the top tier is Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, San Antonio.
All IN Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
Philadelphia 76ers
San Antonio Spurs BELIEVERS Atlanta Hawks
Boston Celtics
Cleveland Cavaliers
Detroit Pistons
Golden State Warriors
Memphis Grizzlies
Oklahoma City Thunder
Portland Trail Blazers ONE FOOT IN Charlotte Hornets
Indiana Pacers
Miami Heat
Milwaukee Bucks
Orlando Magic
Phoenix Suns
Sacramento Kings
Toronto Raptors
Utah Jazz SKEPTICS Chicago Bulls
Denver Nuggets
Los Angeles Clippers
Minnesota Timberwolves
New Orleans Pelicans
Washington Wizards NONBELIEVERS Brooklyn Nets
Los Angeles Lakers
New York Knicks
I didn't like these. I respect Kevin as much as everyone else here, and I'm sure most of his reporting of the situation is spot on, but is it really appropriate to rate something like commitment to analytics? Given the potential for misdirection by teams and the confidential nature of the business, I'm not sure anyone in the public, (or the industry for that matter), can confidently say who is more committed than who. Attempting to do so seems irresponsible.
Also, having an "analytics ranking" not based on any type of number is ironic. I expected better, to be honest.
I doubt teams would give #staff, analytics budget, pay and influence levels.
The list matches my outsider impressions in at least 80% of the cases. It is not perfect probably, but perhaps folks with solid info can give tips to Kevin to refine the list next time, if they can and if they want a more accurate list.
Yes, there is the possibility of secretly more intense and / or extensive efforts than perceived.
But for those not close to the action, it can be a starting point and beats not knowing anything or going on limited news.
I agree that degree of commitment is hard to pin down, but I doubt there are more than a few team ratings that are off by more than one tier.
Commitment to using the products of the analytic process is the real test.
nrestifo wrote:I didn't like these. I respect Kevin as much as everyone else here, and I'm sure most of his reporting of the situation is spot on, but is it really appropriate to rate something like commitment to analytics? Given the potential for misdirection by teams and the confidential nature of the business, I'm not sure anyone in the public, (or the industry for that matter), can confidently say who is more committed than who. Attempting to do so seems irresponsible.
Also, having an "analytics ranking" not based on any type of number is ironic. I expected better, to be honest.
Silly question perhaps, but has anyone tried to put together a timeline of when each individual franchise that has bought in, did do so? Probably something very fuzzy to measure (I have no clue what criteria one would use), but might be interesting to analyze performance trends over time.
