Haberstroh on Payroll/Competitive Balance

Good job by Tom Haberstroh myth-busting the idea that you need to spend a lot to be successful in the NBA. Moral of the story: don't screw up your draft choices.

7 months ago Royster 7 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

the article was extremely simplistic

obviously there is not a guaranteed correlation between payroll and success, but saying there is no correlation is false as well. He also conveniently overlooked the facts that both Durant and Rose were on rookie contracts last year. Paying a top 10 player mid-level money is a homerun financially, but isn’t something that any team – rich or poor – can really control. Both those teams’ payrolls are about to start climbing big time, which only weakens his argument.

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 26, 2011 3:50 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs

And the rest of the article?

While I’d prefer he used a longer timeline than a decade to mitigate the effects of draftees being on rookie contracts, it’s not like a decade’s worth of data is nothing, and certainly more illustrative than just implying he only looked at last year, especially since the data presented show that draft efficiency is 5 times better correlated to a team’s record than payroll.

by Royster on Oct 26, 2011 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Interesting article

I agree with Douglast, the conclusions are overly sweeping and insufficiently supported.

The table detailing draft success and payrolls is illuminating though. It doesn’t tell us anything new, but it’s interesting to see the data in a clear graphical format. Not surprisingly, we’ve had poor draft results and exceptionally high payrolls (3rd over the last decade).

I would be interested to know more about the methodology used to calculate draft success.

"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave

by DC Blazer on Oct 26, 2011 3:58 PM PDT reply actions

I like how he considers the Heat and Pistons to be small market teams

in order to defend his claim that small markets can win championships. Consider that Detroit has the fourth highest revenue stream in the NBA or that South Florida as a whole is a very reasonably sized TV market with no income tax, and you have to go all the way back to the 82-83 season to find a small market champion (if Philadelphia can even be considered small market) other than the Tim Duncan Spurs or the Olajuwon Rockets.

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

by HailOden! on Oct 26, 2011 10:01 PM PDT reply actions

Market size has nothing to do with the point

Which is about payroll, and neither the 2004 Pistons, the 2006 Heat or the Spurs had an especially high payroll, or at least a payroll that would be unreasonable for a small market team. The point is that titles get won by the best players, and where they end up is largely a function of the draft. If we had taken MJ, putting him in a “small market”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

by Royster on Oct 26, 2011 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions

That was the broader point of the article

But that wasn’t the point he was making in that particular paragraph. And if we had taken MJ, I think we might still be having this conversation. After all, LA did not draft Kobe, Shaq, or Pau Gasol. Nor did Boston draft KG and Ray Allen. Detroit did not draft Sheed, Rip Hamilton, or Chauncey Billups. And Miami did not draft Shaq, Lebron, or Chris Bosh (I realize the Big 3 haven’t won a title, but I’m assuming they will win a couple in the coming years).

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

by HailOden! on Oct 27, 2011 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions