Stumbled upon from Daniel Frank
http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/06/03/fre ... witterfeed
Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
-
ampersand5
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:18 pm
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
Thanks for sharing this Crow.
I understand what I argue in the article is controversial and counterintuitive, but I genuinely believe it to be true. If anyone has any disagreements or qualms, I would love to hear them.
I understand what I argue in the article is controversial and counterintuitive, but I genuinely believe it to be true. If anyone has any disagreements or qualms, I would love to hear them.
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
The NBA is rigged article at your home site is an interesting read too, in conjunction with this one.
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
Dan, I found the article interesting for what it was and you're probably correct that if one were to enact a single change to the status quo, blowing up max. contract restrictions would be the one most likely to lead to a more generally competitive NBA. This said, I think the discussion about inequality could have be elaborated upon. In particular, I think the piece would have profited with a more in depth discussion about whose interests are advanced by the unequal status quo.
One simple point in passing is that I am not sure that the current level of inequality isn't - in fact - rather close to the general preferences of the the NBA fan base. But this aside, there is the issue of who would be most opposed to the magic bullet you propose. And here I think the answer is pretty clear: the NBA front-office hierarchy would never allow it for the it would transfer so much power from them to the best players in the NBA (and their agents). By this I mean that in the world you propose, Steph Curry would become the de facto GM of the Warriors, LeBron for the Cavs, and so on and so forth, ten deep into the NBA. They would be the ones who would effectively control the hiring of those with whom they would wish to play, forgoing salary for control in personnel decisions, weighing their direct earnings against their other commercial (and non-commercial) interests.
One simple point in passing is that I am not sure that the current level of inequality isn't - in fact - rather close to the general preferences of the the NBA fan base. But this aside, there is the issue of who would be most opposed to the magic bullet you propose. And here I think the answer is pretty clear: the NBA front-office hierarchy would never allow it for the it would transfer so much power from them to the best players in the NBA (and their agents). By this I mean that in the world you propose, Steph Curry would become the de facto GM of the Warriors, LeBron for the Cavs, and so on and so forth, ten deep into the NBA. They would be the ones who would effectively control the hiring of those with whom they would wish to play, forgoing salary for control in personnel decisions, weighing their direct earnings against their other commercial (and non-commercial) interests.
-
ampersand5
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:18 pm
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
Thanks for the feedback.schtevie wrote:Dan, I found the article interesting for what it was and you're probably correct that if one were to enact a single change to the status quo, blowing up max. contract restrictions would be the one most likely to lead to a more generally competitive NBA. This said, I think the discussion about inequality could have be elaborated upon. In particular, I think the piece would have profited with a more in depth discussion about whose interests are advanced by the unequal status quo.
One simple point in passing is that I am not sure that the current level of inequality isn't - in fact - rather close to the general preferences of the the NBA fan base. But this aside, there is the issue of who would be most opposed to the magic bullet you propose. And here I think the answer is pretty clear: the NBA front-office hierarchy would never allow it for the it would transfer so much power from them to the best players in the NBA (and their agents). By this I mean that in the world you propose, Steph Curry would become the de facto GM of the Warriors, LeBron for the Cavs, and so on and so forth, ten deep into the NBA. They would be the ones who would effectively control the hiring of those with whom they would wish to play, forgoing salary for control in personnel decisions, weighing their direct earnings against their other commercial (and non-commercial) interests.
You are ofcourse right, there are many interests at play in the unequal status quo.
The biggest obstacle to such a reform is likely the NBAPA in my opinion - However, I'm not too sure the NBA as a league would oppose it.
The superteam driven league might be best for the the casual fan of the sport, and the league revenues as a whole. However, the NBA interest does not equal league revenues.
The NBA is just a representation of the 30 individual basketball teams as represented through their owner. If NBA owners were to realize that no matter what they do, winning (and competing for) championships is outside of their reach unless they get incredibly lucky (I give any random team around a 15% chance of getting there), I think they would come to the realization that having a chance at winning is important than league revenue.
History has shown that team owners are not just profit maximizers and really do care about winning.
Can you further elaborate on what you mean by a power transfer, as I am a bit confused. I think this would be less likely to occur if players could get paid their fair worth. Under the current system, because teams cannot compete over a players salary, other benefits (like managerial control) are more likely to occur, no?
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
Dan, sorry, I was a bit too flip. I don't disagree with you that the Players Association would be first and firmly opposed to a proposal that would create gross economic inequality in its membership. However, as a thought experiment, were the NBAPA to take a pass on the issue, to my mind, there is little question that the league would oppose such a proposal, and this owing to the institutional interest of the "collective" front office.
NBA owners aren't chimps (well, it could be argued that some are) - they surely can count how many true stars there are in the league, know the necessity of having at least two to win a title, and what their likelihood is of acquiring same, given the impediments of the collective bargaining agreement. However, they do seem to be rather deferential fanboys; who are they to question the wisdom all these great ex-players they hire to manage affairs, who, y'know, played the game, so they really ought to know how the game ought to be played, right?
Again, I am perhaps too flip, but the point about power is simple. Many, indeed most, players are ultimately all about the Benjamins and for these, eliminating wage ceilings (with the existence of some sort of cap) would promote the leveling effect you imagine, as these would not avail themselves of the power newly available. However, for the truly elite players, whose wealth is less determined by annual salary than outside promotions and who are interested in accumulating titles for pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefit, they would be newly empowered to effectively run the franchises bidding for their services. In turn for their benevolence in kicking back dollars, they would have sway to say whom they would and would not like to play with, to a far greater extent than they do today. And indeed, if that were the new reality, why wouldn't they be the ones, say, hiring analysts to best determine their pathway for their desired success? In such an instance, the current role of GM is essentially redefined and downgraded, no? And to speculate further, why isn't it then reasonable to imagine that such an NBA would be one where there are a few truly elite players who are driving the bus in a few franchises, with the rest of the league realizing the aforementioned leveling effect and becoming the former's Washington Generals?
NBA owners aren't chimps (well, it could be argued that some are) - they surely can count how many true stars there are in the league, know the necessity of having at least two to win a title, and what their likelihood is of acquiring same, given the impediments of the collective bargaining agreement. However, they do seem to be rather deferential fanboys; who are they to question the wisdom all these great ex-players they hire to manage affairs, who, y'know, played the game, so they really ought to know how the game ought to be played, right?
Again, I am perhaps too flip, but the point about power is simple. Many, indeed most, players are ultimately all about the Benjamins and for these, eliminating wage ceilings (with the existence of some sort of cap) would promote the leveling effect you imagine, as these would not avail themselves of the power newly available. However, for the truly elite players, whose wealth is less determined by annual salary than outside promotions and who are interested in accumulating titles for pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefit, they would be newly empowered to effectively run the franchises bidding for their services. In turn for their benevolence in kicking back dollars, they would have sway to say whom they would and would not like to play with, to a far greater extent than they do today. And indeed, if that were the new reality, why wouldn't they be the ones, say, hiring analysts to best determine their pathway for their desired success? In such an instance, the current role of GM is essentially redefined and downgraded, no? And to speculate further, why isn't it then reasonable to imagine that such an NBA would be one where there are a few truly elite players who are driving the bus in a few franchises, with the rest of the league realizing the aforementioned leveling effect and becoming the former's Washington Generals?
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
In a league where 3 and 4 year contracts are the norm, and where teams also have bird rights to help them retain star players, is 10 consecutive years really a sufficient sample size?
The article implies that tanking is somehow a consequence of inequality in the league, but I see it as a consequence of perverse incentives created by the 'equality promoting' draft lottery. In a certain sense, the issue is not inequality of teams, but rather inequality of wins. If we consider all non-playoff teams equal (as is the case with the success points described in the article) then marginal wins by teams that won't make it to the playoffs are worthless for that season, and have (perceived) negative value in following seasons thanks to the draft lottery. (I believe there's also variance aversion at play, but that's a more subtle issue.)
Though I'm unconvinced that it would improve 'playoff equality', I think that eliminating the max contract is a sensible notion. That said, if success is almost exclusively measured in playoff outcomes then the league could simply "increase equality" by running a playoff tournament with the whole league, and shortening the individual series.
The article implies that tanking is somehow a consequence of inequality in the league, but I see it as a consequence of perverse incentives created by the 'equality promoting' draft lottery. In a certain sense, the issue is not inequality of teams, but rather inequality of wins. If we consider all non-playoff teams equal (as is the case with the success points described in the article) then marginal wins by teams that won't make it to the playoffs are worthless for that season, and have (perceived) negative value in following seasons thanks to the draft lottery. (I believe there's also variance aversion at play, but that's a more subtle issue.)
Though I'm unconvinced that it would improve 'playoff equality', I think that eliminating the max contract is a sensible notion. That said, if success is almost exclusively measured in playoff outcomes then the league could simply "increase equality" by running a playoff tournament with the whole league, and shortening the individual series.
-
ampersand5
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:18 pm
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
Hopefully today's actions have woken up the NBA community to problems I described, and changes will be implemented when the CBA is renegotiated next summer.
I likely will informally stop financially supporting the NBA until; my interest has also gone to near zero, but I'm sure it could be sparked again.
I likely will informally stop financially supporting the NBA until; my interest has also gone to near zero, but I'm sure it could be sparked again.
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
So, in a 30-team league, the #1 seed in each conf. would get a 1st-rd Bye. And then in shortened series, upsets would be more likely.Nate wrote:.. if success is almost exclusively measured in playoff outcomes then the league could simply "increase equality" by running a playoff tournament with the whole league, and shortening the individual series.
Yes, all 30 teams would have a chance at winning a playoff series or more. The 2016 Spurs could have lost to the Lakers 2-1, or even 3-2. Would that have saved Byron Scott's job? Would it have made the Lakers more formidable going into next season?
And then would "equality" be served by annually culling out some teams that should be in the playoffs but lost in this preliminary round? Would there be even less incentive to win games in the RS, when there is no chance of missing the PO?
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
There probably hasn't been a lot of GM price variation but the information is scant. It might be increasing. And relative lack of variation doesn't prove relative manager equality. GMs, typically middle aged and older, maybe value stability, having power & being surrounded my their staff and players, and haning longevity to realize their plans over going for the maximum annual salary. Pushing for higher salaries would likely increase turnover rates.
Inequitable distribution of top talent among teams existed before max salaries and was probably actually worse. Team success was unequally distributed too. Team management quality varied more than suggested here imo. And players like to win. That isn't going to change. There will be some tendency to cluster.
This decade (2010-2016) already has more different title winners than any decade since 70s. System can still be played by the smartest but it will be difficult to stay at very top for 3 or more close in time titles. It probably shouldn't be impossible.
We really need to see spending and performance inequality levels for earlier time periods before judging it for recent times. It may be out there in the academic research but I don"t feel like digging for it at the moment.
It would be tough to be a fan of a weak team and maybe there are ways to speed ability to change; but a highly equitable league where all teams bounced in and out of contention and in and out of playoffs might not be as great as imagined to everybody. A lot of hardcore fans of good teams would not put up with the volatility. It is an enjoyable, sustainable habit when it is mostly upbeat. Just 50%? I can probably find something else more enjoyable and reliable.
Without superteams the NBA would probably appeal far less to casuals. As good as they have it right now, the NBA is maybe 6-8th most popular sport (NFL, MLB, NCAA football, maybe NCAA basketball, NASCAR, Olympics, global "football"). Without superteams they would earn far less on national tv and / or probably be on less frequently (perhaps ESPN or TNT instead of both. It could drift towards local only for regular season). Without superteams the NBA would probably have achieved 10-30% of what they have in global attention and sales. Without superteams going forward they will have a harder time expanding further or even maintaining the current level of interest. It is a business first.
A play in round for last playoff seeds would probably deliver a fair amount of new hope at minimum disruption. 1-3 game play in for teams ranked 8 & 9 each conference for 8th seed or even 7-10 for 7th and 8th seeds.
Adding a 5th-6th year back to just the first non-rookee contract could have some impact on clustering on top teams. Or make the difference between pay on retaining and new teams somewhat bigger.
I am not sure eliminating max salaries would work that well but before that I doubt a majority of both owners and players could be achieved. If you undo these rules on principles you probably should eliminate rookie contracts and get rid of draft. But football, baseball and basketball all imposed these things on themselves for reasons that would rear their heads again.
Inequitable distribution of top talent among teams existed before max salaries and was probably actually worse. Team success was unequally distributed too. Team management quality varied more than suggested here imo. And players like to win. That isn't going to change. There will be some tendency to cluster.
This decade (2010-2016) already has more different title winners than any decade since 70s. System can still be played by the smartest but it will be difficult to stay at very top for 3 or more close in time titles. It probably shouldn't be impossible.
We really need to see spending and performance inequality levels for earlier time periods before judging it for recent times. It may be out there in the academic research but I don"t feel like digging for it at the moment.
It would be tough to be a fan of a weak team and maybe there are ways to speed ability to change; but a highly equitable league where all teams bounced in and out of contention and in and out of playoffs might not be as great as imagined to everybody. A lot of hardcore fans of good teams would not put up with the volatility. It is an enjoyable, sustainable habit when it is mostly upbeat. Just 50%? I can probably find something else more enjoyable and reliable.
Without superteams the NBA would probably appeal far less to casuals. As good as they have it right now, the NBA is maybe 6-8th most popular sport (NFL, MLB, NCAA football, maybe NCAA basketball, NASCAR, Olympics, global "football"). Without superteams they would earn far less on national tv and / or probably be on less frequently (perhaps ESPN or TNT instead of both. It could drift towards local only for regular season). Without superteams the NBA would probably have achieved 10-30% of what they have in global attention and sales. Without superteams going forward they will have a harder time expanding further or even maintaining the current level of interest. It is a business first.
A play in round for last playoff seeds would probably deliver a fair amount of new hope at minimum disruption. 1-3 game play in for teams ranked 8 & 9 each conference for 8th seed or even 7-10 for 7th and 8th seeds.
Adding a 5th-6th year back to just the first non-rookee contract could have some impact on clustering on top teams. Or make the difference between pay on retaining and new teams somewhat bigger.
I am not sure eliminating max salaries would work that well but before that I doubt a majority of both owners and players could be achieved. If you undo these rules on principles you probably should eliminate rookie contracts and get rid of draft. But football, baseball and basketball all imposed these things on themselves for reasons that would rear their heads again.
-
ampersand5
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:18 pm
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
The issue is not just GM price variation, but the relationship between their salaries and perceived value in comparison to other expenses (ie players).Crow wrote:There probably hasn't been a lot of GM price variation but the information is scant. It might be increasing. And relative lack of variation doesn't prove relative manager equality. GMs, typically middle aged and older, maybe value stability, having power and being surrounded my their staff and players and relative longevity to realize their plans over going for the maximum annual salary. Pushing for higher salaries would likely increase turnover rates.
Inequitable distribution of top talent among teams existed before max salaries and was probably actually worse. Team success was unequally distributed too. Team management quality varied more than suggested here imo. And players like to win. That isn't going to change. There will be some tendency to cluster.
This decade (2010-2016) already has more different title winners than any decade since 70s. System can still be played by the smartest but it will be difficult to stay at very top for 3 or more close in time titles. It probably shouldn't be impossible.
We really need to see spending and performance inequality levels for earlier time periods before judging it for recent times. It may be out there in the academic research but I don"t feel like digging for it at the moment.
It would be tough to be a fan of a weak team and maybe there are ways to speed ability to change; but a highly equitable league where all teams bounced in and out of contention and in and out of playoffs might not be as great as imagined to everybody. A lot of hardcore fans of good teams would not put up with the volatility. It is an enjoyable, sustainable habit when it is mostly upbeat. Just 50%? I can probably find something else more enjoyable and reliable.
Without superteams the NBA would probably appeal far less to casuals. As good as they have it right now, the NBA is maybe 6-8th most popular sport (NFL, MLB, NCAA football, maybe NCAA basketball, NASCAR, Olympics, global "football"). Without superteams they would earn far less on national tv and / or probably be on less frequently (perhaps ESPN or TNT instead of both).
Your next point is something that likely is right, and worth looking into. I really don't know much about the NBA before I started watching, so I don't know why there was so little parity in previous eras. I welcome any comments on this issue. That being said, I don't want to compare the current problems to past eras, but to an objective standard. I'm not suggesting that things were better before, but that under the current system, the league has less integrity and competition than I think it could and should have.
I'll just relay an anecdotal example - as a passionate Toronto Raptor fan, our team is the best it has ever been, yet nobody really cares or thinks we have a future. I believe that the overwhelming majority of fanbases feel the same way.
You're right that superteams might be good for casuals, or raise more interest on national TV, but that was never my point. It is important that we don't conflate what the NBA means. The NBA = the interest of 30 team owners, not the cumulative NBA entity.
If something is against the interests of all 30 (or at any given time, 25/30 teams) NBA teams, then it is bad for the league as a whole, because it is bad for the parties that make up the interests of the league. This is true even if it ostensibly makes the cumulative NBA entity better off.
If things don't change, I think there is a serious possibility that the NBA moves to a European football model where winning championships is not the goal of most teams (because it's viewed as being out of reach), and smaller goals make up the fan interest.
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
"The NBA = the interest of 30 team owners, not the cumulative NBA entity."
I think teams earn about as much from collectively generated league / partnership revenues now as local team revenues produced still in partnership and over time I imagine the league level collected revenues will be a larger percentage of total revenues over time.
Eliminate max salaries without an absolute hard cap and you just narrow the number of billionaire owners willing to pay 50-100-200 million above the soft cap. Can a hard cap withstand legal challenge? I doubt it. Player de-certify union, sue, win, at least for one moment then probably unionize again later. Turmoil spoiling the game. Will probably stay imperfectly inequitable.
I think teams earn about as much from collectively generated league / partnership revenues now as local team revenues produced still in partnership and over time I imagine the league level collected revenues will be a larger percentage of total revenues over time.
Eliminate max salaries without an absolute hard cap and you just narrow the number of billionaire owners willing to pay 50-100-200 million above the soft cap. Can a hard cap withstand legal challenge? I doubt it. Player de-certify union, sue, win, at least for one moment then probably unionize again later. Turmoil spoiling the game. Will probably stay imperfectly inequitable.
-
ampersand5
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:18 pm
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
Yes, but NBA teams are not owned as a financial investment in isolation.Crow wrote:"The NBA = the interest of 30 team owners, not the cumulative NBA entity."
I think teams earn about as much from collectively generated league / partnership revenues now as local team revenues produced still in partnership and over time I imagine the league level collected revenues will be a larger percentage of total revenues.
Most owners care about winning, and the others care about the value of the local brand because they own many vertically integrated products.
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
NBA franchises are franchises of a league with the right to make rules and buy back or even terminate franchises. A team acts independently within a sphere but remains a member in a club. A club with inequitable results and means AND contributions. It got slapped together over time. Start completely over and it will be different in ways perhaps. Maybe smaller, even more permanently controlled by the elite members. Sort of like it actually started, just richer, less needy of others than back then.
I assume no max salaries in euroleague or ACB. Is equality greater there? Don't follow closely but I think the answer is heck no.
I assume no max salaries in euroleague or ACB. Is equality greater there? Don't follow closely but I think the answer is heck no.
Re: Article: Inequality-in-the-nba
it's a little ironic that when a shitty franchise that has been a joke for the majority of the past 25 years suddenly becomes a juggernaut, there's an outcry about how other teams will never have a chance
regardless, i am totally down for a no-max (and no-draft) NBA with a hard cap at the current luxury level
probably won't happen because it basically sacrifices 90% of the nbpa's members for the enrichment of the top 10%, but then again, a lot of those top players are in nbpa leadership, so who knows?
regardless, i am totally down for a no-max (and no-draft) NBA with a hard cap at the current luxury level
probably won't happen because it basically sacrifices 90% of the nbpa's members for the enrichment of the top 10%, but then again, a lot of those top players are in nbpa leadership, so who knows?