookies and sophmores usually do show some improvement, so OKC fans have reason to hope. I doubt Ibaka or Harden will show such huge jumps as Westbrook and Durant, but the Thunder seems to be an organization with a good feeling towards developing young players so some improvement to 0.160-0,170 range is possible.
some dude
June 20, 2010
couple points.
1. I think we need to see analysis of Durant/thunder WP48 in 08-09 once Durant was moved from a SG to a SF, which was also when they changed coaches. I remember reading analysis that showed both Durant and the team played much better after this switch was made (and Green moved to PF).
2. I read somewhere that Green was the worst defensive PF in the league and he was deifnitely not that productive offensively, so this analysis seem to make sense with this post.
3. I would not go after David Lee. He is a revolving door on defense and OKC does not need defensible rebounding. What they need is someone with some sort of post up and mid range game to help space the floor. I’d prefer Bosh, but he won’t go to OKC. I’m not sure who would be the right fit, but I know Lee definitely is not.
dberri
June 20, 2010
Some Dude,
In response to what you said on the other post…
offensive rebounds and wins are indeed related. If you saw analysis that said otherwise it was done incorrectly (as noted in The Wages of Wins).
dberri
June 20, 2010
From Basketball-Reference.com we see that OKC is 17th in defensive rebound percentage. Yes there is diminishing returns. But it doesn’t look like the Thunder are really that good at defensive rebounding. So I suspect, as James argues, that David Lee would help this team win games.
coachbean
June 20, 2010
The following 7 unrestricted free agents PFs might be a good fit for the Thunder. Keep in mind that most unrestricted free agents are up there in age but if the Thunder want to be able to keep their core together for the long haul they may have to go with an aging PF on a revolving basis. All of these players (with the exception of David Lee) should be able to take a big chunk of PF minutes at or above league average and be available for 1-2 years at the veteran minimum or the exception.
Name (age) 09-10 WP48 Career WP48 09-10 Salary
James Singelton (28) .102 .158 $1,030,189
Louis Amundson (27) .181 .116 $855,189
David Lee (27) .327 .307 $7,000,000
Udonis Haslem (30) .183 .146 $7,100,000
Brad Miller (34) .041 .187 $12,250,000
Ben Wallace (35) .279 .308 $825,497
Drew Gooden (28) .219 .155 $4,580,735
some dude
June 20, 2010
Dberri,
While that may be true, it ignores the fact that Serge Ibaka’s role on the team grew every month. Something tells me if you replace Green’s 13% def rebound rate with Ibaka’s 19% rebound rate, the numbers would play out differently.
green has to go or be moved to a 6th man role regardless of who OKC brings in to to the team.
I do like the idea of Haslem on OKC, though.
OKC was a solid defensive team despite the horribleness of Jeff Green on that side of the floor. Replacing Lee is somewhat lateral on D (but better rebounding) and better offense. But it’s not a move that will get OKC to defeat the likes of the Lakers. Lee would get destroyed and become their weak link.
They need a guy who can defend, post up a bit, and maybe hit a mid range J (ala haslem), not another revolving defensive door.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“Some Dude,
In response to what you said on the other post…
offensive rebounds and wins are indeed related. If you saw analysis that said otherwise it was done incorrectly (as noted in The Wages of Wins).”
I could have sworn Dean Oliver’s analysis found that it correlated the least of the factors he observed.
http://www.dailythunder.com/2010/01/dean-oliver-is-a-genius/
What was his mistake?
dberri
June 20, 2010
As note in The Wages of Wins (which I gather you have not read), the link between offensive rebounds and wins cannot be seen in isolation. You have to control for the number of missed shots. In other words, you need a multivariate regression model (Dean — who has done quite a bit of very good analysis — doesn’t often run regressions).
some dude
June 21, 2010
All right, what is the result of the multivariate regression model?
And while I understand your need for MVR for offensive rebounds, I don’t see the need for Offensive rebound Percentage. That kind of controls for the number of missed shots, does it not?
reservoirgod
June 21, 2010
Some Dude:
Dean Oliver summarizes the difference between his approach & Dave Berri’s in the endnotes of Ch. 6 in “Basketball on Paper.” I believe he has also addressed this in the APBRmetrics forum a few times. I would also like to note that Oliver also considers ORBs to be the 3rd most important of the 4 factors – more important than TOs and 1/2 as important as shooting efficiency.
Johnny Y.
June 21, 2010
Jeff Green for Kevin Love. Min seems to be desperate to gift Love to someone so they can build around Al Jefferson. Green’s percieved value is relatively high enough that they could get away with this.
OKC would be one insanely good young team. Ibaka will probably get better too; hes already showing signs of being an elite shot blocker.
some dude
June 21, 2010
RG,
I thought ORB + DRB was one of the four factors, not ORB alone. It’s simply listed as ORB and Opponent ORB, which is no different that TRB% split up.
Are you saying that DRB is not as important as ORB? I’d love to see this analysis because it seems contrary to my intuition.
some dude
June 21, 2010
“Jeff Green for Kevin Love. Min seems to be desperate to gift Love to someone so they can build around Al Jefferson. Green’s percieved value is relatively high enough that they could get away with this.
OKC would be one insanely good young team. Ibaka will probably get better too; hes already showing signs of being an elite shot blocker”
Kahn would have to be insane to make a move like that. It would be like drafting 4 point guards in the same draft.
marparker
June 21, 2010
4 factors
fg diff 40%
to diff 25%
reb diff 20%
ft diff 15%
Btw, in my own work which is mostly for gambling purposes and not anywhere near Dave’s work I assume that the best defensive rebounders defend fg’s the best as well.
brgulker
June 21, 2010
Nice post!
I think you might be short-selling Lee a little bit. I wouldn’t go so far as to call David Lee an offensive juggernaut, but he does manage to score the basketball pretty well at a pretty efficient clip (at least over the past two seasons), and he’s expanded his range on his jumpshot as well (viewable at nba.com/hotspots).
I agree with you in that his rebounding is a big part of your production, which is as far as you took the argument, but 20 ppg is nothing to sneeze at given his efficiency, even playing for the Knicks.
I have a hard time imagining NY lets Lee walk for nothing, though. They’ve got too much riding on this offseason to see someone as valuable as Lee go without getting at least something in return.
reservoirgod
June 21, 2010
Some Dude:
You can check out Oliver’s explanation of the Four Factors at http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm (I’m at work & don’t have my copy of “Basketball on Paper” with me.
I made an error in my previous comment. Here’s the order of the four factors & their weights:
1. Shooting percentage (10)
2. Turnovers per possession (5-6)
3. Offensive rebounding percentage (4-5)
4. Getting to the foul line (2-3)
reservoirgod
June 21, 2010
I saw David Lee play the Thunder in-person at MSG this year & he destroyed the OKC frontline. He would definitely be an upgrade over what they currently have.
robbieomalley
June 21, 2010
“Kahn would have to be insane to make a move like that. It would be like drafting 4 point guards in the same draft.”
I think Kahn would have to be a little more insane than that. It would be like drafting four point guards in the same draft. Then trading the two most productive and cheapest of the four while keeping and playing the terrible one and keeping the one that will never play for him even though he has a large trade value. We all know Kahn would never do that.
“But Favors seems to be suffering from more than that. Wolves GM David Kahn ripped Favors for his lack of conditioning and doubted that he was ready for the NBA.” – Chad Ford
That means Favors is a lock for the HOF, right? I mean if we know anything about Kahns eye for talent.
some dude
June 21, 2010
“Some Dude:
You can check out Oliver’s explanation of the Four Factors at http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm (I’m at work & don’t have my copy of “Basketball on Paper” with me.
I made an error in my previous comment. Here’s the order of the four factors & their weights:
1. Shooting percentage (10)
2. Turnovers per possession (5-6)
3. Offensive rebounding percentage (4-5)
4. Getting to the foul line (2-3)”
Yes, I understand all this. But given that improving via “offensive rebounding or preventing offensive rebounds” is the factor.
given the data we’ve found on the relationship between winning and ORb% vs Drb% we can clearly conclude that the driving force between winning and the ORB factor is the “preventing ORB” part, also known as defensive rebounding %.
A team that has a better ORB% than the other team would be predicted to win 56% of the time. That a very tiny number and basically tells us there’s hardly a correlation. A team that DRB% better is to be predicted at over 70%.
DRB is the important part of that factor, aka preventing ORB. It doesn’t matter which term you prefer to use, but this is how it is.
some dude
June 21, 2010
correction: take that 70% bit out. But the key remains that DRB% or not allowing higher ORB% is more important.
some dude
June 21, 2010
top 10 offensive rebound % teams this season:
memphis
Detroit
OKC
Portland
Atlanta
Sacramento
Lakers
Washington
Philly
Phoenix
Top 10 defensive rebounding teams:
orlando
Cleveland
Milwaukee
San Antonio
Utah
Miami
Portland
Chicago
Lakers
Charlotte
No surprise that each team in the top 10 in DRB% made the playoffs and won over 50% of their games. The same cannot be said of ORB%. I am confident these results are consistent through an aggregate of all seasons.
Rick H.
June 21, 2010
some dude,
Correlation does not imply causation. Neither does one metric tell the whole story. Offensively, Detroit was 29th in the league in eFG while Memphis was 20th in eFG and TOV%. Defensively, Detroit was 29th in eFG and 28th in FT/FGA.
dberri
June 21, 2010
As noted in Stumbling on Wins and The Wages of Wins (which it seems clear “some dude” has failed to read), a properly specified regression of wins on the box score statistics reveals that the impact of offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, turnovers, and steals are — in absolute terms — essentially equal.
Trying to determine the impact of each of these factors without controlling for all the other factors that impact wins is incorrect.
some dude
June 21, 2010
“Correlation does not imply causation. Neither does one metric tell the whole story. Offensively, Detroit was 29th in the league in eFG while Memphis was 20th in eFG and TOV%. Defensively, Detroit was 29th in eFG and 28th in FT/FGA.”
Of course not. but without a correlation, where is the potential for causation?
I’d love to see analysis that shows teams with high ORB% are more likely to win than other teams and that this metric is a better predictor than others.
some dude
June 21, 2010
“As noted in Stumbling on Wins and The Wages of Wins (which it seems clear “some dude” has failed to read), a properly specified regression of wins on the box score statistics reveals that the impact of offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, turnovers, and steals are — in absolute terms — essentially equal.
Trying to determine the impact of each of these factors without controlling for all the other factors that impact wins is incorrect.”
As an economics professor, you should know that isolating the variable does not always help us in the real world.
It’s nice that it tells us that when controlling for the other factors, it is equal. But this does not help us make predictions, which is what is important.
What we do know is that teams that have a higher ORB% than their opponent win 56% of the time. That is a terrible rate for predicting NBA games.
I have no problem assuming the impact of these factors are all roughly equal, but that has nothing to do with the point I’m making. I’m talking about predicting outcomes,.
robbieomalley
June 21, 2010
I lol’d.
dberri
June 21, 2010
Okay, I think I give up.
“Some Dude”, you simply have no idea how to do analysis. And I don’t think I can teach you in the comment section.
Maybe you can send me an e-mail and I can try and help you figure out what you are getting wrong. Or maybe someone else in this forum can give it a try.
dberri
June 21, 2010
This exchange, though, does remind me of the Dunning-Kruger effect:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/
some dude
June 21, 2010
I’m not doing any analysis, though. I’m simply pointing out the analysis of others. If my understanding of their analysis is incorrect, I’d like to be pointed out about it and explained. I’m here to be educated to better evaluate players and teams and sometimes the only way to do that is to question and debate.
Let’s try to get back on track and maybe you could guide me a little better.
My understanding is that a team that has a higher ORB % than its opponent, knowing no other statistics or metrics, will be predicted to win 56% of the time. That seems like a low prediction rate for NBA games and it seems lower than many other metrics individually.
robbieomalley
June 21, 2010
WojYahooNBA (via Twitter)
Minnesota offering Jonny Flynn and two first-round picks (16 and 23) to Indiana for a package that includes the 10th pick, sources tell Y!
brian
June 21, 2010
some dude,
Off. rebs tend to be correlated to losses because you can only get an off. reb when you miss. So without actually controlling for the number of misses, you will see that the teams that miss the most shots tend to grab more offensive rebounds. And surely we can agree that teams that miss a lot don’t do as well.
OK, put it this way. Suppose Ray Allen takes 10 FG attempts. He makes 4 and misses 6.
-If his team chooses not to chase the oreb, then the other team gets possession.
-If Allen does get the orebs on those six misses, then he gets the ball back for renewed chances to score.
Which scenario is more preferable? This is kind of how you would control for missed shots.
some dude
June 21, 2010
obviously offensive rebounds would mean that.
But I’m talking about offensive rebounding percentage, not total ORebs.
some dude
June 21, 2010
Also, neither scenario is preferable. There is not enough information to make such a determination.
If not going for the ORebbmeans getting back and setting up stifling defense or going for the Oreb means grabbing a couple but giving up fast breaks for easy points, then maybe we’d rather go for not going after the ORebs.
Context is everything and your example didn’t give enough.
palamida
June 21, 2010
David Lee’s alleged defensive shortcomings are a problematic issue. We’re discussing here a scenario in which Lee replaces Green at PF; In his time playing for the Knicks, Lee rarely played the PF position – he is ill equipped to guard NBA centers – that’s quite evident. I’m not so sure he would have the same issues when deployed as a PF. Would he be the best defensive PF in the league? well… no. But the “revolving door” argument simply has no evidence supporting it, as none is in existence – meaning – Lee as a PF simply didn’t occur often enough for us to really say anything meaningful about it.
palamida
June 21, 2010
As for the Flynn rumor – why does Kahn still have a job?
a couple of months in office, he picks Flynn 6th despite evidence to suggest Flynn is not much of a prospect, and certainly not a prospect worthy of a 6th pick. If he was selecting by “position” rather than by “the best player” his actions still cannot be justified as he passed up on better PG prospects when he selected Flynn.
The mock drafts had Flynn much higher than he should have been, but none iirc had him going as high as 6th – meaning, Kahn went against the “consensus”, at least to a certain degree with that pick (similar to what Presti did when he “jumped” and grabbed Westbrook at 4th).
A year (just a single year) down the line Kahn is offering the 16th, 23rd and Flynn (6th) for Indiana’s 10th. Why isn’t he held accountable?
I don’t mean to imply than the “consensus” is somehow inherently right, just that you have to be damn sure (in any executive position), or shall I say – extra sure when you make a business decision that goes against the “consensus” (of your employers, peers, employees, clients or what have you).
He put his foot down basically, when he selected Flynn – That was a statement.
A year later he’s waving the white flag. Why are his employers trusting him with future business decisions say…. idk… this upcoming draft?
and It’s not like this one one mistake in a sea of good decisions: I’m not proposing a public hanging for every exec that makes a mistake.
In this case though,judging by his poor track record, while I’d dispense with the hanging – a sacking would probably suffice.