Blazersedge: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's Sports Meme Power Rankings

Game Theory: Prisoner's Dilemma and the GM

 

 

There has been so much said about Pritchard and whether what he is doing is helping or hurting the team now as GM, that I've felt a need to throw out a little game theory to give some perspective regarding our current situation.

As a Political Science major in college, I studied how the Prisoner's Dilemma related to the ability and willingness of nations to work together or to work solely in their own interest at the expense of other nations.  Here is the classic Prisoner's Dilemma scenario:

Two people are arrested and placed into two separate cells. They are each encouraged to testify against the other. If each prisoner cooperates and chooses to not testify against each other they will each have a relatively short sentence. If one testifies and the other does not, then the testifier gets off with no prison time and the other gets the maximum sentence. If each testifies against each other then they each get a long prison term, but not the maximum.

In this scenario you have an incentive to cooperate because a short prison term is better than a maximum prison term, but you also have an incentive to testify against the other person because your prison term will either be shorter than the other person's or the other person already ratted you out and already proved they could not be trusted.

Star-divide

This basic scenario can be adjusted many different ways (using both positive and negative numbers) to represent all kinds of situations. In international politics, for instance, the many times that cooperation works is that the value of cooperation is set in a way to exceed the cost of defection.

Basketball is a different game however, but few things hold true:

1) Basketball assets (such as players) are a scarce resource.

2) The exchange of basketball resources is based in a zero-sum game. For every winner there necessarily must be a loser.

3) The movement of basketball assets can be understood as an iterated (meaning, repeated indefinitely) Prisoner's Dilemma game.

What this means:

Dealing with players as assets is problematic. Each time a team is viewed as a winner and another as a loser, resentment builds - the incentive to cooperate diminishes. In the brief time that we have had Kevin Pritchard as GM, we have been widely seen as the winner in most trades.This not only means that we have burned specific teams, but the league as a whole as well. This has been exacerbated by the Darius Miles letter, but an even greater force in games playing is being illuminated now. The balance of power has shifted into our favor, and teams would rather be uncooperative at their own disadvantage than to let us continue to improve. While this can be seen as a stupid mistake for the teams that won't trade away assets to get our assets that could potentially improve both teams, this is a particularly smart tactic long-term if the teams we are dealing with have aspirations to have success against us in the playoffs.

The anxiety about KP's unwillingness to take risks, or pushing for specific free agents that we may or may not be excited about is rooted in the problem of the NBA being structured as a zero-sum game. We understand this problem well, as we examined the Pau Gasol trade from Memphis to L.A. In this trade, Memphis upset the balance of power and appeared by all rights to be acting with a lack of self-interest.

Self-interest is the backbone of what motivates actors in the Prisoner's Dilemma, and despite the growing angst felt toward KP the reality of the game will eventually catch up with other teams. Trades will be made that will make our team better because other actors, despite their lack of desire to work with us, have to look out for their own self-interest above all. As the summer progresses, the need for teams that have a reluctance to work with the Trail Blazers to work out a deal will increase because of the unique position of power that we are in.

KP is correct not to rush into any brash/risky moves because the accumulation of power in an iterated game is not created through high risk/high reward moves. The Spurs are the classic example of this being played out to near perfection in recent years. We may not like it, and view the relative increase in strength of other teams (Cavs, Spurs, Orlando, Celtics, Lakers) as a loss of power for ourselves. This is true, to some extent, but if this is how we feel, than many other teams in the NBA feels the same way as well. The incentive to cooperate with us will increase as this reality sets in.

Have patience Blazer fans, there is plenty of summer left and the incentive to cooperate continues to grow with each day that passes.

20 recs  |  Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Rec.

Interesting take… I like it

"I just want a woman"- DrivetheLane

by The Arkitect on Jul 16, 2009 5:27 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Trades are not a Zero-Sum game.

How players fit with a team can be critically important to their performance and how much their new teams benefit from the trade. A trade may help both teams, help one team, or help neither team. A trade may hurt one team, both teams, or neither team.

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 16, 2009 6:01 PM PDT reply actions   4 recs

that was my first thought when reading this too

Truth never was or can be propagated by fire and sword - Albert Gallatin

my last.fm, what I'm listening to

by Zaron5551 on Jul 16, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yep

me too.

It's = It Is
Its = Belongs to It

by 12sharks on Jul 16, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Zero sum means resources are exhaustible, not that one side wins or loses.

It’s a definition.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Jul 17, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

meant to reply to BSF70

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Jul 17, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

not really

zero sum means that for every advantage gained, there is an equal disadvantage suffered (presumably by another party). Scarcity is another issue entirely.

by stikit on Jul 17, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not to mention that there are multiple factors to take into account

finances may be an issue for one team, and not for another. Just using recent events, paying Paul Millsap $7 million a year affects our bottom line a lot less than it affects Utah’s bottom line.

Saying Memphis acted not in its self-interest by trading Gasol is ridiculous. For a dead end team, it makes no sense to pay Gasol $16 million a year to finish with 40 wins instead of 25. It’s in their long term interest to obtain cap room, save money, and get better draft picks in the next couple years. For LA, they’re competing for a title now, so it makes perfect sense to pay Gasol $16 million a year because he’s the difference between winning a title and not winning, so it’s in both Memphis’s long term interest and LA’s short term interest to make that trade. Acting like this was somehow an affront to economic theory is ridiculous.

by Royster on Jul 16, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If the Grizzlies were interested in long term financial relief...

Why did they just sign Z-bo?

I can’t believe anyone is actually defending that trade. Yikes.

by BlazerTag on Jul 17, 2009 3:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They blew up a 40 win team (at the best)

and got some young talent.

Marc Gasol was near the best player in Europe.

In their circumstances, it wasn’t horrible. They got Marc Gasol, and got a high lottery position which ultimately brought them Mayo.

I think sometimes you reach the point of saying, “We’re bad, we might as well do a deal to grab an asset for the future, but that makes us really bad right now, so we can get a high draft pick or two.”

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jul 17, 2009 5:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe because they think their young pieces now are much better

than they were at the time. In the time between dumping Gasol and adding Z-Bo, they’ve added to top three picks, and a second team all-rookie player (Marc Gasol). If they had kept Pau, they’re probably just mediocre enough to end up with a couple later lotto picks. Are they really going to be happier about their future with, say, DJ Augustin, Gerald Henderson, and Pau than they would with OJ Mayo, Thabeet, and Marc given that Pau is 29 years old? The ugly secret that the NBA is hoping teams don’t realize is that it’s far more in their long term interests right now to outright tank a season or two instead of trying to sneak into the playoffs.

Look at Sacramento, who has put together a pretty bad team, but has attempted to win the past couple years. A few years back, they looked to be in the same position as Memphis, but now they’re in shambles. Memphis at least has a couple young building blocks. Sacramento has an SG in his prime, and a bunch of marginal lotto talent. I’d bet most GMs out there would rather have Memphis’s roster over the next 5 years than the Kings;.

The problem wasn’t trading Pau, it was how suddenly they went about it (trading way before the deadline, not soliciting offers from other teams).

by Royster on Jul 17, 2009 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

because

the move they did back then made sense and I think was pretty smart for the reasons given…

but it’s possible they were just smart by accident and really they’re just stupid.

That was a beyond a dumb move no matter who you have on your team.

"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.

But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html

by ratbastird on Jul 17, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rec

Precisely. It is entirely possible for a trade to be a win-win. Perhaps an example would be our acquisition of the rights to Batum from Houston last year. We got the guy we wanted, Houston got the guys they wanted. Everybody happy.

I rec’d the main post as well, because this flaw in it did not detract from the main argument, which is sound.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jul 17, 2009 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I Believe KP takes a more Machiavelli approach

Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage.

Draft Cole Aldrich 2010

by jlarose78 on Jul 16, 2009 6:15 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

2 things..

1. trades are not a zero sum game. certain trades could benefit or not benefit both teams. your premise doesn’t really work. this isn’t a fixed system like the stock market or some such.

2. i think assuming pritchard’s problems acquiring players is based on dislike of gm’s is dubious. there are only 30 teams in the league. no one is going to not answer the phone from pritchard because they are simply a finite number of people you can deal with.

i highly doubt everyone likes pritchard but i doubt everyone likes danny ainge or joe dumars or anybody else. that doesn’t mean they won’t deal with them. plenty of teams would have been willing to trade with pritchard for RLEC. the deal didn’t happen because pritchard didn’t want to give up some of his prized young players or didn’t feel he was getting enough in return for them. i don’t think this was a good idea but it’s too early to say for sure. pritchard may yet do something beneficial with the cap space.

the entire handling of the darius miles situation was an unmitigated disaster for the blazers but i really don’t think the letter is hampering their ability to make trades.

by colinmarsh on Jul 16, 2009 6:24 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

The results of trades - wins and losses - is a zero sum game.

Eventually all trades are measured by the teams record. So I think the zero sum designation applies.

All real world scenarios are more complex than a game in the abstract. But the point is: is the resources being sought fixed or not?

In the NBA what you want is wins, and there are only so many of them to go around.

Now, some teams may not be interested in wins as much as profit margin, just like in the stock market some investors may not be as interesting in net worth as they are in gaining power to control a corporation, but the outliers don’t alter the fundamental nature of the game.

by raoulduke on Jul 16, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Zero sum does not

Zero sum means that one team’s gain is exactly matched by another team’s loss.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jul 17, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's not correct

Such a situation would be better characterized in terms of relative gains.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Jul 17, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the two teams involved in the trade

can get more wins at the expense of the other teams.

by Falcao on Jul 17, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

rec

this is what I’m thinking. Wins determine attendance and profits, so wins are usually the goal (along with low costs). If you improve another team, there are less wins to go around.

But there is still a reason to make win-win trades, because if your side of the trade improves your team enough to offset the share of wins lost by improving the other team, then it’s worth it. This usually happens because of teams in different stages of buildup/rebuilding.

by austinpwnz on Jul 18, 2009 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

man

you need to go back to your econ 101 class notes.
You can’t have a prisoner’s dilemma on a zero sum game.
Trades are not a zero sum game either.
:)

by Falcao on Jul 16, 2009 6:24 PM PDT reply actions   2 recs

Yeah.

Wrong models, but right angle I think.

*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.

by staylost on Jul 16, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A few things in response to everyone

1) Trades aren’t a zero sum game. But wins are. There are only a certain number of wins available in the NBA, and an equal number of losses. The perception of what will influence those wins and losses affects how GMs play the game. What good is it to get a better player for us if we believe that it will help Utah or Denver get a better record next season, for instance. For another example, look at Canzano’s latest column suggesting we get Odom. The suggestion is that getting that asset will help us and harm the Lakers. This is a form of zero-sum thinking.

2) The key to understanding this as a sort of prisoner’s dilemma relates to understanding what GMs do as an iterated game – one that is repeated. This is absolutely the same analysis used when applying international politics to game theory and works exactly the same in this arena. This is not an Econ 101 application of game theory, this is a political application. We cannot simply look at deals as one-time events that are isolated from every other decision that has been made and is yet to be made.

3) The biggest take away value of using the Prisoner’s Dilemma as a model for analyzing what GMs do is to consider the concept of working in your self-interest in a different way. I agree with the comment that the NBA is not like poker which is exactly the reason that I wrote this, actually. There has been a ton of metaphorical language thrown around here lately about what should or shouldn’t be done – my position is that we are greatly under-estimating how much calculation has to go into making GM decisions and that everyone that is acting as though the sky were falling needs to look at the larger picture. Using the Prisoner’s Dilemma as a model is not a perfect way to do this, but it is a tool that can be used that helps to think differently about what is going on in GM dealings.

4) I agree that Memphis acted in their self-interest as they saw it, but looking at that situation from this model it is clear that the deal severely affected the balance of power in the league which is still causing major ripple effects.

Chris Dudley for three!

by wilbjammin on Jul 16, 2009 7:37 PM PDT reply actions   3 recs

it is all good

My main hope is that people will realize that there is a lot more going on here than simply trying to make our team better next season… anything I can do that will help with that I consider a victory, even if a lot of people disagree with me.

Chris Dudley for three!

by wilbjammin on Jul 16, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The flaw here

is that there are more teams than just the trade partners in this particular deal. Yes, wins are a zero-sum game. But if a trade is being considered between Portland and Sacramento, they aren’t — because they only play 3 or 4 games against each other per season. So a trade could help both teams take wins from other teams, which would be a win-win — not a zero sum.

If we enter into a deal that makes Denver or Utah better, but it also makes us better, I would say KP was brilliant. In the long term, those teams are not our greatest threat. If we could do a three-way deal that gains us and each of them 5 more wins a year for the next five years, I’d do it in a heartbeat. For us, that probably means the #1 seed ahead of the L@kers.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jul 17, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There's a version of PD that involves multiple players to allow for the possibility of bandwagoning

and balance of power systems. Your scenario above is better applied there. What you’d have is the Blazers and Kings acting as an alliance and taking wins from other teams. Still zero sum.

Consider also that players (quality ones) anyway, are an exhaustible resource. Thus, if the acquisition of players can be considered the moves in the game, you still have a zero sum scenario. And under this scenario the you may have a trade resulting in a greater accrual of goods sought (wins) for both teams. It’s still a zero sum game.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Jul 17, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

No, it is a non-zero sum game, like the Prisoner’s dilemma, because if

greater accrual of goods sought (wins) for both teams

is possible than the sum of the set of gains and loses would be zero.

"...the primary focus of all obstacles is to induce labor, so progression can be born." - LiL C

by idoltime on Jul 18, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

From the perspective of the GMs/Owners, the NBA is not a zero sum game

Wins and losses are a zero sum game, but not all teams measure success in terms of wins and losses. Some teams measure success in terms of profits and financial losses.

by trk on Jul 17, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wins are directly correlated with revenue

Costs are another matter, but winning brings more fans. You can (literally) take that to the bank.

So yes it’s not always true that wins are the goal, but the vast majority of the time that is so (especially among good teams).

by austinpwnz on Jul 18, 2009 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Shoot did any one mention "Trades are not a zero Sum Game"

I like the point that other teams might not fear us as much because they see all these other teams improving. I still think we could encounter a lot of resistance in making trades because we are a potentially dominant team. I am hoping there is a GM or two that can’t see the obvious and trades us the final piece to make our domination even more unstoppable

"Knowledge will get you from A to B. Creativity will get you anywhere." Einstein

by Garden of ODEN on Jul 16, 2009 8:50 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It's posts like this...

that remind me how dumb I am.

The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers

by lukeyhere on Jul 17, 2009 3:19 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Nerdy footnote on the prisoners dilemma

I don’t know if nba trades are zero-sum or not (most likely not), but as a technical matter the prisoners dilemma is most definitely NOT a zero-sum game.

by Jack Ramsey pants on Jul 17, 2009 3:45 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Nice post

Drawing from some material that I had previously entered:

Effectiveness is not about whether any specific move comes to fruition. Any move, even those that do not result in a player coming to Portland have consequences to cap-space of other teams. Toronto is now obligated to Hedo for $54M. They had to find a way to let Marion go. Dallas is now obligated to Marion, and they had to move Stackhouse. Utah is obligated to Millsap, and are expected to move Boozer. If we had not made a move for Millsap, Utah could have kept them both without sweating. It was important to make the Millsap move, even if it did not net Millsap. The consequences might be intended or unintended, but there are consequences.

Similarly, making a move has consequences for us. If we brought Millsap in at a monstrous figure, we would have had a hard time keeping Rudy, Batum and other up-and-coming stars when their contracts are up for renewal. Keeping them, by going way over the cap, greatly restricts further trade flexibility. Any single move has far reaching consequences; and the end result can only be viewed with a long term lens as a culmination of a series of moves.

6 months from now, when/if we pull off a blockbuster trade, we might look back and realize that the peripheral consequences of the Toronto move, and the Utah move were instrumenatal to the major outcome (the butterfly effect?)

Some other constrained resources to consider in the limited sum game:
 * only so much playing time to go around, can only keep about 9 players really effective. Bringing someone like Odom in, could mean a setback to Batum’s growth. If Oden develops, Joel might not see as much playing time. Does Joel still stay effective if he only plays 12 minutes/game; Can the twin towers really be played for extended minutes to give Joel more playing time? Would Jermaine O’Neal ever have developed behind Rasheed?
 
* the salary cap; even if you have Paul Allen to pay the tax, its only worth paying the tax, when you’re very close to the championship, and want to take yourself over the top. Think about having a mediocre team, but being in tax territory.
 ** Realistically the cap allows for about 3 max salaries, and then you’ve got to have a host of complementary talent. The Spurs have been masterful in rotating talent around their main trio. Each of their championship teams have had different role players of significance.

Pretty tough to make decisions on moves, when you’re also waiting for players to develop. Watching summer league maybe we should trade JB away. But then again he was projected as a #4 pick, and could be a phenomenal talent. Once a move is made it takes time to bake it, and its hard to undo. Personally I think that KP is doing a masterful job, by being very patient, only going after great moves, and forcing consequences.

by FromAfar on Jul 17, 2009 11:47 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

thanks for sharing you thoughts.

"Everybody is crazy. It's just some people are more upfront about it." -fanfaraway
"love is only universal if you know what to do with it" -broyposse

by appel82 on Jul 18, 2009 4:02 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

doh, i mean your

"Everybody is crazy. It's just some people are more upfront about it." -fanfaraway
"love is only universal if you know what to do with it" -broyposse

by appel82 on Jul 18, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A site by Blazer fans, for Blazer fans
Start posting about the Trail Blazers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
What a difference a year makes. Warning: contains no Blake, Roy, McMillan insults
Trogdor_small
I think it's time to blow this 'Roy' experiment up.
Small
Ego, Selfishness, Superstars, and Perspective
Troll_stone_cropped_small
Who has the best hair in the NBA?
Blazers_small
Mr. McMillan, meet Reality.

Recent FanPosts

Winged_vitory_small
Whither Sports
Ep_109_starvinmarvin_small
11/24 JD - Feelin' Froggy? Then Leap!
Oden_small
Should Brandon Roy start at PG?
Imgp4868_small
Taking Back the Neighborhood...
Oden-hulk_small
Point Guard Dilemma
Small
What do you guys think of Canzano/Quick's coverage of the Blazers these days?
Dscn06250517_1_small
Let's Celebrate GREG ODEN !!!
Gertjonnys1_small
What is wrong with being a homer?
100_0019_small
Junk Drawer - 11/23/09 - Where's the stamp for my letter to Santa? Edition

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Historic photo of 1st Israeli & 1st Iranian to play in NBA: Omri Casspi & Hamed Haddadi
A modest proposal: Fire Mike Rice and Antonio Harvey!
For Ann, and Travis.
FREE GREG ODEN

Recent FanShots

Nates Thoughts After Bulls Defeat
The Most Overrated Team In The NBA - Rob Johnson
Point Guard Dilemma
trade ideas...
Good old days
Chris Hunter, formerly of the D-league as of earlier yesterday afternoon, started the second half of the Warriors win over the Portland Trailblazers and shutdown Greg Oden.
"Monta Ellis destroyed Brandon Roy"
Bass appears to be the odd Magic man out
hmmm

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Ben_small Ben.

Moderators

Pict1126_small -ken

Polar_bear_small jorga

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Jesus_icon_i_small T Darkstar

Wallpaper_small geoffm