Re: SABR/Sports Econ update
- True that they've drafted late, but other teams (notably San Antonio)
have drafted in similar spots and done much better.
Couple of corrections: First, Kupchak had money last summer, he just
elected to use $19 million of it on Devean George. Second, the luxury
tax wasn't the issue for L.A. in 2000, (it didn't kick in until after
the 2001 season, and the Lakers were way over the threshold in 2001),
it was that they had nothing worth offering the Rockets to get Pippen
while Portland could give them several players.
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "doc319" <doc319@y...> wrote:
> Another point to consider is that the Lakers are generally drafting
> toward the end of the first round while the Nuggets are usually in
> the draft lottery, so the Lakers do not have access to the same
> quality of players that the Nuggets do. In any case, Kupchak has
> failed not so much in his drafts but rather in not keeping the
> stocked with dependable veterans (i.e, free agent signings) for the
> playoffs. Of course, the real reason for this is not his decision
> making so much as Jerry Buss' refusal to exceed the salary cap and
> pay the luxury tax; otherwise, Pippen would have gone from Houston
> LA instead of Portland in 2000 (Jackson wanted Pippen and the
> failure to sign him placed LA on the brink of disaster in Game
> of the 2000 Western Finals). As reliable veterans like Harper,
> Horry, Green and Shaw aged/retired/moved on to other teams, no
> functional replacements were brought in to the fold. The Lakers'
> first championship team had Shaq, Kobe, Rice, Harper and Fox, with
> Fisher, Horry, Green and Shaw coming off the bench. The Lakers
> brought in adequate veteran replacements for Harper, Rice and
> while at the same time Fox, Horry and Shaw declined. The Lakers
> able to sign two future HoFers relatively cheaply this off-season,
> barring injuries or significant absences by Kobe due to legal
> troubles the focus this season will not be on Kupchak's draft
> ---In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "lilnemoinslumber"
> <lilnemoinslumber@y...> wrote:
> > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
> > <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
> > > At this point, I have to point out that the Lakers haven't
> > a
> > > good player since Kupchak took over. Too often we use "role
> > > for somebody on a good team when we would say "worthless pile
> > > crap" if he played for the Nuggets. Mark Madsen and Kareem Rush
> > > certainly fall into this category.
> > At this point, I have to point out that a lot of times "role
> > on good teams that we would otherwise call as you say
> > pile of crap" on a lesser team end up doing rather well.
> > As a reference I give you: Steve Kerr and Robert Horry.
> > But it's hit and miss. Sometimes "crappy" players go from bad
> > to good teams and flourish as well.
> > For example: Stephen Jackson.
> > I think we can agree that these guys are not all-stars. But we
> > deny that they have had an impact on their respective teams.
> > All that said, yes Kupchak has had some bad drafts. I thought
> > was a reach, but at the time they were pretty much running away
> > the title. I thought Rush was the "safe" pick. But this draft I
> > thought Mitch did okay. Not outstanding but okay.
> > I won't argue over Madsen. But Rush on the Nugs? Cripes he might
> > start for them at SG as they are presently constituted.
- ----- 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