--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver"
<deano@r...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003"
<schtevie@h...>
> wrote:
> > .
> > .
> > From my perspective, the types of increased competitive
advantage I
> > am anticipating do not necessarily relate to making the big
hit,
> > uncovering that diamond in the rough.  Rather, it is
recognizing a
> > true, apparently minor improvement in an "undramatic"
statistical
> > category (where the herd knows not its true value) akin to
OBP in
> > baseball.  So, yes, you want to predict a Rodman but you are
more
> > interested in consistently getting, say, the Tony Batties or
Walter
> > McCartys of the world for short money (and I am not certain
that
> > these are the right examples, I am just currently
Boston-centric in
> > my imagination).
>
> OK.  This is what I generally think, too.  Managing the middle
> players is where it's at.  But people do see the rebounding
totals of
> these guys and they don't change much -- what varies is how
people
> perceive the rest of their games.  So predicting rebounding
ain't
> gonna help get them time (which was, I think, the original
question).
.
.
.
I guess I am a little less optimistic about the current state of the
art.  I wouldn't be surprised if for the average NBA franchise there
aren't significant analytical improvements to be had, not merely
in the weighting of various statistical categories (both existing
and prospectively refined) but in the actual measurement of the
individual categories themselves.
.
.
.
> > > > Will any NBA team do this?
> > >
> > > Yes.  And the first time it's done will launch 28 other times.
> > Err,
> > > 27.  The Clippers don't care.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > You have greater faith in the responsiveness of teams
> > .
>
> How many other baseball teams now use sabermetrics?  A
bunch.  I
> would guess 5.  OK, that's a few, not a bunch, but it's growing
> because of Moneyball.
.
.
.
Sure enough, but baseball is patently transparent in
comparison, and for me the shock is that Moneyball is
apparently revelatory to the industry itself.  Can you think of any
other example where a journalist writes a book about a known
figure in a supposedly competitive industry, whose obvious
success is based on non-proprietary, indeed public, information,
and this telling of the story - not the success itself - has apparent
transformative influence on the industry itself?  This implies an
ossified, non-competitive aspect that to me is a bit
mind-boggling.  And then there is basketball.
.
.
.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > It seems to me that Bean is the $300,000 guy I referred to,
and he
> > only got in, I suppose, because he entered the traditional
way, ex-
> > player tapped for management track, blah, blah.
> > .
>
> I think he's a bit more than $300K, but he did get in the
traditional
> way.  I definitely tout my traditional quals when I talk to teams,
> too.  It just helps to talk the language.
>
.
.
.
He is now!
.
.
.
> > Boy, I am reluctant to possibly reintroduce the unpleasantries
of
> > that winter string, but to sum up my understanding of the
empirical
> > history of the NBA from looking at league averages, from the
mid-
> 60s
> > to mid-80s, game pace plummeted and offensive productivity
> increased
> > though not as dramatically (around 11% if I recall, but this is
> still
> > huge.)  This slowing game pace was essentially a free
lunch,
> control
> > was imposed on offenses with turnovers decreasing and
shooting
> > percentages ring (with offenses eliminating bad passes and
bad shot
> > selection).  So, yes, if the analysis bears out (and my hunch
is it
> > will) the decrease in pace was an inherently beneficial thing
that
> > should have been recognized earlier for most teams,
especially
> given
> > the size of the counterfactual benefit. (Thus, apparently there
is
> a
> > misunderstanding above, going slow is typically a
competitive
> > disadvantage.  Though more to the point, going stupid is the
real
> > competitive disadvantage.  Returning to the case in point, my
> > tentative hypothesis as to why the game pace stayed up as
long as
> it
> > did was that the league was imitating the Celtics, when in
fact
> their
> > offense was rather mediocre, and it was their defense which
won
> them
> > championships.)
>
> I vaguely remembered this.  But, as you say, pace decrease
may be an
> effect, not a cause, "going stupid is the competitive
disadvantage."
> Turnovers have been reduced a lot and that is reflected in
pace.  I
> do think you're right with the Celtics' dynasty dictating pace, too.
> And I think it was a case of teams seeing the symptom and not
the
> cause.
>
> In general, as I document in the book, when you look carefully,
you
> do see a tendency for better offensive teams to actually be
slightly
> quicker teams (faster paced).  You have to look pretty carefully,
> though.
>
> DeanO
.
.
.
I actually believe that the pace decrease is pretty much a cause
and not an effect.  Though strictly speaking the hypothesized
cause is coaches instituting controls such as "make the extra
pass", "hold off on helter-skelter play which is turnover-inducing",
etc.,directions such as these necessarily cause a decrease in
pace.

And also, I don't mean to be argumentative, but it is definitely not
my belief that the Celtics dictated pace (or that anyone can in a
meaningful sense) rather it was a dramatic league-wide stylistic
error to try to mimic the aspect of their play that did not contribute
substantively to their success (with a couple of caveats that I
won't elaborate on here.)

Finally, I anxiously await your publication date to see the
evidence that better offensive teams tend to be faster paced.  It is
certainly a plausible empirical result, though I am not sure how
prescriptive this is.  Might you preview the explanations and
evidence?

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
wrote:
> .
> Sure enough, but baseball is patently transparent in
> comparison, and for me the shock is that Moneyball is
> apparently revelatory to the industry itself.  Can you think of any
> other example where a journalist writes a book about a known
> figure in a supposedly competitive industry, whose obvious
> success is based on non-proprietary, indeed public, information,
> and this telling of the story - not the success itself - has
apparent
> transformative influence on the industry itself?

Just wait until someone writes the book about Google.  Same story.
The ideas had been public for many years.  They actually read the
literature and did it.  You could have done it.  I could have done it
(but I was toiling away on basketball).  But no one listened to the
guys writing the papers.  The guys writing the papers didn't know how
to implement it or didn't have the money or were just theory guys.
Well, hey, theory works sometimes.  Google is a gaggle of guys who
got it.  But it wasn't instantaneous adoption either.


> .
> .
> I actually believe that the pace decrease is pretty much a cause
> and not an effect.

Cause and effect aren't clearly different, I guess.  Coaches tell
their guys to either be careful with the ball or slow down.

>
> And also, I don't mean to be argumentative, but it is definitely
not
> my belief that the Celtics dictated pace (or that anyone can in a
> meaningful sense) rather it was a dramatic league-wide stylistic
> error to try to mimic the aspect of their play that did not
contribute
> substantively to their success (with a couple of caveats that I
> won't elaborate on here.)

Yes, teams probably mimicked their style rather than being dictated
by it, if I said "dictated".  I do wonder whether teams tried to beat
the Celtic D by racing it up the court.

I have also been meaning to do my authoritative study on whether
teams can slow down or speed up the pace to actually affect their win-
loss percentage.  Not an easy study to do because there are a lot of
convoluting factors.

>
> Finally, I anxiously await your publication date to see the
> evidence that better offensive teams tend to be faster paced.  It
is
> certainly a plausible empirical result, though I am not sure how
> prescriptive this is.  Might you preview the explanations and
> evidence?

Chapter 3.  It's actually a small small part of the book because I
think it's an effect more than a cause.  Good offenses can get shots
off quicker.  Poor offenses tend to need more time.  You have to
adjust for the overall change in pace from year to year to see it.

DeanO

At this point, I have to point out that the Lakers haven't drafted a
good player since Kupchak took over. Too often we use "role player"
for somebody on a good team when we would say "worthless pile of
crap" if he played for the Nuggets. Mark Madsen and Kareem Rush
certainly fall into this category.

>
> I would agree with you that Phil has done a wonderful job of
fitting
> role players in. But I would also say that this speaks to his
> generally sticking to veterans. Veterans with abilities that fit
> within his system, or preferred style of play. But if you look at
the
> draft the Lakers went with more "seasoned" picks as well. Cook
looks
> to have a game quite similar to Horry's although I'll wager their
> college stats are not that similar(don't have them in front of me
at
> the moment). And Walton's game also bears a superficial resemblance
> to Fox's; cerebral passing small forward, capable of spot-shooting
> and rebounding duties. Not incredibly athletic, but steady. I'll
come
> back to this.
>

The discussion of pace is interesting. I did a study in my last book
which looked at slow-paced teams and found that they usually did
slightly better than the average, mainly because their defenses were
much better than average. Most of these teams had very strong coaches
(Riley/Van Gundy/Fratello) and what stuck out to me was that this was
almost certainly an intentional choice. All of them had point guards
dialing it down quite a bit -- they had fairly meager stats relative
to how they played in other cities -- and none of the teams were
particularly strong on the offensive boards. The obvious conclusion,
then, was that they were making a concscious choice to always get
guys back on defense and stifle the other team's break, and felt that
even though they stifled their own running game they were coming out
ahead on the gamble.





--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver"
> <deano@r...> wrote:
> > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003"
> <schtevie@h...>
> > wrote:
> > > .
> > > .
> > > From my perspective, the types of increased competitive
> advantage I
> > > am anticipating do not necessarily relate to making the big
> hit,
> > > uncovering that diamond in the rough.  Rather, it is
> recognizing a
> > > true, apparently minor improvement in an "undramatic"
> statistical
> > > category (where the herd knows not its true value) akin to
> OBP in
> > > baseball.  So, yes, you want to predict a Rodman but you are
> more
> > > interested in consistently getting, say, the Tony Batties or
> Walter
> > > McCartys of the world for short money (and I am not certain
> that
> > > these are the right examples, I am just currently
> Boston-centric in
> > > my imagination).
> >
> > OK.  This is what I generally think, too.  Managing the middle
> > players is where it's at.  But people do see the rebounding
> totals of
> > these guys and they don't change much -- what varies is how
> people
> > perceive the rest of their games.  So predicting rebounding
> ain't
> > gonna help get them time (which was, I think, the original
> question).
> .
> .
> .
> I guess I am a little less optimistic about the current state of
the
> art.  I wouldn't be surprised if for the average NBA franchise
there
> aren't significant analytical improvements to be had, not merely
> in the weighting of various statistical categories (both existing
> and prospectively refined) but in the actual measurement of the
> individual categories themselves.
> .
> .
> .
> > > > > Will any NBA team do this?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.  And the first time it's done will launch 28 other
times.
> > > Err,
> > > > 27.  The Clippers don't care.
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > You have greater faith in the responsiveness of teams
> > > .
> >
> > How many other baseball teams now use sabermetrics?  A
> bunch.  I
> > would guess 5.  OK, that's a few, not a bunch, but it's growing
> > because of Moneyball.
> .
> .
> .
> Sure enough, but baseball is patently transparent in
> comparison, and for me the shock is that Moneyball is
> apparently revelatory to the industry itself.  Can you think of any
> other example where a journalist writes a book about a known
> figure in a supposedly competitive industry, whose obvious
> success is based on non-proprietary, indeed public, information,
> and this telling of the story - not the success itself - has
apparent
> transformative influence on the industry itself?  This implies an
> ossified, non-competitive aspect that to me is a bit
> mind-boggling.  And then there is basketball.
> .
> .
> .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > It seems to me that Bean is the $300,000 guy I referred to,
> and he
> > > only got in, I suppose, because he entered the traditional
> way, ex-
> > > player tapped for management track, blah, blah.
> > > .
> >
> > I think he's a bit more than $300K, but he did get in the
> traditional
> > way.  I definitely tout my traditional quals when I talk to
teams,
> > too.  It just helps to talk the language.
> >
> .
> .
> .
> He is now!
> .
> .
> .
> > > Boy, I am reluctant to possibly reintroduce the unpleasantries
> of
> > > that winter string, but to sum up my understanding of the
> empirical
> > > history of the NBA from looking at league averages, from the
> mid-
> > 60s
> > > to mid-80s, game pace plummeted and offensive productivity
> > increased
> > > though not as dramatically (around 11% if I recall, but this is
> > still
> > > huge.)  This slowing game pace was essentially a free
> lunch,
> > control
> > > was imposed on offenses with turnovers decreasing and
> shooting
> > > percentages ring (with offenses eliminating bad passes and
> bad shot
> > > selection).  So, yes, if the analysis bears out (and my hunch
> is it
> > > will) the decrease in pace was an inherently beneficial thing
> that
> > > should have been recognized earlier for most teams,
> especially
> > given
> > > the size of the counterfactual benefit. (Thus, apparently there
> is
> > a
> > > misunderstanding above, going slow is typically a
> competitive
> > > disadvantage.  Though more to the point, going stupid is the
> real
> > > competitive disadvantage.  Returning to the case in point, my
> > > tentative hypothesis as to why the game pace stayed up as
> long as
> > it
> > > did was that the league was imitating the Celtics, when in
> fact
> > their
> > > offense was rather mediocre, and it was their defense which
> won
> > them
> > > championships.)
> >
> > I vaguely remembered this.  But, as you say, pace decrease
> may be an
> > effect, not a cause, "going stupid is the competitive
> disadvantage."
> > Turnovers have been reduced a lot and that is reflected in
> pace.  I
> > do think you're right with the Celtics' dynasty dictating pace,
too.
> > And I think it was a case of teams seeing the symptom and not
> the
> > cause.
> >
> > In general, as I document in the book, when you look carefully,
> you
> > do see a tendency for better offensive teams to actually be
> slightly
> > quicker teams (faster paced).  You have to look pretty carefully,
> > though.
> >
> > DeanO
> .
> .
> .
> I actually believe that the pace decrease is pretty much a cause
> and not an effect.  Though strictly speaking the hypothesized
> cause is coaches instituting controls such as "make the extra
> pass", "hold off on helter-skelter play which is turnover-
inducing",
> etc.,directions such as these necessarily cause a decrease in
> pace.
>
> And also, I don't mean to be argumentative, but it is definitely
not
> my belief that the Celtics dictated pace (or that anyone can in a
> meaningful sense) rather it was a dramatic league-wide stylistic
> error to try to mimic the aspect of their play that did not
contribute
> substantively to their success (with a couple of caveats that I
> won't elaborate on here.)
>
> Finally, I anxiously await your publication date to see the
> evidence that better offensive teams tend to be faster paced.  It
is
> certainly a plausible empirical result, though I am not sure how
> prescriptive this is.  Might you preview the explanations and
> evidence?

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
<alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
> At this point, I have to point out that the Lakers haven't drafted
a
> good player since Kupchak took over. Too often we use "role player"
> for somebody on a good team when we would say "worthless pile of
> 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 players"
on good teams that we would otherwise call as you say a "worthless
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 teams
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 can't
deny that they have had an impact on their respective teams.

All that said, yes Kupchak has had some bad drafts. I thought Madsen
was a reach, but at the time they were pretty much running away with
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.

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
<alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
> The discussion of pace is interesting. I did a study in my last book
> which looked at slow-paced teams and found that they usually did
> slightly better than the average, mainly because their defenses were
> much better than average. Most of these teams had very strong coaches
> (Riley/Van Gundy/Fratello) and what stuck out to me was that this was
> almost certainly an intentional choice. All of them had point guards
> dialing it down quite a bit -- they had fairly meager stats relative
> to how they played in other cities -- and none of the teams were
> particularly strong on the offensive boards. The obvious conclusion,
> then, was that they were making a concscious choice to always get
> guys back on defense and stifle the other team's break, and felt that
> even though they stifled their own running game they were coming out
> ahead on the gamble.

This aspect of not going to the offensive boards to keep getting back
on D is fairly strong and a clear strategic move.  There are teams
that don't have to do this.  San Antonio did do better when they
didn't go to the boards as much last year, but the effect was small
(no more than about 3 pts between their best and worst games).

The very strong coach factor -- it definitely matters in pace.  It
doesn't necessarily help the D, though.  Part of it is that coaches
also tend to go slow in their first season as coach, especially the
stronger personalities.  I had a coach like this, too, who really
insisted on going slow until we got better.


DeanO


>
>
>
>
>
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
> wrote:
> > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver"
> > <deano@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003"
> > <schtevie@h...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > From my perspective, the types of increased competitive
> > advantage I
> > > > am anticipating do not necessarily relate to making the big
> > hit,
> > > > uncovering that diamond in the rough.  Rather, it is
> > recognizing a
> > > > true, apparently minor improvement in an "undramatic"
> > statistical
> > > > category (where the herd knows not its true value) akin to
> > OBP in
> > > > baseball.  So, yes, you want to predict a Rodman but you are
> > more
> > > > interested in consistently getting, say, the Tony Batties or
> > Walter
> > > > McCartys of the world for short money (and I am not certain
> > that
> > > > these are the right examples, I am just currently
> > Boston-centric in
> > > > my imagination).
> > >
> > > OK.  This is what I generally think, too.  Managing the middle
> > > players is where it's at.  But people do see the rebounding
> > totals of
> > > these guys and they don't change much -- what varies is how
> > people
> > > perceive the rest of their games.  So predicting rebounding
> > ain't
> > > gonna help get them time (which was, I think, the original
> > question).
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > I guess I am a little less optimistic about the current state of
> the
> > art.  I wouldn't be surprised if for the average NBA franchise
> there
> > aren't significant analytical improvements to be had, not merely
> > in the weighting of various statistical categories (both existing
> > and prospectively refined) but in the actual measurement of the
> > individual categories themselves.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > > > > > Will any NBA team do this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.  And the first time it's done will launch 28 other
> times.
> > > > Err,
> > > > > 27.  The Clippers don't care.
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > You have greater faith in the responsiveness of teams
> > > > .
> > >
> > > How many other baseball teams now use sabermetrics?  A
> > bunch.  I
> > > would guess 5.  OK, that's a few, not a bunch, but it's growing
> > > because of Moneyball.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > Sure enough, but baseball is patently transparent in
> > comparison, and for me the shock is that Moneyball is
> > apparently revelatory to the industry itself.  Can you think of any
> > other example where a journalist writes a book about a known
> > figure in a supposedly competitive industry, whose obvious
> > success is based on non-proprietary, indeed public, information,
> > and this telling of the story - not the success itself - has
> apparent
> > transformative influence on the industry itself?  This implies an
> > ossified, non-competitive aspect that to me is a bit
> > mind-boggling.  And then there is basketball.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > It seems to me that Bean is the $300,000 guy I referred to,
> > and he
> > > > only got in, I suppose, because he entered the traditional
> > way, ex-
> > > > player tapped for management track, blah, blah.
> > > > .
> > >
> > > I think he's a bit more than $300K, but he did get in the
> > traditional
> > > way.  I definitely tout my traditional quals when I talk to
> teams,
> > > too.  It just helps to talk the language.
> > >
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > He is now!
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > > > Boy, I am reluctant to possibly reintroduce the unpleasantries
> > of
> > > > that winter string, but to sum up my understanding of the
> > empirical
> > > > history of the NBA from looking at league averages, from the
> > mid-
> > > 60s
> > > > to mid-80s, game pace plummeted and offensive productivity
> > > increased
> > > > though not as dramatically (around 11% if I recall, but this is
> > > still
> > > > huge.)  This slowing game pace was essentially a free
> > lunch,
> > > control
> > > > was imposed on offenses with turnovers decreasing and
> > shooting
> > > > percentages ring (with offenses eliminating bad passes and
> > bad shot
> > > > selection).  So, yes, if the analysis bears out (and my hunch
> > is it
> > > > will) the decrease in pace was an inherently beneficial thing
> > that
> > > > should have been recognized earlier for most teams,
> > especially
> > > given
> > > > the size of the counterfactual benefit. (Thus, apparently there
> > is
> > > a
> > > > misunderstanding above, going slow is typically a
> > competitive
> > > > disadvantage.  Though more to the point, going stupid is the
> > real
> > > > competitive disadvantage.  Returning to the case in point, my
> > > > tentative hypothesis as to why the game pace stayed up as
> > long as
> > > it
> > > > did was that the league was imitating the Celtics, when in
> > fact
> > > their
> > > > offense was rather mediocre, and it was their defense which
> > won
> > > them
> > > > championships.)
> > >
> > > I vaguely remembered this.  But, as you say, pace decrease
> > may be an
> > > effect, not a cause, "going stupid is the competitive
> > disadvantage."
> > > Turnovers have been reduced a lot and that is reflected in
> > pace.  I
> > > do think you're right with the Celtics' dynasty dictating pace,
> too.
> > > And I think it was a case of teams seeing the symptom and not
> > the
> > > cause.
> > >
> > > In general, as I document in the book, when you look carefully,
> > you
> > > do see a tendency for better offensive teams to actually be
> > slightly
> > > quicker teams (faster paced).  You have to look pretty carefully,
> > > though.
> > >
> > > DeanO
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > I actually believe that the pace decrease is pretty much a cause
> > and not an effect.  Though strictly speaking the hypothesized
> > cause is coaches instituting controls such as "make the extra
> > pass", "hold off on helter-skelter play which is turnover-
> inducing",
> > etc.,directions such as these necessarily cause a decrease in
> > pace.
> >
> > And also, I don't mean to be argumentative, but it is definitely
> not
> > my belief that the Celtics dictated pace (or that anyone can in a
> > meaningful sense) rather it was a dramatic league-wide stylistic
> > error to try to mimic the aspect of their play that did not
> contribute
> > substantively to their success (with a couple of caveats that I
> > won't elaborate on here.)
> >
> > Finally, I anxiously await your publication date to see the
> > evidence that better offensive teams tend to be faster paced.  It
> is
> > certainly a plausible empirical result, though I am not sure how
> > prescriptive this is.  Might you preview the explanations and
> > evidence?

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
<alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
> At this point, I have to point out that the Lakers haven't drafted a
> good player since Kupchak took over. Too often we use "role player"
> for somebody on a good team when we would say "worthless pile of
> crap" if he played for the Nuggets. Mark Madsen and Kareem Rush
> certainly fall into this category.
>

And I think there is good reason for this.  Derek Fisher is a good
role player on those Lakers, but wouldn't be worth much on the
Clippers because they have needed guys who can create and Fisher can't
so much.  At this point, I don't see Madsen or Rush or George as even
useful role players.  George is borderline, but under the line.
Robert Horry -- he just dogged it so much during the regular season
recently that it came back to bite him this postseason when he
couldn't ratchet it up.

DeanO

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 bench
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 to
LA instead of Portland in 2000 (Jackson wanted Pippen and the Lakers'
failure to sign him placed LA on the brink of disaster in Game Seven
of the 2000 Western Finals). As reliable veterans like Harper, Rice,
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 never
brought in adequate veteran replacements for Harper, Rice and Green,
while at the same time Fox, Horry and Shaw declined. The Lakers were
able to sign two future HoFers relatively cheaply this off-season, so
barring injuries or significant absences by Kobe due to legal
troubles the focus this season will not be on Kupchak's draft acumen.




---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
drafted
> a
> > good player since Kupchak took over. Too often we use "role
player"
> > for somebody on a good team when we would say "worthless pile of
> > 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
players"
> on good teams that we would otherwise call as you say a "worthless
> 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 teams
> 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
can't
> deny that they have had an impact on their respective teams.
>
> All that said, yes Kupchak has had some bad drafts. I thought
Madsen
> was a reach, but at the time they were pretty much running away
with
> 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.

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
bench
> 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
to
> LA instead of Portland in 2000 (Jackson wanted Pippen and the
Lakers'
> failure to sign him placed LA on the brink of disaster in Game
Seven
> of the 2000 Western Finals). As reliable veterans like Harper,
Rice,
> 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
never
> brought in adequate veteran replacements for Harper, Rice and
Green,
> while at the same time Fox, Horry and Shaw declined. The Lakers
were
> able to sign two future HoFers relatively cheaply this off-season,
so
> barring injuries or significant absences by Kobe due to legal
> troubles the focus this season will not be on Kupchak's draft
acumen.
>
>
>
>
> ---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
> drafted
> > a
> > > good player since Kupchak took over. Too often we use "role
> player"
> > > for somebody on a good team when we would say "worthless pile
of
> > > 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
> players"
> > on good teams that we would otherwise call as you say
a "worthless
> > 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
teams
> > 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
> can't
> > deny that they have had an impact on their respective teams.
> >
> > All that said, yes Kupchak has had some bad drafts. I thought
> Madsen
> > was a reach, but at the time they were pretty much running away
> with
> > 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.

You make a good point about San Antonio, but that does not change the
thrust of what I said: the Lakers' drafts should be compared to teams
that selected from a similar pool of players, not to teams that
drafted in the lottery. It is one thing to say that the Spurs drafted
near the end of the first round but came up with good players and
quite another thing to compare the Lakers' picks with teams drafting
in the lottery. 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.

While the luxury tax rule was not in effect when Pippen left Houston,
teams knew that it would soon be in place and made
personnel/financial decisions on the basis of whether or not they
intended to go over the threshold. Buss' attitude was to attempt to
avoid exceeding the threshold or, failing that, to exceed it by as
little as possible (in contrast, owners like Allen in Portland and
Cuban in Dallas basically disregarded expense and brought in whoever
they or their GMs liked). It is my recollection that Phil Jackson
wanted Pippen and that a deal could have been worked out but that
Buss did not want to assume the burden of Pippen's contract, which
extended into the luxury tax period.

The $19 million for George may very well have been a mistake, but
that cannot be decided without knowing if the Lakers could have
either kept him for less or, alternatively, signed an equivalent or
better player with that salary slot. Regardless of the specifics of
the George decision, the fact that Buss does not want to exceed the
luxury tax (or exceed it by more than he has to after paying Shaq and
Kobe) has been a major factor in the Lakers' personnel moves in the
past several seasons. By the way, I'm not saying whether Buss is
right or wrong to do this; exceeding the cap has worked pretty well
for Dallas, at least to this point, and not so well for Portland,
which is now in the process of unloading salaries. I just think that
Kupchak has gotten a little bit of a bum rap in that he gets blamed
for not making moves that his owner would never authorize him to
make.

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
<alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
> 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
> bench
> > 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
> to
> > LA instead of Portland in 2000 (Jackson wanted Pippen and the
> Lakers'
> > failure to sign him placed LA on the brink of disaster in Game
> Seven
> > of the 2000 Western Finals). As reliable veterans like Harper,
> Rice,
> > 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
> never
> > brought in adequate veteran replacements for Harper, Rice and
> Green,
> > while at the same time Fox, Horry and Shaw declined. The Lakers
> were
> > able to sign two future HoFers relatively cheaply this off-
season,
> so
> > barring injuries or significant absences by Kobe due to legal
> > troubles the focus this season will not be on Kupchak's draft
> acumen.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---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
> > drafted
> > > a
> > > > good player since Kupchak took over. Too often we use "role
> > player"
> > > > for somebody on a good team when we would say "worthless pile
> of
> > > > 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
> > players"
> > > on good teams that we would otherwise call as you say
> a "worthless
> > > 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
> teams
> > > 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
> > can't
> > > deny that they have had an impact on their respective teams.
> > >
> > > All that said, yes Kupchak has had some bad drafts. I thought
> > Madsen
> > > was a reach, but at the time they were pretty much running away
> > with
> > > 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.

Here is a link to a story from a couple years ago that alludes to the
well known fact that the Lakers' personnel moves in recent seasons
(including not getting Pippen)have been greatly influenced by the
luxury tax:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2001/07/
30/burns_insider/

Those ads on the side are really annoying! I'm going to leave some
space here and type in the link again; hopefully the whole link shows
this time...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2001/07/
30/burns_insider/

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "doc319" <doc319@y...> wrote:
> Here is a link to a story from a couple years ago that alludes to
the
> well known fact that the Lakers' personnel moves in recent seasons
> (including not getting Pippen)have been greatly influenced by the
> luxury tax:
>
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2001/07
/
> 30/burns_insider/

The article did not come up for me when I clicked on it but I do
recall the same.  Basically, the whole finance issue kicked in after
the Lakers gave Kobe a huge contract.  Buss did not want to pay
another guy.  As a result, they traded impending free agent Eddie
Jones for Glen Rice (and they dumped Elden Campbell's contract in
the process).  They then refused to re-sign Rice (not a bad move
based on talent but the word was that they weren't going to pay him
regardless.  The finances were also rumored to be the reason that
West could not acquire Mitch Richmond back in 1999.

I don't really remember much talk of the Pippen and the lakers, but
his contract was thought to be unmovable to anybody in the league
after that first horrendous year in Houston (both on and off the
court).  Only the Blazers (or Knicks) would absorb that kind of cap
hit for an older declining player.  Can't really blame the lakers
for that.

The Devean George move was bad.  I think it was compounded by the
fact that there were few bidders for his service and they could have
kept as a restricted free agent with a one-year qualifier if they
had wanted but they chose to give that right up (before the 2001-02
season) and then they changed their minds after a few good playoff
games.

I'm perpetually behind on this list, apologies for replying six days late:

Dean Oliver wrote:
>
> Organizational economics: [...]
> Why do the Packers have such great success as
> a small market team?  One prominent voice suggested that the Packers are not a
small market, but that
> rubbed a few people wrong (like changing the definition of values to fit the
theory).

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,
beyond some penny ante stuff like coaches or weekly highlight shows.  It is
almost like comparing a capitalist and a socialist economy, except that NFL
teams, unlike entities in socialist countries, still have incentive to
succeed financially and in terms of productivity.  The NBA is somewhere
between these two extremes, dominated by national revenue but not quite as
much as the NFL, and with large but somewhat controlled payroll
differences.  I really don't think you can directly apply the economic
lessons of any one league to the others.

--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
collardg@...

Mike G wrote:
>
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
> wrote:
> >  My god, does baseball have a lot of researchers,...
>
> So if baseball goes belly-up, we can expect some of these people to
> jump into basketball ?

I think that baseball would have to start actually losing money as an
industry to go belly up, but the answer is no for the most part.  I know a
lot of researchers, particularly traditional historian types, who barely
care about what is going on in the game today.  And a lot of them are
pretty strict one sport guys.  I think that promoting Dean's new book,
Hollinger's Prospectus et al in the sabermetric community might get some
crossover from analytical types, however.

--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
collardg@...

Michael Tamada wrote:
>
> Baseball of course sees players such as Sosa or Jamie Moyer
> (made the all-star game for the first time this year -- as
> a 40-year old.  Only Satchel Paige was older for his first
> all-star game, and in Paige's case that was due to
> segregation, not due to lack of ability at a younger age.)
> Players who experience big improvements late in their
> careers.  But these improvements seem to be rarer, and
> smaller, for baseball players than for basketball players.

They are almost nonexistent for offensive players, but there are a fair
number of pitchers who take steps forward relatively late.  I'm not sure
how much of that is due to the fact that so many of them miss a year or
more at times, especially early on in their careers, to injury, and how
much is due to the fact that one can add a pitch to their repertoire (or a
substance to the ball, as has been rumored with Moyer) to tyake a late step
forward.  I think there is an analogue between pitcher control and hoops
shooting, where some guys can improve their mechanics and/or improve with
repetition, and some just never will no matter what they tweak or hwo hard
they work.

--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
collardg@...

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
wrote:
> Dean Oliver wrote:
> >
> > Organizational economics: [...]
> > Why do the Packers have such great success as
> > a small market team?  One prominent voice suggested that the
Packers are not a small market, but that
> > rubbed a few people wrong (like changing the definition of values
to fit the theory).
>
> 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.

Come to think of it, I'm surprised this wasn't raised either.  The
economists definitely know all about the financial arrangements in
the NFL, how much money is shared, yet this came up as an issue.
Basically, there was a lot of disagreement over a theory about how to
make a league competitive that it branched out of baseball to
football.

> 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.

As we discussed there, the tax pretty much is just a Yankee tax.  I'm
surprised, though, that the Mets don't get as large a contract.

> much as the NFL, and with large but somewhat controlled payroll
> differences.  I really don't think you can directly apply the
economic
> lessons of any one league to the others.

I think the goal is to do just that, though.  Baseball has been
deemed as having a competitive balance problem.  How can you make it
so that they do not have as significant a financial advantage over
everyone else?  How can you keep the Montreals of the world from
disappearing?  It would be rather odd for a team to fold in such a
well-established league, but that is what contraction is about.

You're right, too, about the other note -- sabr guys are pretty
hardcore baseball.  70-80% of them at least.  There are some hoops
coaches and some crossover guys that I talked to.  Bill James himself
is a big KU hoops fan.

DeanO

Not surprising on specialization. I think you would find the same
thing in football or basketball. Unfortunately you almost have to
specialize to keep up with everything these days. To add a personal
example, I loved the NHL as a kid but now I watch maybe five games a
year.



--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
> wrote:
> > Dean Oliver wrote:
> > >
> > > Organizational economics: [...]
> > > Why do the Packers have such great success as
> > > a small market team?  One prominent voice suggested that the
> Packers are not a small market, but that
> > > rubbed a few people wrong (like changing the definition of
values
> to fit the theory).
> >
> > 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.
>
> Come to think of it, I'm surprised this wasn't raised either.  The
> economists definitely know all about the financial arrangements in
> the NFL, how much money is shared, yet this came up as an issue.
> Basically, there was a lot of disagreement over a theory about how
to
> make a league competitive that it branched out of baseball to
> football.
>
> > 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.
>
> As we discussed there, the tax pretty much is just a Yankee tax.
I'm
> surprised, though, that the Mets don't get as large a contract.
>
> > much as the NFL, and with large but somewhat controlled payroll
> > differences.  I really don't think you can directly apply the
> economic
> > lessons of any one league to the others.
>
> I think the goal is to do just that, though.  Baseball has been
> deemed as having a competitive balance problem.  How can you make
it
> so that they do not have as significant a financial advantage over
> everyone else?  How can you keep the Montreals of the world from
> disappearing?  It would be rather odd for a team to fold in such a
> well-established league, but that is what contraction is about.
>
> You're right, too, about the other note -- sabr guys are pretty
> hardcore baseball.  70-80% of them at least.  There are some hoops
> coaches and some crossover guys that I talked to.  Bill James
himself
> is a big KU hoops fan.
>
> DeanO

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...>
wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "doc319" <doc319@y...> wrote:
> > Here is a link to a story from a couple years ago that alludes to
> the
> > well known fact that the Lakers' personnel moves in recent seasons
> > (including not getting Pippen)have been greatly influenced by the
> > luxury tax:
> >
>
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2001/07
> /
> > 30/burns_insider/
>
> The article did not come up for me when I clicked on it




It won't come up for me either when I click on the link in the
message that I left here; however, the article is still there and if
you type the complete url as listed above into your browser you can
read it. Also, a simple web search of the terms "luxury tax & Lakers"
turns up a bunch of articles that make the same point.

--- 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.

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.

Dean Oliver wrote:
>
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
> wrote:
> > Dean Oliver wrote:
> > 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.
>
> As we discussed there, the tax pretty much is just a Yankee tax.  I'm
> surprised, though, that the Mets don't get as large a contract.

The Mets hamstrung themselves by agreeing to a long term deal (20 or 30
years or something ridiculous like that) right before baseball's popularity
exploded in the early-mid 90's.  The Yankees were more in the right place
at the right time than anything, although they have shown some innovation
in the way they handle their packages....uh, so to speak.

--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
collardg@...

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.

>
>And yes, I also believe that someone will be able to come up
>with a statistical formula which allows us to better relate college
>rebounding stats to pro ones.  (In fact, I wouldn't expect this to be
>very difficult at all.)
>.


I'll try to get on this - I work on all DI stats, I'll try to find a decent
correlation for rebounding/pace/strength of competition.  I should be able
to come up with something fairly useful pretty quickly - IF I can find the
DI opponent team stats I'd need.

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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).
This suggests that the "hardness" of their respective salary caps are fairly
similar.  Whereas the NBA has cap exceptions allowing teams to exceed the
cap, the NFL has prorated signing bonuses and non-guaranteed contracts for
similar effect.  As in the NBA, over a period of years some NFL franchises
consistently spend more on player costs than others.

Jim


Team player payrolls ($M)

            NBA (02-03) NFL (02)  MLB (02)
high       104 (Dal)   87 (Den)  126 (NYY)
low         41 (Den)   39 (GB)    34 (TB)
range       63         48         92
mean        58         62         67
std. dev.   14         11         25

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
SABR-L Moderator
collardg@...

How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in the
league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts more
often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team record
data to make an assertion like the one in this post.


--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
<igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike G" <msg_53@h...>
> To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:11 AM
> Subject: [APBR_analysis] East - West imbalance
>
>
> > As recently as 1999, the East was winning 55% of inter-conference
> > games.  The West took over and beat the East down to 39% in 2001.
> > The East rebounded to 45% in '02, and then dropped back to .405
this
> > last season.
> >
> > What kind of forces create this situation?  It doesn't seem as
though
> > it can be good for the game.  Does it naturally balance out?  Or
can
> > free-agency cause a rush of stars to a 'major league' conference,
> > worsening the disparity?
> >
>
> One of the things that rarely gets mentioned is that the West, in
addition
> to having the team's with the best records, also has the teams with
the
> _worst_ records. In other words, the disparity between best and
worst in the
> West is greater than that in the East, where teams tend to cluster
tightly
> around the average. This has been the pattern for more than a
decade. You
> can kind of see it if you look at the standard deviations of winning
> percentages from both conferences -- the higher the standard
deviation, the
> greater the disparity with the conference between best and worse.
>
>         Decade Conference      N       Mean     StDev
>          1940   E             16     0.4706     0.1639
>          1940   W             15     0.5311     0.1546
>
>          1950   C              5     0.6118     0.1516
>          1950   E             47     0.5098     0.1324
>          1950   W             45     0.4742     0.1236
>
>          1960   E             46     0.5524     0.1592
>          1960   W             51     0.4527     0.1350
>
>          1970   E             90     0.4839     0.1384
>          1970   W             94     0.5154     0.1209
>
>          1980   E            111     0.5134     0.1527
>          1980   W            120     0.4876     0.1434
>
>          1990   E            143     0.5002     0.1533
>          1990   W            135     0.4999     0.1827
>
>          2000   E             60     0.4740     0.1278
>          2000   W             56     0.5279     0.1642
>
> I don't see that anything has to be done -- the disparity between
> conferences looks greater than it actually is because people have a
tendency
> to look at the extremes (the best teams, the worst teams, the
finalists,
> etc.) and ignore the entire range of variation.

----- Original Message -----

From: ankurvdesai

To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:48 PM

Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: East - West imbalance

How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in the
league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts more
often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team record
data to make an assertion like the one in this post.

In any event, the biggest problem is that all the best teams are in
the West.  The NBA finals have become completely anticlimactic.  We
already know that the top 5 teams will be from the West next year.


--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "ankurvdesai"
<ankurvdesai@y...> wrote:
> How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in
the
> league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
> those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts
more
> often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team
record
> data to make an assertion like the one in this post.
>
>
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
> <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike G" <msg_53@h...>
> > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:11 AM
> > Subject: [APBR_analysis] East - West imbalance
> >
> >
> > > As recently as 1999, the East was winning 55% of inter-
conference
> > > games.  The West took over and beat the East down to 39% in
2001.
> > > The East rebounded to 45% in '02, and then dropped back
to .405
> this
> > > last season.
> > >
> > > What kind of forces create this situation?  It doesn't seem as
> though
> > > it can be good for the game.  Does it naturally balance out?
Or
> can
> > > free-agency cause a rush of stars to a 'major league'
conference,
> > > worsening the disparity?
> > >
> >
> > One of the things that rarely gets mentioned is that the West,
in
> addition
> > to having the team's with the best records, also has the teams
with
> the
> > _worst_ records. In other words, the disparity between best and
> worst in the
> > West is greater than that in the East, where teams tend to
cluster
> tightly
> > around the average. This has been the pattern for more than a
> decade. You
> > can kind of see it if you look at the standard deviations of
winning
> > percentages from both conferences -- the higher the standard
> deviation, the
> > greater the disparity with the conference between best and worse.
> >
> >         Decade Conference      N       Mean     StDev
> >          1940   E             16     0.4706     0.1639
> >          1940   W             15     0.5311     0.1546
> >
> >          1950   C              5     0.6118     0.1516
> >          1950   E             47     0.5098     0.1324
> >          1950   W             45     0.4742     0.1236
> >
> >          1960   E             46     0.5524     0.1592
> >          1960   W             51     0.4527     0.1350
> >
> >          1970   E             90     0.4839     0.1384
> >          1970   W             94     0.5154     0.1209
> >
> >          1980   E            111     0.5134     0.1527
> >          1980   W            120     0.4876     0.1434
> >
> >          1990   E            143     0.5002     0.1533
> >          1990   W            135     0.4999     0.1827
> >
> >          2000   E             60     0.4740     0.1278
> >          2000   W             56     0.5279     0.1642
> >
> > I don't see that anything has to be done -- the disparity between
> > conferences looks greater than it actually is because people
have a
> tendency
> > to look at the extremes (the best teams, the worst teams, the
> finalists,
> > etc.) and ignore the entire range of variation.

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
<igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: ankurvdesai
>   To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:48 PM
>   Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: East - West imbalance
>
>
>   How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in
the
>   league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
>   those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts
more
>   often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team
record
>   data to make an assertion like the one in this post.
>
>
> I was looking only at interconference records. The worst teams in
the West had worse records against East teams than the worst East
teams had against Western teams.

Note that Sagarin and Massey both put out ratings of NBA teams, too,
accounting for strength of schedule.  The below have playoffs also
factored in.

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate/nba-m.htm

Rank Team Power
1 San Antonio 1.9
2 Sacramento 1.671
3 Dallas 1.407
4 LA Lakers 1.141
5 Minnesota 0.867
6 New Jersey 0.85
7 Portland 0.79
8 Utah 0.507
9 Philadelphia 0.479
10 Detroit 0.387
11 New Orleans 0.359
12 Phoenix 0.329
13 Houston 0.281
14 Indiana 0.153
15 Seattle 0.084
16 Milwaukee 0.042
17 Boston 0.014
18 Orlando -0.006
19 Golden State -0.105
20 New York -0.241
21 Washington -0.475
22 Atlanta -0.504
23 Memphis -0.849
24 Chicago -0.945
25 LA Clippers -1.031
26 Miami -1.43
27 Toronto -1.514
28 Denver -2.047
29 Cleveland -2.116



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba0203.htm
(This is Sagarin's combined rating, which he actually doesn't like as
much as his Predictor, which ranks Dallas at the top.  He had a fit a
couple years ago when the BCS said you can't consider point
difference in ranking teams if you want to be part of the rating
system.  Frankly, neither side did it right.  Point difference is
relevant up to a certain theoretical cutoff, but Sagarin's work can't
deal with it and the BCS just had political motivations.  Sagarin's
work still is good...)

Rank Team Power
1 San Antonio Spurs 97.95
2 Sacramento Kings 97.17
3 Dallas Mavericks 96.99
4 Los Angeles Lakers 94.58
5 Portland Trail Blazers 93.93
6 New Jersey Nets 93.92
7 Minnesota Timberwolves 93.43
8 Utah Jazz 92.54
9 Detroit Pistons 92.04
10 Philadelphia 76ers 91.95
11 Phoenix Suns 91.57
12 Houston Rockets 91.51
13 New Orleans Hornets 91.35
14 Indiana Pacers 91.2
15 Seattle SuperSonics 90.56
16 Boston Celtics 90.21
17 Milwaukee Bucks 89.78
18 Orlando Magic 89.72
19 Golden State Warriors 89.55
20 New York Knicks 88.52
21 Washington Wizards 87.84
22 Atlanta Hawks 86.96
23 Memphis Grizzlies 86.71
24 Los Angeles Clippers 85.82
25 Chicago Bulls 85.45
26 Miami Heat 83.71
27 Toronto Raptors 83.24
28 Denver Nuggets 81.63
29 Cleveland Cavaliers 80.19

DeanO