NBA trade frequency?

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:50 pm

I think GMs trade way too little. It seems they price their stuff too high and sit, sit, sit til last minute and usually end up not doing enough to change and maybe improve. What do you think?

Mike G · Post by **Mike G** » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:40 am

It seems that players moving to a new team often take a year or two to adjust or to find their stats returning to normal.
Every year, my Most Improved list has traded or otherwise new-to-a-team players dominating the bottom, and seldom at the top.
This year is the exception, with Oladipo and Sabonis atop the list. But combining the last 2.6 years, just about 59% of new players have diminished proficiency from the previous season. The total deficit is -17 eWins, including +7.4 this year.

So when you trade for a player, it's a long shot that he will be the player you traded for -- at least for a time.
(I didn't differentiate players who were traded, moved in free agency, cut and picked up, etc.)

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:04 pm

That is interesting. It may go to wisdom of trade choices more than trading per se but change having a negative bias on average at least immediately is plausible though it probably needs further analysis before concluding. How much does age or experience or role affect this? IF good rookie contracts move less often, then are players that move on average older and more likely to be declining? In your 59% is everyone an under or over achiever? Exactly the same is unlikely. Who many are near the same and maybe just showing normal volatility? Year to year in general for all players, what % of players go up or down or stay near same? What about for just those who stay put? What is the prior average qualities of those who stay put vs. move? Are the movers on average misfits (my misfits for yours, you can't have my "fits" except in rare cases where we both think the other guy is a better fit) and worse than the non-movers on average? How likely is a specific roster role to be improved by staying with the same guy vs. a new guy? How does it vary by average team quality? More questions to possibly consider.

It is possible to have the opinion that teams should trade more even if the historical results lean against. But that would call for even more massive change from current practices and might not be likely to be achieved by current insiders. Because of their trade savvy... and probably their lineup management skills and roster design principles. It may be hard to change the results without changing the management and the top management changes slowly and the net gain in group quality is unclear or debatable. If the team is using hundreds of dink lineups without really understanding what works that well then yeah introducing players they know even less about might lean away from working well even more.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:19 pm

How many get traded in next 5 days? 20? 30-50 is very very unlikely but given how many awkward and bad fits there are it might be worthwhile.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:00 am

Noah for Deng? Could the trade be any worse than status quo for either side? I don't think so. Might be slightly better for both sides in terms of positional need.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:07 am

Insider somewhere: I'll stand tough on my demands for 48-60 more hours, then the other guy will cave. I feel good.

Insider somewhere else: I'll stand tough on my demands for 48-60 more hours, then the other guy will cave. I feel good.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:03 pm

If this is a normal year, lots of trade ideas are dying right now or are being newly recognized as dead or never alive. So GMs will scramble into plan C, D, E or way beyond. Things they probably should have devoted more time to actually making happen a week or month ago. Some will happen. But probably not enough. Not near enough.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Tough really isn't an adequate excuse for not making transactions work, imo. Teams have had hundreds of hours to work toward realistic options. But how many of the available hours have been developing realistic options? Hard to say, except by results.

What are the least helpful trades that you'd still actually do? What are the trades that the other guy is most likely to agree to? What gives 1-2 ticks of improved situation. Sure, you can hunt for bigger scores; but unless your success rate warrants, it might deserve to get the minority of your time, not the majority.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:32 pm

Is it real yet or is there still 18-24 hours more of mostly or entirely ultimately useless posturing?

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:11 am

CJ McCollum slightly negative on RPM this season, just slightly positive over the last 4 years. Slightly above average on ws/48, modestly negative on BPM. "Oh, he is untouchable". Yay points. Whack.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:22 pm

Ryan McDonough: "There is nothing we feel we have to do."

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:03 am

Suns top 20 player pairs all negative, 85% -5 or worse per 100 possessions.

Now Ulis Booker Warren Chriss Chandler is moderately positive in 150 minutes and there a few one change lineups that are positive as well. Perhaps playing them 5 times as much would work... or small sample results might go the way of the pair and trio data.

If they are tanking, don't change much. Maybe rest Chandler and do even more random lineup dinking.

When they want to stop losing, change a heck of a lot. At minimum coach and lineup management. Probably more than a few players too.

By raw player pair data with the leading youth, Warren is probably the most appropriate to move out or use in bench lineups. Chandler and Len are only mildly negative on RPM but unless mediocre is enough in near term you'd want better. Jackson has been awful so far but it is early. Bender is still awful and needs to show improved impact soon. Booker is only a mild RPM negative but he barely improved from last season. Seems unlikely to become an elite impact leader any time soon or maybe ever.

Could they stay the course and get a playoff berth in a few years. Maybe. Not likely but maybe. Is this headed toward eventually more than that? I don't see it.

The most logical quads have been mostly terrible over last 20 plus games. Continue to try them more than you have better options but can't see case for being content with this core. I'd have EVERBODY up for serious trade bargaining.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:19 pm

Things can change... with activity.

Some things done. Plenty more would have been good too.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:48 pm

No team is breaking into top 8 based on this trading. Only Cavs may change their place within that group. 1-2 teams (DET and Utah) might get an 8th seed but it is still challenging. Most teams did minor things with a focus on the future.

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:06 pm

Did the Celtics get that first rounder for Smart? Nope. Did the Blazers find help for Lillard? Nope. Do the Kings have any clarity and direction? Nope.

Did Nuggets improve? A little. Did the do enough? Nope.

Did the Knicks and Suns buy bad RPM players? Yep. At least for trials. Maybe it works out. Probably better to try than not.

APBRmetrics