Dumars ranked 24th in GM Poll

[sportz4life]

24. Joe Dumars, Pistons
Hired: 2000

Coaches: George Irvine (2000-2001), Rick Carlisle (2001-2003), Larry Brown (2003-2005), Flip Saunders (2005-2008), Michael Curry (2008-2009), John Kuester (2009-present)

Long-term plan: Rebuild while staying competitive. In other words, an oxymoron, unless you have a superstar, which he doesn't.

Key Draft picks: Darko Milicic (2nd, 2003), Greg Monroe (7th, 2010), Rodney White (9th, 2001), Rodney Stuckey (15th, 2007), Tayshaun Prince (23rd, 2002), Jonas Jerebko (39th, 2009)

Key trades

2002: Traded Jerry Stackhouse and Brian Cardinal to the Wizards for Rip Hamilton, Hubert Davis and Bobby Simmons.
2004 season: Traded Chucky Atkins, Lindsey Hunter, Bob Sura and a first-round pick to the Hawks and Celtics for Mike James and Rasheed Wallace
2008 season: Traded Chauncey Billups and Antonio McDyess to the Nuggets for Allen Iverson's expiring contract
Key free agent signings: Re-signing Billups (2007), Wallace (2005) and Prince (2007). Rip Hamilton in 2008 (three years, $38 million beginning in 2009/10), Ben Gordon in (five years,$55 million), Charlie Villanueva in 2009 (five years, $35 million).

Key free agents let go: Grant Hill (2000), Ben Wallace (2006).

It pains me to put Joe Dumars, the architect of the Pistons teams of the 2000s, this low. However, Dumars has been a disaster since the Chauncey Billups/Allen Iverson trade. Dumars made the deal to regain salary-cap flexibility to rebuild a team that has run it's course, but ended up spending that money on Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva and a re-signed, declining Rip Hamilton. He's refused to deal any of his other big-contract players like Tayshaun Prince because he legitimately thinks his team can and should be "competitive" when rebuilding.

That's the problem, though -- you can be "competitive" without major salary obligations to declining players. Dumars, like many of the GMs behind him on this list, fundamentally misunderstands this. I'm not sure why Dumars refuses to take the long-term approach. Sure, their arena is empty, but it seems they have a core of dieharts that are willing to wait around for a long-term rebuilding project. It's not like Dumars is in a city like Charlotte, where the team desperately needs the revenue from home playoff games.

Therefore, the only explanation for Dumars' recent issues is that he must believe that, because he built a "star-less" core earlier, he can do it again. Newsflash Joe: you probably can't. Lightning doesn't strike in the same spot twice.

Ranking All 30 NBA GMs, Where Kahn's Incompetence Is Surpassed - SBNation.com

[Zack attack]

He needs to go out and somehow convince Chris Paul to come to Detroit and we trade Stuckey/expiring contracts to get him. That would bump him up about 3 spots in my world...

but my world also says that Paul won't be wearing the Red White and Blue

[Buddha]

He needs to go out and somehow convince Chris Paul to come to Detroit and we trade Stuckey/expiring contracts to get him. That would bump him up about 3 spots in my world...

but my world also says that Paul won't be wearing the Red White and Blue

So you're telling me that if Dumars could trade a generic shooting guard and Tashuan Prince for the best point guard in the league, he would move up THREE spots on your list?

if that happened, he would immediately be restored in the top 3 or 4 GMs in the game.

[sportz4life]

So you're telling me that if Dumars could trade a generic shooting guard and Tashuan Prince for the best point guard in the league, he would move up THREE spots on your list?

if that happened, he would immediately be restored in the top 3 or 4 GMs in the game.

He would be immediately arrested for blackmail.

[ScrubBeaterUpper]

Pretty decent summary of the last few years for Joe. Too low for him though IMO. Have to point this out, and I am not trying to start an inevitable pissing match about Morey, but that was a embarrassing fluff piece on a GM who has done very little in the ways of competing for a title yet. Yeah, he has a plan, but we should wait until he executes it before we crown him top 3. He says Morey is waiting for a star he does not have, while JoeD apparently eschews them on purpose. Morey just spent 65 million on 30 somethings Scola and Miller and 24 million (6 million per) on a backup PG (not to mention 7 million per on Ariza last year, even though he had Battier signed for multiple years), but forget that, "other teams" would kill for his hoarded assets. Only a matter of time before he gets that superstar in Houston. In all seriousness, he may execute that plan someday, until then.....

Yep, we should be hoarding superstars and not bad long term contracts to declining players. Why hasn't Joe thought of that? Apparently Morey has?

[Buddha]

Pretty embarrassing fluff piece on Morey. He says Morey is waiting for a star he does not have, while JoeD apparently eschews them on purpose. Morey just spent 65 million on 30 somethings Scola and Miller and 24 million on a backup PG, but forget that, "other teams" would kill for those hoarded assets. Only a matter of time before he gets that superstar in Houston.

Yep, we should be hoarding superstars and not bad long term contracts to declining players. Why hasn't Joe thought of that? Apparently Morey has.

The way they jock a GM who has never won **** is embarassing. I think Daryl Morey does a good job, but to place him where they did is embarassing.

Like I said, where are all the "sabermetric" basketball GMs? Dallas? Denver? Houston? What have they won?

And what they did win, how much of it was due to some "great understanding" of the "numbers" as opposed to getting lucky in the draft with a superstar?

Did Denver run the numbers and determine that Carmelo Anthony gave them the best chance to win? Did Dallas determine that Dirk Nowitzki's game was 85% more likely to translate to winning than another draft picks? of course not. They got a superstar and they won with it.

why hasn't Houston won? Because Yao got hurt. Yao, the #1 pick in the draft. There is only one team that has won without a superstar, and the guy who put that team together is apparently a ****ing idiot.

Basketball, much more than baseball, eschews statistical analysis. One player means so much more in basketball, something that can't be measured by numbers, theorems, and protractors.

[Scottwood]

Like I said, where are all the "sabermetric" basketball GMs? Dallas? Denver? Houston? What have they won?

There are not many "stat-oriented" GM's. I think, arguably, only Morey from Houston, Presti from OKC and Cho from Portland would qualify. But, many GM's hire other guys to bounce ideas off of as part of their evaluation of a player or their team and with scouting methods (like advanced shot charts). The last NBA champion and NBA finals runner up that didn't have an analytical department or a stats consultant was the Pistons in 04 and 05. Now, that really doesn't mean much of anything as getting a stats department isn't a guarantee of anything. For one, stat guys can get it wrong too and make plenty of mistakes. Teams also need to rely heavily on scouting and get some luck. But, its not like teams who are stat oriented haven't won anything. A blanket statement like that couldn't be further from the truth as some of the more successful teams in the league have stat departments.

Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indiana, LA Lakers, Memphis, Miami, Milwaukee, OKC, Orlando, Portland, San Antonio and Toronto are all confirmed teams who either have an analytical department or hire consultants.

[Oblong]

which makes ranking the GM's kind of dumb in my opinion. There's no development system in the NBA where you farm guys out for 2 or 3 years and put in a system of scouting and player development where the best can rise above the others. How do you become a good GM in the NBA? You suck and get a top 5 pick in the draft that's an immediate superstar, get lucky by taking someone later who pans out, or have an attractive city to lure the guys as free agents.

[sportz4life]

which makes ranking the GM's kind of dumb in my opinion. There's no development system in the NBA where you farm guys out for 2 or 3 years and put in a system of scouting and player development where the best can rise above the others. How do you become a good GM in the NBA? You suck and get a top 5 pick in the draft that's an immediate superstar, get lucky by taking someone later who pans out, or have an attractive city to lure the guys as free agents.

That simple huh..there's just so much you don't get..it's only about 50,000 times more complex than that..but you keep believing that..

If it was true, the Knicks,GS, Memphis, WSH and your Detroit Pistons would be a lot better..either GM's have a scouting infrastructure and can recognized and develop talent or they can't.

If they can't they draft poorly, hire bad coaches and flounder..I think the idea of signing FA has been debunked.

[ScrubBeaterUpper]

There are not many "stat-oriented" GM's. I think, arguably, only Morey from Houston, Presti from OKC and Cho from Portland would qualify. But, many GM's hire other guys to bounce ideas off of as part of their evaluation of a player or their team and with scouting methods (like advanced shot charts). The last NBA champion and NBA finals runner up that didn't have an analytical department or a stats consultant was the Pistons in 04 and 05. Now, that really doesn't mean much of anything as getting a stats department isn't a guarantee of anything. Teams still need to rely heavily on scouting and get some luck. But, its not like teams who are stat oriented haven't won anything. A blanket statement like that couldn't be further from the truth.

Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indiana, LA Lakers, Memphis, Miami, Milwaukee, OKC, Orlando, Portland, San Antonio and Toronto are all confirmed teams who either have an analytical department or hire consultants.

Good points here, hopefully this does not turn into an argument against stat analysis.

[Scottwood]

A rebuttal:

PistonPowered » Blog Archive » Joe Dumars is not the 24th worst general manager in the NBA

It should pain Prada to put him that low on the list. It’s pretty patently ridiculous to put him that low, actually.

The reality is, Dumars’ track record, despite questionable moves the last two years, still holds up really well against most GMs in the league, except for the universally recognized top few guys.

Now, in fairness, Prada isn’t basing his rankings on wins, more so on quality of moves/body of work. He gets some of the positives — Hamilton trade, ‘Sheed trade, Jerebko pick, etc. — and negatives — Darko, Iverson, White, Gordon/Villanueva, but he also leaves out some pretty key arguments in favor of Dumars. Consider the following:

- On the Pistons’ 2004 title team, the unquestioned two best players, Ben Wallace and Chauncey Billups, made a combined $10.5 million. Neither of those incredibly reasonable signings are mentioned. Finding undervalued players is a pretty key part of effective GMing and the bad signings of Gordon and Villanueva don’t trump the fact that the initial Wallace and Billups signings, value-wise, are arguably as good as any signing any GM on this list has made. The Pistons are the only title team in the last decade to win a championship without having a max-contract player. Call it luck if you want, but a lot of teams had Wallace and Billups on their rosters prior to the Pistons and missed something. Dumars didn’t miss.

- This line from Prada — “Therefore, the only explanation for Dumars’ recent issues is that he must believe that, because he built a “star-less” core earlier, he can do it again. Newsflash Joe: you probably can’t. Lightning doesn’t strike in the same spot twice.” — is a pretty common argument by the “Joe Dumarz needz to go, LOLz!” crowd. It also doesn’t take into account that Dumars has actually built a 50-win core two times, not just one time.

Check the roster of his first 50-win team in 2002. Now compare that to his last 50 win team in 2008. If you’ll notice, not a single player from that first roster was still on the team in 2008. In a period of six years, not only did Dumars completely rebuild his team, he did so while maintaining a team that won 50 games each of those seasons. There is not another GM in the league who can claim that (hat-tip to Dan Feldman, who tipped me off to that point).

- Re: the list of draft picks. Prada gets a few major finds — Prince, Jerebko, Stuckey — and the busts — Rodney White, Darko — but misses a couple.

Mehmet Okur had two solid seasons in Detroit before leaving as a free agent for Utah and becoming an All-Star. I’d say that’s good value for the second round. And really, although he kind of plateaued, Jason Maxiell has been a rotation player his entire post-rookie career, which is also good value for a 26th pick. Early in his career, Detroit had a pretty talented and crowded frontcourt, so it was impressive that a late pick like Maxiell earned minutes on a contending team. It’s rare that the draft picks of championship contenders crack a rotation, and Maxiell did that.

I won’t insist that Dumars is a top-five GM in the league anymore — his recent moves, combined with a historically bad draft bust, will hurt that legacy. But a man who has overseen a team that has won a title, made the playoffs eight of his 10 years and made the conference finals in six of 10 years is certainly a better GM than, oh, I don’t know, the man who once picked Joe Forte and Kedrick Brown in the first round of the same draft.

Dumars has work to do with his mismatched roster, but unlike many of the people in front of him, Dumars has shown the ability to turn a mismatched roster into a contending team. He’s nowhere near the bottom third of the league’s GMs.

[sportz4life]

Partick Hayes, he's replaced Rob Parker as the Dumars apologist. I wonder if Joe lent him money to publish a book that sold 51 copies, like Parker.

[sinister porpoise]

Take a long hard look at that post above yours s4l. That's what real analysis and research looks like

[sportz4life]

Take a long hard look at that post above yours s4l. That's what real analysis and research looks like

yeah..it looks like he makes 24,000 a year writing for the Flint Journal..

but hey..Jerebko and Stuckey were great finds..

[Buddha]

There are not many "stat-oriented" GM's. I think, arguably, only Morey from Houston, Presti from OKC and Cho from Portland would qualify. But, many GM's hire other guys to bounce ideas off of as part of their evaluation of a player or their team and with scouting methods (like advanced shot charts). The last NBA champion and NBA finals runner up that didn't have an analytical department or a stats consultant was the Pistons in 04 and 05. Now, that really doesn't mean much of anything as getting a stats department isn't a guarantee of anything. For one, stat guys can get it wrong too and make plenty of mistakes. Teams also need to rely heavily on scouting and get some luck. But, its not like teams who are stat oriented haven't won anything. A blanket statement like that couldn't be further from the truth as some of the more successful teams in the league have stat departments.

Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indiana, LA Lakers, Memphis, Miami, Milwaukee, OKC, Orlando, Portland, San Antonio and Toronto are all confirmed teams who either have an analytical department or hire consultants.

I'm sure they need a calculator to tell them that Kevin Garnet, Paul Pierce and LeBron James are really good.

the lakers? Really? Was there a more reviled move among the basketball stathead community than getting Artest over Ariza? How did that turn out? Memphis? Stop yourself.

Portland loved their stat head GM so much they fired his ***.

Look, basketball cannot be broken down into numbers. The sport defies numerical categorization. The numbers are great to see what happened afterwards, but terrible in predicting what WILL happen. Actually, i take that back, John Hollinger's "greatest teams ever" column lets me know that they're not that good at saying what happened afterwards either.

basketball stat heads make baseball stat heads look like reasonable people.

[Buddha]

which makes ranking the GM's kind of dumb in my opinion. There's no development system in the NBA where you farm guys out for 2 or 3 years and put in a system of scouting and player development where the best can rise above the others. How do you become a good GM in the NBA? You suck and get a top 5 pick in the draft that's an immediate superstar, get lucky by taking someone later who pans out, or have an attractive city to lure the guys as free agents.

We could have close the thread right here. This is exactly right. More than any other sport, basketball depends on having one or two great players that can dominate a game. And acquiring those players in this NBA is due more to luck - ping pong balls - or weather - hellooooo Miami! - than "skill."

there's only been one GM to build a team from cast offs to win an NBA title, but he sucks *** according to this message board. Man, i sure wish we were Milwaukee or Houston or Portland. Those franchises have been so good for the last decade...

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

basketball stat heads make baseball stat heads look like reasonable people.

Thanks for the condescension.

[sportz4life]

I'm sure they need a calculator to tell them that Kevin Garnet, Paul Pierce and LeBron James are really good.

the lakers? Really? Was there a more reviled move among the basketball stathead community than getting Artest over Ariza? How did that turn out? Memphis? Stop yourself.

Portland loved their stat head GM so much they fired his ***.

Look, basketball cannot be broken down into numbers. The sport defies numerical categorization. The numbers are great to see what happened afterwards, but terrible in predicting what WILL happen. Actually, i take that back, John Hollinger's "greatest teams ever" column lets me know that they're not that good at saying what happened afterwards either.

basketball stat heads make baseball stat heads look like reasonable people.

These were the same ignorant comments people made when Beane and his Ivy League team of assistants started to analyze basebal numbers n conjunction with James.

It's not who they figure out is good, it's who they figure out is not. It's they analysis of how to stop certain players and reduce their efficiency. It how to wisely spend money and who to spend it on.

John Holinger isn't really a stat head based upon the formula's and data most teams try and mine. Hollinger is more idiot than analyst.

To dismiss the change in paradigm is foolish. It took Beane a while to win, it took Epstein a while to win and almost every team in baseball utilizes this data and most don't win.

Noitced the Pistons were left off the list of teams with data analysts, are we happy about that??

[Oblong]

It's easy to win in a 4 team division when you look the other way while your stars are juicing up.

NBA Champs since 1980
Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs -4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
76ers -1

8 franchises covering 31 years. In fact, you have to go back 27 years to find 8 different franchises to win a title. In the other sports you have to go back only 9 (NHL), 11 (NFL), and 9 (MLB).

In every one fo those championships you can point to 1 guy on each team where you know for certain the team would not have won without that guy. How did the team obtain that guy(s). It wasn't because they were smarter than anybody else.

[qsilvr2531]

The way they jock a GM who has never won **** is embarassing. I think Daryl Morey does a good job, but to place him where they did is embarassing.

Like I said, where are all the "sabermetric" basketball GMs? Dallas? Denver? Houston? What have they won?

And what they did win, how much of it was due to some "great understanding" of the "numbers" as opposed to getting lucky in the draft with a superstar?

Did Denver run the numbers and determine that Carmelo Anthony gave them the best chance to win? Did Dallas determine that Dirk Nowitzki's game was 85% more likely to translate to winning than another draft picks? of course not. They got a superstar and they won with it.

why hasn't Houston won? Because Yao got hurt. Yao, the #1 pick in the draft. There is only one team that has won without a superstar, and the guy who put that team together is apparently a ****ing idiot.

Basketball, much more than baseball, eschews statistical analysis. One player means so much more in basketball, something that can't be measured by numbers, theorems, and protractors.

So basically what you are saying is that winning in basketball is mostly luck? If that's the case, then why would you expect/require the best GM's in the game to actually win championships?

[Oblong]

he's saying, I think, is the identification of those "Best" GM's is dubious. What is the criteria? I bet everybody's got a different set.

An NBA GM's job is "don't **** it up in the draft" and "hire a good coach".

[qsilvr2531]

he's saying, I think, is the identification of those "Best" GM's is dubious. What is the criteria? I bet everybody's got a different set.

An NBA GM's job is "don't **** it up in the draft" and "hire a good coach".

I tend to think NBA GM's really aren't that important to their teams general success or failure, especially when compared to MLB or NFL GM's, so I totally agree with that. But given that success in the NBA has so little to do with anything under the GM's control, I guess I'm arguing against setting the criteria as "won something." The best GM in the NBA very well may never have won anything.

But I do agree that this makes identifying the best GM in the NBA more difficult (and thus fairly dubious) than in other sports, because if objective measures like wins don't tell us much about how good a GM is, we're essentially just guessing.

[Oblong]

and it leads to a big reason why I think the NBA is boring. But that's a discussion for another time.

[ScrubBeaterUpper]

Grunfeld and Jordan are better execs than Joe Dumars. They have better track records and better excuses.

[sportz4life]

Grunfeld and Jordan are better execs than Joe Dumars. They have better track records and better excuses.

Grunefeld isn't a better executive than Rosie O'Donell and Jordan has the insight of Isaih Thomas.

That being said, it's funny, that Dumars is now being outed for the inept recent performace that he is unquestionably putting up..

I mean if history is so menaingful..lets rehire Jack McCloskey..

I have said this many times, Jerry West was the shrewdest talent evalauator and team builder of the last 30 years..he absolutely sucked in Memphis..time marches on..some guys lose their mojo, their organization, their confidants...Joe has obviously lost something ..to ignore that reality..is laughable and foolish.

[Betrayer]

Dumars has been a disaster since the Chauncey Billups/Allen Iverson trade

Pretty forgiving article, since it goes back about 3 or 4 years before that. The magic eight ball ran out of luck right after the Sheed trade.

[Scottwood]

Portland loved their stat head GM so much they fired his ***.

And they like it so much that the new GM they ended up hiring was also a numbers guy.

Basketball Prospectus | Unfiltered

Look, basketball cannot be broken down into numbers. The sport defies numerical categorization. The numbers are great to see what happened afterwards, but terrible in predicting what WILL happen.

What exactly is that based on? It sounds like an opinion more than anything, and its one you talk about all the time with baseball stats. If this were actually true, then there would be no correlations year to year with any stat and each player would be an outlier. Obviously, that isn't close to being true. It stands to reason, for example, that LeBron James is going to have a great season next season b/c he has a great track record of success (both statistically and from a scouting perspective). We know Chris Wilcox will have a bad season next year b/c he has a poor track record of success and that is highly likely to repeat itself. For the most part, players tend to play at or around their career norms once they hit their peak years. Look at a variety of player's stats over multiple years. You are not going to find that much variation during a player's prime years. And, then you will also see the usual decline once a player starts to age.

Basketball doesn't lend itself to stats as well as baseball does, but there are trends that can be found about teams who are successful, and then teams can evaluate individual players on some of those qualities. It can also be helpful when scouting opponents, by looking at players shot charts, the success a team has with particular types of plays, etc. You can knock it and try to minimize it, but the most successful teams in the league the past few years have stat departments. There is really no getting around that. Now, its not the only reason why they have won and no one would suggest that. But, these teams clearly value it and pay guys for their services. It isn't useless. Its just another tool that teams can use. Its just smart business to try to find as many advantages as one can find, and completely ignoring potentially useful information doesn't make any sense.

[Scottwood]

In every one fo those championships you can point to 1 guy on each team where you know for certain the team would not have won without that guy. How did the team obtain that guy(s). It wasn't because they were smarter than anybody else.

This is true, but no one has ever won with just one great player. You still need to find other great players to play with that player and adequate role players that all fill a need. Lucking into one great player certainly helps, but its not a guarantee of anything.

[sportz4life]

Actually, the numbers are used most effectively to maximize and minimize players efficiency. Morey was able to drill down data on opposing players, for example, where they liked to shoot from, when, moving left or right, with or without a rhythm driblble.

It also may identify what defense or types of defenders negate certain players, what distances they increase or decrease, their shooting efficiencies, who they play more effectively with and against, open or contested shots, better shooter in the first or fourth quarterHow long they belong on the floor, when their productivity begins to wane....there are numerous types of data to mine, the science is new and evolving...the possibilities are endless

[RatkoVarda]

What is so stunning about Dumars is that his mistakes have not been just bad; they have crippled the Pistons ability to compete. 4 worst moves:

1. Drafting Darko. Either Kaman or Hinrich would have given the Pistons a 10-year NBA starter. Either Melo or Bosh, an All-Star. Wade, MVP. During the Eastern Conference Championship Appearance Run, it did not matter. But now it does. I tend to think Joe's continued clinging to "no super-star needed" is a rationalization stemming from this huge, huge, huge f-up. Of the first 7 picks, all are very good to awesome, except our dud.
2. Rip's extension. Why? Why? Why? It already looked like Stuckey was going to be a 2. Why was keeping Rip happy to g-d important? Were they dating? Was Joe going to flip him? This is only compounded by
3. Gordon signing. I have no problem with the contract. But when you are locked into Rip and have a young 2 with Stuckey, this made zero sense. To clear the logjam he moved AA, who can actually play D! It looked worse after
4. CV signing. Again, it does not look like CV is too overpaid based on the $ handed out this Summer, but: 1. Why sign a guy who so similar to Prince and Daye? 2. Why sign a guy who is so soft, when you love to huff and puff about toughness? 3. Why blow all you money on BG and CV, when the greatest FA class is coming in 12 months?

Also: Signing Nazr, Kwame, Wilcox. This should really be 1a, because it is an extension of 1. I know every team needs bigs and there are just not enough so they are overpaid, but I would think that Joe Dumars The Player would hate bums like these on his team.

Finally: Giving up on Delfino and AA. Cheap bench guys who can produce at the NBA level given away for NOTHING!!!!!!!

[Buddha]

Man...I really need to get back on my meds.

[Buddha]

Thanks for the condescension.

Oh, don't take it personally. I love my stat head brothers and sisters, even if I'm too stupid to understand what they're talking about half the time.

Look, I've been wasting work time on baseball stat sites since about the time the internet was invented. About the second thing I discovered after free porn was baseball numbers geeks. And I loved it.

I've met just about everyone who writes or used to write for BP. I'm still in fantasy leagues with a bunch of BTF people I've met over the years. I go drinking with stat boy writers on occasion (you know, before Nate Silver got too big for his britches!). So any schtick I give the stat boys is done from love.

That being said, they can be the most condescending, arrogant, know it alls on the planet. Much of "the community" falls into the same bad habits that they accuse non-stat heads of falling into (free agent = bad, spending money = bad, efficiency! efficiency! efficiency!), as in, they get so wrapped up with proving their pet theories they fail to see the big picture.

Or maybe I just hate dave Cameron so much that it clouds my views on everything? How about those Mariners! Whoo hoo! The new efficiency!

Anyway, I think bsketball stat guys have brought a lot of smart thinking to the sport and I love reading their stuff. I just think they try to boil down a human endeavor into a mathematical equation and it doesn't work. In baseball it's easier because it's one dude against another dude on every play. In basketball (and football), it's a hole bunch of dudes working together. And in basketball one dude makes a lot more difference than the rest of the team.

That's the thing with GM rankings. Much of the future of an NBA franchise IS LUCK! Cleveland gets the #1 pick when LeBron James is coming out; Milwaukee gets the #1 pick when Andrew Bogut is coming out. Does that make Cleveland's GM a genius and Milwaukee's GM an idiot? Of course not.

The teams that win championships do so because they have a superstar. Acquiring that superstar is the most important thing a GM can do, but most of the time he has no control over it.

And, again, the only guy to win without doing it is Joe Dumars. Does that mean Dumars is the best? Hell no, for reasons that are obvious to everyone on this site. But it does mean he did something no one else - not daryl Morey, not Kevin Pritchard, not sam Presti, not Buford, not Kupchak, not West - have done.

24th best in the league? Get the **** out of here.

[Betrayer]

What is so stunning about Dumars is that his mistakes have not been just bad; they have crippled the Pistons

You missed some good ones on the Joe Dumars' Greatest Hits CD:

1) Taking a gritty, playoff team and neutering them by hiring a jumpshot oriented coach

2) Largely due to the above mistake, letting Ben walk

3) Re-signing Sheed

4) Because of the above, letting Okur walk

5) Trading Chauncey (instead of Rip). Getting back cap space for a lame year and a team that cannot attract free agents anyway.

6) Curry

7) Extending Max

8) I'm not even going to get into some of the other "could have been"s with players that were traded, picks that were purchased, and deals to be had while Joe sat there with a stubborn, inflated view of player value.


He basically pressed the self-destruct button by hiring a coach that embodied the opposite of the team's identity, then letting the guy walk who was the core of that identity, and then finally trading the on-court leader. Compound that with extensions for all of the flashy players and you get what we have now:

No leader, no identity, and a bunch of soft wanna-bees.

Unfortunately, nobody noticed because this team was able to coast on leftover fumes even though they had no real chance of winning the big one anymore. That is, until he dropped the final straw and cut off the head by trading Billups.

That's about the time that the bottom of cliff came rushing up at us and people started wondering what this GM has been doing for the past 4 years.

[sportz4life]

If I recall correctly the non superstar Pistons had 4 guys make an all star team, 2 guys play for Team USA in the Olympic program, pne on the actual team, the other dropped out but would have likely made it, they also had that same player perform well enough in a series with Kobe and Shaq, win the NBA Finals MVP.

So the non superstar idea..is overated.

[Buddha]

If I recall correctly the non superstar Pistons had 4 guys make an all star team, 2 guys play for Team USA in the Olympic program, pne on the actual team, the other dropped out but would have likely made it, they also had that same player perform well enough in a series with Kobe and Shaq, win the NBA Finals MVP.

So the non superstar idea..is overated.

I disagree. I wouldn't call any of those guys superstars just because they made the all-star team. In fact, the made the all-star team because they worked well together and were winning all those games.

Talent wise, Sheed could have been a superstar, but we all know that he chose not to be. The rest were good pieces, but none of them were going to take over games by themselves with the possible occasional exception of Chauncey Billups.

[sportz4life]

I disagree. I wouldn't call any of those guys superstars just because they made the all-star team. In fact, the made the all-star team because they worked well together and were winning all those games.

Talent wise, Sheed could have been a superstar, but we all know that he chose not to be. The rest were good pieces, but none of them were going to take over games by themselves with the possible occasional exception of Chauncey Billups.

Cmon Buddha, 4 of them were all stars and the other played on an Olympic team, they were far from run of the mill everyday NBA players, they were all very good to better..Billups wasn't a superstar but close, Ben Wallace was a superstar rebounder and defender..

synergistically the also meshed together and were coached by a legend..

Lets not understate the obvious.

[JonBenke]

No one can convince me that Dumars is a good GM, sorry.

[sportz4life]

No one can convince me that Dumars is a good GM, sorry.

anymore...pre 2005..he was very good.

[sinister porpoise]

If I recall correctly the non superstar Pistons had 4 guys make an all star team, 2 guys play for Team USA in the Olympic program, pne on the actual team, the other dropped out but would have likely made it, they also had that same player perform well enough in a series with Kobe and Shaq, win the NBA Finals MVP.

So the non superstar idea..is overated.

I don't think you get it. The idea all along was no superstar, but a handful of above-average players that played well together. No one said the Pistons won with 5 below-average starters -- they said none of those guys were superstars, top-5 or top-10(ish) in the league as individual players.

[84 Lives!!!]

...An NBA GM's job is "don't **** it up in the draft" and "hire a good coach".

I would add to "don't screw up the draft" and "hire a good coach":

"Add the right complimentary pieces".

It's part of the reason Bosh & Lebron left, and Chris Paul wants to leave.

Dumars should be top 10 easy based on the following: He built "something" from "nothing".