Tweet
this is from something Matt52 posted a couple weeks back
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...e-balance-myth
so exactly how, over time, is a big markets ability to spend the deciding factor in success?
rather it was that big market drafting Kobe Byrant or Dirk Nowitski. Or it was that Small Market drafting Tim Duncan or Lebron. Or that highly attractive market drafting Dwayne Wade. If only everyone could have one of those guys....
Now are big markets more attractive than small markets? Sure they are. I said that a long time ago. But because of spending? Well Cleveland spent and Lebron left, Orlando spent and Dwight still appears to be leaving, Denver spent and Carmelo left.... so saying its spending doesn't fit. Then it has to be something else big market teams offer... attention, endorsement deals, lifestyle, activity etc. Thats not because of spending.
But you did say something that caught my interest:
Unfortunately on the list in the link alot of the worst drafters are also some of the smallest and least attractive markets. Milwaukee, Toronto, Minnesota, Charlotte, Utah, Indy. They are the teams everyone talks about when mention teams who can't 'compete' with the LAs or the NYs. Teams that need the draft the most are also some of the teams that draft the worst.
Maybe what the 'big market' teams need is a cap on their executive and management spending.... not on the player payroll. Lets get some of the scouting talent, that executive savy and experience spread around.
I already addressed this. How many perrennial playoff teams don't have a superstar? How many teams with superstars are incapable of spending? Yet how many bad teams spend? How many bad teams have superstars?
Like I said... its superstars that make a team good... that leads to revenue... that leads to an ability to spend. NY and LA may not need a star to create revenue, but they still need a superstar to be successful.
If those teams shared more of that revenue with the small markets... those small markets would have more to spend to. Like I said before... the goal should not be to bring everyone down to the weak and incompetent. It should be to help improve the weak and the incompetent.
To your next question. If ALL other things are equal then the manager who has more money to spend will ofcourse have an edge. But the reality of the NBA is not all managers, players, locations and opportunities are equal. And thats why $ alone account for such a small % of success.
Now, the colors tell an important story. Strictly looking at the draft value and win percentage, you’ll notice lost of greens clustered together and reds clustered together. This hints that the two go pretty much hand in hand. If you draft efficiently, chances are you’ll be in good hands.
But look at the third column of data which tells us how much money they’ve spent over that time. It’s subtle, but the pigments aren’t as closely connected.
What we’re seeing is a strong tie between drafting efficiency and win percentage, but not so much for winning and payroll. In fact, draft efficiency alone explains 34 percent of the variability in a team’s record over the past decade. How much does payroll explain?
Just 7 percent -- a tiny amount in comparison.
But look at the third column of data which tells us how much money they’ve spent over that time. It’s subtle, but the pigments aren’t as closely connected.
What we’re seeing is a strong tie between drafting efficiency and win percentage, but not so much for winning and payroll. In fact, draft efficiency alone explains 34 percent of the variability in a team’s record over the past decade. How much does payroll explain?
Just 7 percent -- a tiny amount in comparison.
so exactly how, over time, is a big markets ability to spend the deciding factor in success?
rather it was that big market drafting Kobe Byrant or Dirk Nowitski. Or it was that Small Market drafting Tim Duncan or Lebron. Or that highly attractive market drafting Dwayne Wade. If only everyone could have one of those guys....
Now are big markets more attractive than small markets? Sure they are. I said that a long time ago. But because of spending? Well Cleveland spent and Lebron left, Orlando spent and Dwight still appears to be leaving, Denver spent and Carmelo left.... so saying its spending doesn't fit. Then it has to be something else big market teams offer... attention, endorsement deals, lifestyle, activity etc. Thats not because of spending.
But you did say something that caught my interest:
Because most of the big markets right now have good managers in place
Maybe what the 'big market' teams need is a cap on their executive and management spending.... not on the player payroll. Lets get some of the scouting talent, that executive savy and experience spread around.
Name me one team, just one team, who has been a perennial playoff team who is not consistently spending above cap. You can't do it.
Like I said... its superstars that make a team good... that leads to revenue... that leads to an ability to spend. NY and LA may not need a star to create revenue, but they still need a superstar to be successful.
If those teams shared more of that revenue with the small markets... those small markets would have more to spend to. Like I said before... the goal should not be to bring everyone down to the weak and incompetent. It should be to help improve the weak and the incompetent.
To your next question. If ALL other things are equal then the manager who has more money to spend will ofcourse have an edge. But the reality of the NBA is not all managers, players, locations and opportunities are equal. And thats why $ alone account for such a small % of success.
Comment