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

Re: SABR/Sports Econ update

Expand Messages
  • lilnemoinslumber
    ... 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. But
    Message 1 of 52 , Jul 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
      wrote:
      > Smith was always the expert at adapting to his players. And he
      > certainly adjusted for MJ.

      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. 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
      their game.

      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
      McGrady's?

      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.)?
    • 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.