... This is an important point to keep in mind. We can all agree that it is easy to adapt to your players when they happen to be Jordan, Worthy, et al. ButMessage 1 of 52 , Jul 30, 2003View Source--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
> Smith was always the expert at adapting to his players. And heThis is an important point to keep in mind. We can all agree that it
> certainly adjusted for MJ.
is easy to adapt to your players when they happen to be Jordan,
Worthy, et al. But when they are "middle tier", as it has been stated
here before, this strategy is employed less and less.
This is what is baffling to us about player evaluation, that we take
statistics and try to derive value, or more to the point, meaning
from them. But we need context. In baseball there are "states",
basketball is too spontaneous and free-form to allow for measurement
on par with baseball, at least to this point and time.
My main point(now that I've rambled enough) is that most coaches will
tailor players to THEIR system rather than the other way around. Sure
its easy to call Bowie, Olowokandi, Joe Smith busts in hindsight. But
at that moment they were locks. Why is that? What didn't we see? I
don't think much was missed in scouting some of these "busts" I just
think that they were either asked to do things they couldn't or
hadn't done to that point, or they were just in capable of developing
Here's an example we all know and love: Kwame Brown. I think we can
all agree that if Kwame doesn't get his act straight this year he's
probably on his way to the NBDL or Europe. But really what has he
done wrong to this point? What was it that he did that got him
selected number 1? What has he been asked to do on the court? Does it
come naturally to him?
Watching Kwame in a few games he reminds me of McGrady year one.
Coming off the bench, being in the coaches doghouse. Getting just
enough minutes to start sweating, but not enough to make a
contribution. Overall just looking lost. Is it possible that Collins
has attributed to Kwame's bad play much as Darrell Walker did to
Square peg round hole?
Why do coaches think they can make a Shammond Williams run the point?
What evidence brings them to this conclusion?
Is it reasonable for coaches to expect players to learn certain
skills when they run counter to the players natural ability/instinct?
And more importantly, why are players asked to "accept a role" when
their STATS contradict the decision (high TO/AST rates, etc.)?
... From: Gary Collard To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update ... ThatMessage 52 of 52 , Aug 8, 2003View Source----- Original Message -----From: Gary CollardSent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PMSubject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ updateJim Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:00:38PM -0500, Gary Collard wrote:
> > I'm not sure why that was so controversial. The concept of market size in
> > the NFL is pretty much meaningless, since most league revenue is shared
> > equally. The reason that a Yankees in baseball have such an advantage is
> > that they have local TV revenues that are an order of magnitude or more
> > greater than most (all?) of the other teams and is significant compared to
> > national revenue, thus they can afford to have a payroll that is 60%
> > greater than any other team even before they pay the luxury tax as they do
> > in 2003. In the NFL, there is no local TV at all, and (over a period of
> > years, letting spikes in bonus payments wash out) little payroll deviation,
> Actually, if you look at the distribution of team player payrolls, the NFL
> and the NBA are quite comparable (see standard deviation in data below).
That is why I specifically said "over a period of years, letting spikes in
bonus payments wash out" in the case of the NFL. The one year payroll
numbers you listed are meaningless to my point, do you have the data to run
them for the last 5 years or more? That will tell you who has the "harder"
Gary CollardMaybe the coefficient of variation (SD / Mean * 100) is a more apt measure for comparing the variation of payrolls for different sports across seasons.Year NHL NFL NBA MLB
1994 28.3 8.7 15.2 26.6
1995 26.6 12.7 24.1 27.7
1996 43.3 11.9 21.9 31.4
1997 #N/A 15.3 28.9 33.0
1998 #N/A 12.1 27.0 37.4
1999 33.4 12.0 23.0 43.1
2000 37.4 13.8 23.6 38.3
2001 31.1 13.5 24.6 38.3
2002 33.0 18.1 20.6 36.6
2003 35.9 #N/A 24.0 38.9On this measure, NBA teams show less variation in payroll than baseball and hockey teams, but the NFL teams are more level than any of them.Data from Rodney Fort's excellent resource: http://users.pullman.com/rodfort/SportsBusiness/BizFrame.htmed