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

Re: SABR/Sports Econ update

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... wrote: lots of good stuff... ... issues, ... players ... and ... predicted ... sure ... such ... and ... What ... that ... his ... MJ is a very interesting
    Message 1 of 52 , Jul 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
      wrote:

      lots of good stuff...

      > But, it'll be hard. There's not just the quality-of-competition
      issues,
      > but the context issues that we constantly mention on this list:
      players
      > roles on a team, coaches' strategic decisions, teammates' abilities
      and
      > roles. I doubt that any purely stat-based formula could have
      predicted
      > that Michael Jordan would become the NBA superstar that he did --
      sure
      > he came from a good college program which played tough competition,
      > but there's dozens of players every year who come out of similar
      such
      > programs with similar stats. When NBA scouts saw future stardom for
      > Jordan, they were looking at things like his fundamentals (as DeanO
      > mentioned with James) and his physical gifts -- his explosiveness
      and
      > vertical. In other words, to use the baseball term, his "tools".
      What
      > marked Jordan apart from other college players was the very thing
      that
      > Beane in _Moneyball_ derides: looking beyond a players stats, at
      his
      > tools.

      MJ is a very interesting example actually. I did calculate his
      college stats a long time ago (1991, I think) and they were VERY
      good. But centers definitely occasionally have numbers as good,
      implying that other big men dominate the college game as much as MJ
      did (though not as much now with the 3pt line and defensive
      emphasis). But MJ was not a center. I don't know how important that
      is, but I keep it in mind as I continue this work.

      I did recently catch an old UNC game on TV when MJ played. It was
      remarkable to look back on him and definitely see the same Michael
      that dominated the pros. The components were definitely there.
      Replace the face and you'd recognize the body and the moves. Most
      dominant player you'll ever see on the baseline even with Coach Smith
      reigning his shots in. And, on the defensive end, he played all over
      the court in this YouAreTheDefense position out of a zone or man.
      Smith was always the expert at adapting to his players. And he
      certainly adjusted for MJ.

      DeanO
    • 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, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
         
        ----- 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"
        cap.

        --
        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
         
        ed
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.