Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SABR/Sports Econ update

Expand Messages
  • schtevie2003
    ... ... impossible to ... (only in ... games in ... His athleticism ... which was a ... probably ... (compared ... to the ... the study ...
    Message 1 of 52 , Jul 30, 2003
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada"
      <tamada@o...> wrote:
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Dean Oliver [mailto:deano@r...]
      > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:43 AM
      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton"
      > wrote:
      > [...]
      > >> saved the best for last here, DeanO. For me, it was
      impossible to
      > >> read _Moneyball_ without thinking of its NBA implications
      (only in
      > [...]
      > >Quality of competition has already rung true, though. James'
      games in
      > >Orlando and Boston weren't as good as some had hoped.
      His athleticism
      > >didn't shine like it did in HS, but it was clearly still good. His
      > >fundamentals are what scouts ended up talking about there,
      which was a
      > >big change from before. Quantify that!
      > This repeats some things we've discussed before, but they're
      > worth repeating: despite baseball's overall greater amount of
      > quantitative stats and ease of being quantitatively analyzed
      > to basketball), sabrmetrics techniques can probably add more
      to the
      > study of baseball than hoop-o-metric techniques can add to
      the study
      > of basketball. Because there's some pretty good sabrmetric
      evidence that
      > a lot of baseball truisms, myths, received wisdom, and ways of
      > business are wrong, and can be improved. In addition, when it
      comes to
      > drafting young players, baseball is in a much much tougher
      > than basketball, and the draft is much more of a crapshoot in
      > Mike Piazza was what, a 63rd round draft choice? Conversely
      > is filled with David Clydes and other high pick bonus babies
      who were
      > total busts in the majors.
      > Drafting basketball players is much easier. How much
      > digging did Milwaukee need to do when Lew Alcindor was a
      senior and
      > they won the coin flip? Except for LaRue Martin, a number one
      > draft choice is pretty much guaranteed to become an NBA
      starter quality
      > player, and usually an all-star (with occasional exceptions
      such as
      > Olowakandi, Joe Smith, etc.).
      > That's not to say that drafting NBA players is easy, just easier
      > baseball. Sam Bowie or Michael Jordan? The choice was
      > when Portland faced it. But, as DeanO says, quantify that. I
      > we're a long way from being able to provide big help the
      > and other teams facing tough draft decisions. I'm sure that
      > and other consultants provide some help. But not big help.

      I have a rather different perspective on this. It seems to me
      much harder to draft in basketball, if only because the stakes of
      a single decision are much higher. This is true in at least two
      senses. First, first round draft picks in basketball are expected
      to have a much greater influence on team competitiveness than
      their baseball counterparts - due solely to the natures of the
      games. Thus, errors are correspondingly more costly. And
      second, the labor market is much freer in baseball, thus the draft
      itself is a less important institution for franchise success.
    • igor eduardo küpfer
      ... From: Gary Collard To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update ... That
      Message 52 of 52 , Aug 8 2:52 PM
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM
        Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update

        Jim 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 Collard
        Maybe 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    38.9
        On 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.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.