Should the Owners Treat Players Like Coaches?

One could argue that the coaches market in the NBA is a mess. When we dig into the numbers though the truth is that the uncapped crazy owners market is a sign of how to reign in owners’ costs. When we look over the coaches data it seems like the owners don’t seem to have any clue what they’re doing. However, when we look at the trends of the coaches as a whole it seems like maybe the owners are learning.

Using the amazing coach data collected by Michael ‘wiLQ’ Wilczynski over at Weak Side Awareness we can break down the owners stupidity and intelligence.

The Owners’ Stupidity

Since the 2006 Season:

  • The estimated cost for money owed to fired coaches from 2006 to 2011 is $100 Million
  • An estimated $21.9 Million was owed to fired coaches in the 2010-2011 season
  • 29 Coaches have been fired and 1 has “resigned” (Jerry Sloan)
  • 10 of said fired coaches have gone on to coach on other teams (with Eddie Jordan being fired in his second endeavor)
  • 19 teams have fired a coach
  • 9 teams have fired multiple coaches

The coaches market seems troubling. There’s crazy movement. Salaries are uncapped and this seems to have bad implications. With an estimated salary of around $88 million to active coaches last season to have almost $22 million to fired coaches seems troubling. After all if this were the players and the same ratio were true then the owners would be on the hook for almost $500 million.All of the problems that we’re told would exist in a players market without rules exist in the coaches market. That’s bad right? Not so fast!

The Owners’ Intelligence

Season Salaries Fired Salaries Total Ave Contract Length
2005-2006** $115.60 $40.60 $156.2 3.7
2006-2007** $117.90 $37.40 $155.3 3.5
2007-2008** $114.50 $32.70 $147.2 3.4
2008-2009 $105.60 $17.50 $123.1 2.7
2009-2010 $96.50 $23.70 $120.2 2.9
2010-2011 $86.90 $21.90 $108.8 2.7

** Includes fired contracts from previous CBA

Surprisingly things have changed for the better in terms of coaching salaries. Even including all the insane money wasted on fired coaches the owners have cut coach costs from 2006 significantly. The average coach contract length has only gone down. In fact in 2011 two amazing things were true:

  • Only one coach (Doc Rivers) had a contract length of five years or longer
  • Only one coach was fired two coaches were fired! (Thanks wiLQ!)(Jim O’Brien, Kurt Rambis)

With all of the speculation about the crazy things the owners would do in an uncapped and free market for the players people may want to look at the coaches. The data doesn’t seem to support that adding rules will help competitive balance. Looking at the coaches though it may be that removing rules improves costs.
-Dre (@NerdNumbers)

Stealing the World Series

A great story from Stumbling on Wins is whether or not teams should attempt to steal a base in baseball. Breaking down the numbers says stealing four bases is worth an extra run. Of course if a steal is unsuccesful it comes with a cost, four thrown outs cost you three runs! In a game teams have a limited number of outs — 27 — so they are very valuable. The risk reward ratio for stealing is actually not that good. A player must succesfully steal 70% of the time just to break even! While listening to the World Series last night I was surprised to hear of Craig’s failed steal attempt. I decided to do a quick breakdown of steals in the World Series to see if the teams understand the risks

  • Game 1 Kinsler (Rangers) is caught stealing
  • Game 2 Kinsler (Rangers) steals second base
  • Game 3 Jay (Cardinals) is caught stealing
  • Game 4 Kinsler (Rangers) is caught stealing
  • Game 5 Craig (Cardinals) is caught stealing
  • Game 5 Craig (Cardinals) is caught stealing

In the World Series with the best teams and the best management we see that the stealing efficiency is no where close to have been worth it. What’s more in last night’s game Craig’s first failed steal attempt ended up allowing the Texans to pitch around Pujols. The managers’ decisions to attempt for extra bases in this series have simply not been very good.

Tony La Russa’s inability to talk to his bull pen is the explanation for last night’s loss. Playing the wrong pitcher in a key moment is certainly a good place to start pointing in a close game. In a game decided by 2 runs we can question if Craig’s two steal attempts were good ideas or not given the cost.
-Dre

There is still value late and outside of the draft

Continuing on our recent theme, in this post I’m going to take a look at player salaries by draft position. As with the rest of our salary-related posts, these numbers have been adjusted for inflation.

First up is average career earnings by draft position:

Remember, this is salary, not productivity; and yet we still see a huge drop between #1 and #2, #5 and #6, and #10-#12. As a matter of fact, this graph seems to take on a familiar shape. We also can spot a few spikes that are attributable to one or two individual players: at #5, we see the Kevin Garnett effect. At #13, we see the influence of Kobe Bryant. At #29, we see the cumulative effects of P.J. Brown, Toni Kukoc, Nazr Mohammed, and Josh Howard. At #37, be reminded of the fact that Nick Van Exel and Mehmet Okur used to be relevant NBA players. And the granddaddy of outliers, #57, is skewed by Manu Ginobili‘s $71 million career earnings and a sample size of two (the other player, incidentally, is the very good Marcin Gortat, illustrating that survivour bias I mentioned earlier).

But remember, that was average career earnings. It would also be good to take a look at the median career earnings as well, because averages can be skewed. The median tells us the salary of the player who finds himself smack dab in the middle; 50% of players will have salaries larger than the median, and 50% of players will have salaries smaller than the median. And because I want to compare median salaries to average salaries, I’ve used the same scale and actually included a faint outline of average salaries in this next graph:

Basically, any difference between the faded and solid bars represents the skew. Some draft slots are more skewed than others, and the outlier, #57, shows no difference (because median and average are the same over a sample size of two). Other than the slots I’ve already mentioned, now we see that #9 (Tracy McGrady and Dirk Nowitzki), #17 (Jermaine O’Neal), and #24 (Latrell Sprewell and Andrei Kirilenko) have been skewed as well.

Now I’d like to look at the three types of players — players who were drafted and signed, players who were drafted and immediately waived, and undrafted players:As you can see, drafted players make much more over their careers than the other two types of players. Interestingly, it appears that undrafted players make more than waived draftees. How does all this change when we go from average to median?

Here we see quite clearly how massively skewed NBA salaries are. Waived draftees actually have higher median salaries than undrafted players, which means that you’d still rather be drafted and then waived than to remain undrafted. Final tally for the median career earnings of an NBA player? $4.98 million.

Methodology

But it’s important for you to understand the methodology I used to create these graphs. Our data only include players for whom we have salary data. That means that players who were drafted, but did not sign an NBA contract don’t show up; this can skew salaries for second round picks by introducing a “survivour bias“. There are also a few holes in our salary data, particularly involving players who were signed to 10/15 day contracts. As a matter of fact, if our dataset was complete, the averages and median would be significantly lower, but I am forging ahead with what we have.

I’ve also recorded draftees somewhat differently than normal. For every draftee who was waived before they played an NBA game, I have removed them from the first two graphs. Why? I figure that, once they have been waived, these players are more like undrafted players. In the last two graphs, judge for yourself whether or not that move was appropriate.

- Devin

Wages of Wins Weekend Podcast

Podcast Locations Near You!

This week we give you not just one but two podcast!

Not only that if you want to listen to us on a regular basis you can
Here are some links that might help the experience of each podcast!

Dave Berri talks Parity, a players league and the owners

  • Ian Levy did a nice break down of how ESPN writers think the NBA looks. Turns out this isn’t fair from the truth and that means parity isn’t really possible.
  • Peter Keating (insider access needed) discusses the possibility of a players league using information from none other than our own Dave Berri, who explains how having all of the players locked out could actually be a plus: “Even in the ABA, which had Dr. J and George Gervin, most of the players were nobodies, but the best players could be in the new league”
  • The NBA owners position just isn’t as strong as they’re making it out to be. The players should be questioning this.
  • In the 1970s when the NBA had parity, fans were lucky enough to watch the finals on tape delay.

Arturo talks how the owners are winning

  • Here’s a look at the numbers behind the owners position. Arturo stresses it’s not illegal or wrong how they do accounting but in their best interest to take a loss.
  • Arturo was one of the first proponents of a players league and even had a breakdown for it.
  • Arturo broke down how the lockout affects the players and the news isn’t good. Caving is a good option.
  • Finally, Arturo broke down the cold hard facts of the NBA lockout and why the owners stance is smart.

Music?

Dave suggested an intro and end music theme. I offered him the option of selecting it. As Dave mentions in the podcast though he has taken a more managerial role. As such he delegated the decision to the fans. If you have any good suggestions for a theme we could put on the podcast (without worrying about royalty fees) let us know. Arturo started the suggestions with Beethoven’s Fifth with Cannons :)

-Dre

Sports Writers Know Parity is Impossible

Thank goodness to Ian Levy (@HickoryHigh) of Hickory High for keeping up awesome NBA news in the lockout. Recently ESPN had a gammut of sports writers rank all of the players in the league. A key part of this though was that each player had to be given a rating too. While we can question some rankings (New York is supposed to have two top 15 talents and they could only get 42 wins?) Ian noticed something much more key.

Table 1: Breakdown of NBA players by ESPN vote averages (image from Hickory High)

Now if we look at the number of players ranked highly. Only 22 players got a ranking of 8.0 or higher! What this means is that writers know only a select group of players are actually elite. Ian made the observation that if we looked at the spread of statistical measures we’d see a similar trend and guess what? He was right!

Table 2: 2011 Player Breakdown by Wins Produced adjusted to a 1-10 score scale.

There’s a small distinction between the stats and the votes. Both agree that the number of great players is few. The thing though is that the middle of the league is actually more similar than the voters thought. While the voters had a linear trend we seen once we hit the mid 100s that almost all of our players fall between a rating of 2 and 4. Dave Berri actually made this point on a recent podcast. The difference between the top player (LeBron James according to ESPN, Kevin Love according to Wins Produced) and the 30th (Andrew Bynum according to ESPN, Andre Miller according to Wins Produced) is huge! On the other hand the difference between the 100th best player (Wesley Matthews according to ESPN, Grant Hill according to Wins Produced) and the 300th best player (Ekpe Udoh according to ESPN and Leandro Barboso according to Wins Produced) is simple not as much of a hit.

So the voters slightly overrate the “role players” but pretty accurately peg the impact of the stars. We can argue if it should be Pau Gasol instead of Kobe Bryant in the top 10 but the point is actually the same. There’s a short supply of tall people. These players are much better than the other players in the league. Having one of these players means a shot at the title and not having one means you miss out. Sure some of the ESPN writers may talk about how a hard cap or rules may change parity. The truth though is when we ask them to describe the league they describe a league consistent with what we know to be true — that it’s simply not possible for every team to compete because every team can’t get a LeBron and no change to the salary structure or rules will change that.

-Dre