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

Re: SABR/Sports Econ update

Expand Messages
  • doc319
    Essentially the Spurs got Speedy Claxton for Salmons. Claxton played in only 30 regular season games this year. The Spurs traded Leon Smith for Giricek and
    Message 1 of 52 , Aug 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Essentially the Spurs got Speedy Claxton for Salmons. Claxton played
      in only 30 regular season games this year. The Spurs traded Leon
      Smith for Giricek and later traded Giricek for a second round pick
      and cash. So, regardless of whether they drafted these guys to keep
      them or trade them, one first round pick became a backup guard who
      played in 30 games and the other first round pick became a second
      round pick and cash. I'm not trying to pick on the Spurs; clearly
      they have drafted well overall and have won two titles in a five year
      span. My original point in this thread was that the Lakers' draft
      record should be compared to teams like the Spurs that also draft
      near the bottom each year and not teams like the Nuggets that are
      always in the lottery. The Spurs have made some excellent picks, but
      they also have made some picks that ultimately didn't amount to
      anything. It should also be pointed out that the cornerstone of the
      Spurs' success, Tim Duncan, arrived in San Antonio because the Spurs
      obtained a lottery pick (ultimately the number one overall selection)
      after a season in which David Robinson hardly played due to injuries
      and the Spurs plummeted in the standings. So they did not reach the
      top by clever late round selections alone; some of those selections
      (Parker, Ginobili) became nice complementary pieces. The Lakers' two
      cornerstones arrived via free agency (Shaq) and draft day trade
      (Divac for Kobe).

      Basically, I never said whether or not I thought the Lakers drafted
      better than the Spurs and other elite teams; I said that comparing
      their drafts to the Spurs and other elite teams is a more valid
      comparison than comparing late first round picks to lottery picks. I
      also made the point that the Lakers' failure to fourpeat
      (if "failure" is the correct word) had more to do with years of not
      signing free agents to skirt paying the luxury tax than their
      drafting prowess. This year the Lakers signed two future HoFers on
      the cheap (or relatively on the cheap), so it will be interesting to
      see what impact GP and Malone have on the whole picture. It may take
      a few more years to know for sure whether Buss' decision to not pay
      the luxury tax (or pay as little as possible) was a good one or if it
      will end up costing the Lakers potential titles.



      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
      <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
      > The Spurs also used a late second-rounder on Luis Scola, who hasn't
      > made the jump yet but is one of the best players in Europe. It's a
      > bit unfair holding L.A. to that standard because the Spurs' drafts
      > have been unbelievable, but it shows that you can get players late
      if
      > you do your homework.
      >
      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton"
      <kpelton08@h...>
      > wrote:
      > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "doc319" <doc319@y...>
      wrote:
      > > > For what it's worth, drafting out of the lottery is
      > > > pretty much hit or miss even for the Spurs--sure they snagged
      > > > Parker, but in recent years they have also drafted Leon Smith
      and
      > > > John Salmons in the first round.
      > >
      > > In the name of accuracy, blaming the Spurs for whatever problems
      > > Smith and Salmons may or may not have is pretty unfair, given
      that
      > > both of them were traded before draft night was over. That's a
      bit
      > > like crediting Bob Whitsitt for drafting Scottie Pippen (and thus
      > > ignoring the fact that he traded Pippen for Olden Polynice
      minutes
      > > later).
      > >
      > > I use my VORP rating to create baseline expectations for each
      slot
      > > in the draft, based on the overall quality of the draft. Using
      that
      > > method, the Lakers' recent picks rate as follows:
      > >
      > > 2002 - Kareem Rush, 20: -74
      > > 2000 - Mark Madsen, 29: -6
      > > 1999 - Devean George, 23: -25
      > >
      > > San Antonio has only picked (and kept) Parker (+55) in the first
      > > round in that stretch, but also took Gordan Giricek (+7) and
      > Emanuel
      > > Ginobili (+16). Giricek was also traded, of course, but I count
      him
      > > because he was not chosen with the express intent of trading him.
      > > Ginobili's development made him expendable.
    • 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.