In an article that sets quantative analysis in sports back by at least a decade, Forbes.com has declared 76ers GM Billy King to be the 3rd best General Manager in professional sports. (The same survey ranked T-Wolves GM Kevin McHale, who has repeated failed to assemble a decent supporting case for Kevin Garnett, at #1.) Forbes arrived at its results through a ridiculous "formula" which compared a team's regular season winning percentage under its current GM against the last three seasons of the GM's predecessor, factoring in salary "containment." King ranks near the top of Forbes list because (1) the 76ers won a whopping .260 of their games in the three seasons before he formally became GM in 1997, and (2) Larry Brown and Allen Iverson led the 76ers to the playoffs for 5 of the next 6 seasons. Thus, according to Forbes, King is a genius. Therefore, according to common sense, Forbes has no idea what its talking about.
The most obvious problem with the Forbes formula is that it wholly ignores championships or post-season success. For example, the Forbes system would rate the 2005 Super Bowl champion Steelers as less succesfull than the previous year's 15-1 team that fell short. But the central assumption that skews Forbes' results is that a team's prior record is a useful surrogate for the challenges faced by an incoming GM. To the contrary, many critical factors of future success (e.g. the age of key players, avaialbility of high draft picks and cap space) vary radically between teams with similar won-loss records. These are all reasons why the Forbes model cannot compare GMs within sports, let alone between them.
So what then can we say about the Billy King years? Forbes is right that a GM should be judged based not only the ultimate results, but also on the resources he had to work with. Absent a complex statistical model the best we can do is simply evaluate the actual moves he made - the draft picks, contracts and trades that he made.
Any analysis of King needs to put aside the Larry Brown era from 1998-2003, where Brown was de facto GM. King deserves neither the credit for Brown's on-court brilliance nor the blame for Brown's myopic personell decisions. King inherited from Brown a flawed squad that had been eliminated in the 2nd round of the playoffs. Iverson was in his prime, but the 76ers principal additional "assets" were Keith Van Horn, who had recently flamed out in the playoffs, undersized power forward Kenny Thomas and defensive stalwarts McKie and Snow, both on the wrong side of 30. In addition, Brown left King with no cap space and no draft picks in 2 of the next three drafts. On the whole, a perfect time for Brown to jump off a sinking ship.
The Draft
King has had only 2 first rounders in 4 years, none higher than #9. With these picks, King has found a very good (if not great) player in Andre Iguodala and legitimate shooting specialist/6th man in Kyle Korver. Rodney Carney has not impressed in his rookie year, but along with Louis Williams has potential. Grade: B+.
Contracts
King inked three outright horrible deals - resigning Coleman to $9 million a year at age 36, commiting more than $50 million plus over 7 years to the mediocre Thomas and a mid-level deal to end-of-bencher Brian Skinner. (Only Willie Green's injury saved King from adding a fourth to that list.) King's arguably overpayed enigmatic center Samuel Dalembert and Korver as well, but given their youth and the market for players with their skills these deals are defensible. The extension of Iverson to a max deal was something than any GM in the league would have done. Grade: D+.
Trades
The only reason why Van Horn and a 1st rounder for a washed up Glenn Robinson and Marc Jackson wasn't a complete disaster was the provision that kicked in this year that let the 76ers substitute cash for the pick. The Webber deal didn't work on the court, but cleaned up King's messes by getting rid of the Thomas, Skinner and Corliss Williamson (who was acquired for Coleman). Finally, King waited far too long to trade Iverson and in return received Andre Miller, Joe Smith and 2 late 1st round picks - which if the 76ers post-trade .500 play has shown to be too much present talent and not enough potential. Grade: C-
Overall
An exceptional GM might have rebuilt a contender around Iverson; a good GM certainly would have gotten more in return for the Answer. But King's inclusion in the Sports Guy's Bad GM Summit may not be fully earned either. The post-Iverson 76ers appear to be a good draft away from competing for a playoff spot in the East. On the other hand, the odds of the 76ers landing a player they can build another championship run around seems very long. Grade: C-
No comments:
Post a Comment