 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3529
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | ...because of the way maximum salaries work, he loses the salaries in the four years where his salaries would have been the highest. $100 million is a reasonable estimate of how much those salaries might be worth for a player entering the NBA right now...
|
Are you assuming a player will play to the same age, and just as productively, whether he starts at age 18 or at age 21, playing 80-100 games per year? I think the jury is out on this one.
| Quote: | | ...precisely the language that should be used because it is not a certainty; it is an upper bound. It would be wrong and irresponsible to not use qualifiers |
A car salesman can show me a car and claim, "It may go as much as another 100,000 miles," and I don't really expect him to tell me, "..or it may die before you get it home". Really, there's an average for a given make, with a given maintenance record, with X miles. That's what I'd be interested in.
| Quote: | | ...What you are saying is tantamount to saying that folks with McCann's view should not be allowed to write, ... |
Actually, it's a free country; the salesmen and hucksters and swindlers all have their rights of free speech/press. I'm just putting in my bit; and I wouldn't buy it.
In a free market, an agent can legally convince a young and naive client to do something he may regret. The agent can legally make huge bucks per hour doing this. I'm just leery of this type, I guess.
Is a given high school player really a "systematically predictable success"? How often does a Lebron come along? Less than once per year, I'd think -- if you put Kobe, KG, TMac in that class -- about one in 2 years.
How many highschoolers in 2 years wonder if they are that person? To pass up $100 mill, or not to..? I don't have any numbers of failed declarees, and I don't follow that stuff at all. Maybe it's by being outside the circles of intrigue (..will he declare? ..whatever became of him?..) that it seems so bizarre to me.
McCann goes on, after his 'argument', to muse about the possibilities of lawsuits, by the whole population of 'banned' players. I guess there are several angles he could be working here.
A quote can be technically true, and quite misleading. This is sometimes called 'persuasive argument'. I like to think that most of the time, most of us are not trying to persuade, but to share information. This is best done with balanced commentary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 861
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leaving aside the issue of McCann's motives (since we can't do anything more than speculate about why he did the work he did, and why he chose the words he selected), what's wrong with his data? Where are his information, methods or conclusions flawed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: | | A quote can be technically true, and quite misleading. This is sometimes called 'persuasive argument'. I like to think that most of the time, most of us are not trying to persuade, but to share information. This is best done with balanced commentary. |
Mike, this argument is going nowhere, because IMHO what you are doing is 95% persuasion and only 5% sharing information. Your arguments are so ad hominem and so unbalanced that even if I completely disagreed with McCann, I would feel some obligation to defend him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WizardsKev wrote: | | Leaving aside the issue of McCann's motives (since we can't do anything more than speculate about why he did the work he did, and why he chose the words he selected), what's wrong with his data? Where are his information, methods or conclusions flawed? |
Exactly where is McCann's study anyway?
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 784
Location: Toronto
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hpanic7342
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 201
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems to me that the two groups that would stand to gain the most from an age limit would be the NCAA (because it would bring in more top-notch players to college ball) and the Players' Association (because it would help protect some jobs). However:
- The Players' Association was against the age limit on an ideological basis, which was actually pretty refreshing to see.
- We didn't hear a peep from the NCAA because their ratings haven't suffered as a result of the high school exodus. This year's Final Four drew excellent ratings, in fact.
This brings me to my take on the issue:
http://www.theonlinesportsbar.com/sportsbar/article.php?aID=40
You may not agree with my conclusions, but I think it's worth thinking about in the interest of expressing as many points of view as possible.
Also (shameless plug!) the Online Sports Bar is a site that a few friends of mine set up just last week. Some of you might find perusing the site to be interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't read the whole thing. It takes 10 minutes to just browse from page to page in the 87 page document. It definitely has some good info. A good reference document for the issue, at the very least, with a list of the HS players who have declared and what happened to them. Remember Ellis Richardson? I didn't.
There is a direct comparison between Shane Battier and Tyson Chandler (though there should be one with Eddy Curry, too, it seems).
It is clear that he has spent more time on this issue than anyone here. Not that I fully agree with him (I haven't read the thing, so I don't even know), but he definitely has thought about a lot. So I'd suggest people actually read his article before debating too much.
The societal implications of this kind of stuff, of course, are also interesting. Why don't 4.0 HS kids just start working? For those of us who went and got a PhD, we knew it was stupid financially, costing ourselves many years of income with an unclear benefit (I still kick myself sometimes but usually not). What good is school anyway if it doesn't train us for a job better than being on the job? (Europe has more vocational training, right?) If school doesn't provide more than just working for a company, why don't more Americans skip college and just work? Shouldn't the invisible hand of free market capitalism have driven this result if college isn't as good as on the job training?
Enough of that. I could go off all day.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 976
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the problem with that comparison, Dean, is that most occupations don't have a handful of scouts per company looking for the best possible workers. It's very hard to judge the quality of prospective environmental engineers, and things like PhDs and the additional grades that come with them help close this information gap. (They arguably increase uncertainty by providing bad information, but there is more information.)
So college could be less effective for training but more effective for hiring.
Also, at the risk of generalizing, most kids prefer college to working (I'll cite my best friend, currently a sixth-year senior) … the kind of jobs you're talking about taking probably rate lower in job satisfaction than NBA player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 861
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
The big reason why many go to college and beyond is to obtain credentials. Such credentials aren't needed in the NBA. In other professions -- say, engineering -- a degree connotes a level of attained knowledge.
Plus, the parties were good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3529
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, OK, that's sobering.
Through this thread I've become enlightened on what an emotionally-charged issue this is. And rather than wonder why/how anyone thinks/says anything, I'll just offer my views/disclaimers so no one thinks/suggests if I'm not with This camp, I must be in the Other camp(s).
It's always dismayed me when players get huge guaranteed contracts for services not yet rendered. A player who has spent several (or many) years with one franchise, making great contributions may justifiably be rewarded, and the owners and fans may know full well he won't be worth the money later. That's just spreading good will.
On the other hand, selfish players (and their agents) who like to forge huge contracts, and then (essentially) go on vacation, do not help the Game, in any way I can see. Still there's a tendency for owners and players to agree for several years of service at certain dollars. This, too, makes sense for continuity's sake.
What bothers me is that in many cases, Big Money seems to have an inverse relationship with Big Effort; measured in production, success, whatever. Once the money is assured, effort sloughs off. This produces a poorer quality of entertainment.
I am not quibbling about the value of entertainment, and fair market value. But how many entertainers are guaranteed many millions of dollars per year, whether or not they do anything at all? A movie star who just goes thru the motions and makes crippling demands eventually finds himself in crummy projects.
Going straight from Mom's house to Megamillions, without having played a minute of ball beyond the highschool level, doesn't make much sense to me. A kid ineligible (by age) for the NBA can still make a living making ads, playing in D-league, whatever. It's just a year-or-so intermediate step.
I have no guess whether college, Europe, or the NBA bench is a better place to develop moves, teamwork, work ethic, life skills, or whatever. Is one year really such a long time to find out (and demonstrate) a bit about oneself, before the really big money is dealt out?
My one prejudice, perhaps, is this: Kids in America are very materialistic. Money and possessions are what rules. Some kids want to be the best they can be, and others just want to have the most they can have. One year 'out of the house' may not make any difference for some; but it almost certainly does for some others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3529
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: |
Are you assuming a player will play to the same age, and just as productively, whether he starts at age 18 or at age 21,..? |
Answering my own question again, or pursuing it:
Using b-r labs, and querying "most NBA/ABA points scored by age 20", I get a list of young men who were ready for prime time by age 18 or 19; and suggesting at what age they may have 'peaked'.
1-2: Lebron and Carmelo - too early to tell (tett)
3 - Kobe - peaked at age 24, apparently
4 - Spencer Haywood - peaked at 23, washed-up by 30
5 - Marbury - At 27, he's not far off his peak
6 - Bosh - tett
7 - Cliff Robinson, the 1st -- plateaued from age 21 to 25, done by 28
8 - Moses - By both PER and my measure, he peaks at age 26, plateaus thru age 27; last all-NBA was at 31; last allstar game at age 33.
9 - Garnett - may have peaked at 27
10 - McGrady - likely peaked at 23
This is a pretty small sample, but seems to cover the most prominent of the group. The current success stories seem to have as subplots rather disappointing team accomplishments. Kobe, of course, being the arguable exception; I don't see in his numbers that he was particularly responsible for Lakers' postseason successes. We'll see.
As a 'control group', the top alltime scorers are:
1 - Kareem - arguably peaked at 24
2 - Karl - peaked at 33 (tho arguably plateaued 26-34)
3 - Jordan - peaked 24-27
4 - Wilt - peaked 25-27
5 - Erving - peaked at 25, or thru age 31 (if you devalue ABA stats)
6 - Moses
7 - Issel peaked at 28 or 31 or 33
8 - Hayes - hmmm... PER has his best year as a rookie, age 23. My numbers show several years better; basically a plateau thru age 33.
9 - Olajuwon - peaked at 30
10 - Oscar - I'm going to say he peaked in '64, age 25. B-R.com shows a huge PER spike in '68, which I venture to say is an error.
Justin?
I realize a list of "most prolific scorers of all time" is going to feature guys who, if they didn't peak late at least had a long plateau phase. Conversely, guys who get NBA minutes starting at age 18-19 are going to have the Potential to peak earlier.
And if Kobe and McGrady really have peaked, at age 23-24, those ages are as young as ANY of the alltimers' peaks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WizardsKev wrote: | The big reason why many go to college and beyond is to obtain credentials. Such credentials aren't needed in the NBA. In other professions -- say, engineering -- a degree connotes a level of attained knowledge.
Plus, the parties were good. |
Obviously, certain credentials you earn in HS should be enough to get a lot of kids jobs.
What companies don't provide and the NBA doesn't like to provide but finds itself doing because of guaranteed contracts is providing some on the job training. That gets more painful every year with more young kids coming out. It finally got to the point where they both established a minor league affiliation system and raised the age limit. Because if you draft a kid who can't help right away, they sit on the sidelines all season long. They may practice a little, but not a lot. Summer league, consisting of two weeks of play and practice (or more if you're the Mavs who had two squads and a lot of time together), and training camp is when young guys get a chance to play in the system.
I look forward to seeing the D-league work. Its attraction should be a lot greater now, too. Seeing first round draft picks like Dorrell Wright is of interest to people. These guys could be stars some day and the gyms will allow people to be a lot closer. But the D-league coaches supposedly get to do what they want -- NBA big brothers can't tell them to give Player X 35 minutes a game and run this offense/defense. I can see a very interesting future for the league now.
Kids have always believed that they know everything when they finish HS. That's true whether they're basketball players or math majors. If the expectation of college and social pressure weren't there, I wonder how many smart kids (ignoring the ones that can't qualify for college) would sit down and think, "Yeah, I can make it in this world with what I got now." A lot more than the 10 or so basketball players every year. I know 2 very smart people who dropped out of college by sophomore year to go be gamblers (Texas Hold'em before it was even cool) because they knew they could make a lot of money doing it. One of them won the world championship and still has the lifestyle. The other did fine, made a living pretty easily for about 10 years, made a lot more than any PhD engineer, then got tired and gradually had to get used to what we call normal life, including going back to school.
I'm no sociologist, psychologist, education major, or whatever it takes to make perfect decisions on age limits. I'm just a stat guy and stats pretty much say that any simple rule defining eligibility is going to have problems. The more complex, the more fair, but also the more difficult to enforce. Just like taxes.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkubatko
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 702
Location: Columbus, OH
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: | 10 - Oscar - I'm going to say he peaked in '64, age 25. B-R.com shows a huge PER spike in '68, which I venture to say is an error.
Justin?
|
I apologize for venturing off-topic, but I wanted to answer this question. I discovered an error in the way I was calculating PER from 1968 to 1976. Instead of calculating league averages separately, I was combing the ABA and NBA data. I will fix this ASAP.
_________________
Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbche
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 51
Location: washington d.c.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject: , aoll |
|
|
Hi Mike,
I have been reading all of your posts. You seem to be in support of NBA prospects attending college. This is your opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You have stated numerous claims without evidence. Mr. McCann has done extensive research which can not be disregarded. You should provide some statistics to support your claims which would be educational and enlightening.
1. You stated that players that are paid highly do not perform. What evidence do you have to support such a claim? All players in the NBA are paid handsomely , some do make more than others. The teams obviously decided that these players were worth the money at one point in time.
2. Are the NBA teams still making a profit with these high salaries? Do you propose that the owners keep more of the profit? Do you propose that all players get paid the same amount of money?
3. You also listed players peak ages. I do not agree with some of your peaks. I believe that a player is at his peak when he can lead a team, and make everyone around him play better. The peak that you seem to be referring to seems more based on individual stats. Basketball is a team sport, and should be assessed in an appropriate way where teamwork is weighed more heavily than individual accomplishments.
Regards,
Kim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hpanic7342
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 201
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: |
And if Kobe and McGrady really have peaked, at age 23-24, those ages are as young as ANY of the alltimers' peaks. |
Control by position, and the disparity between the youngsters you listed and the all-time legends doesn't look so big. The big men peaked later, the perimeter players earlier, which is what we see among NBA players in general, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
