APBRmetrics

I can certainly see why Oklahoma did this as the move means less distraction and saves them money. Unfortunately, probably none of the players/picks coming in will have a positive impact in the next <3 years. Maybe they're thinking they can reach the finals without Harden, which is definitely possible as the west doesn't appear to be top-heavy this year. However, everything +/- says Harden was the main driving force behind their offense; and if they can't reach the finals again, won't they wish they had had another shot at a championship, even if it was for only one year? The OKC front office didn't want to go all-in on this one.
In hindsight it was a mistake to trade for an injured 9m/year-Perkins instead of just filling the roster with old, tall veterans on the minimum

The Rockets get a +/- superstar who's also young by only ginving up bad/unproven players. They just went from a ~35W to a ~43W team. From no man's land to no man's land. They're obviously thinking they'll be able sign Harden longterm. They'll need a good forward before they can make some noise

J.E. wrote:In hindsight it was a mistake to trade for an injured 9m/year-Perkins instead of just filling the roster with old, tall veterans on the minimum

Or giving more minutes to Ibaka at C and Durant at PF... or just giving a chance to Cole Aldrich who played well in limited minutes/DLeague and was an unnecessary throw-in here.

J.E. wrote:The Rockets get a +/- superstar who's also young by only ginving up bad/unproven players. They just went from a ~35W to a ~43W team. From no man's land to no man's land.

To waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better no man's land with brighter future ;-)
They stockpiled those assets for a star and they finally did it.

J.E. wrote:They're obviously thinking they'll be able sign Harden longterm.

They'll quickly offer max, why would Harden reject it?

Best way to react to a trade is to do some analysis:

Marginal Value of First Round Picks:
(Source: http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/APBRme ... =2577.html )

and here's a data dump of player values for the next 5 years:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bx1NfC ... V9zb3ItU28

J.E. wrote:I can certainly see why Oklahoma did this as the move means less distraction and saves them money. Unfortunately, probably none of the players/picks coming in will have a positive impact in the next <3 years. Maybe they're thinking they can reach the finals without Harden, which is definitely possible as the west doesn't appear to be top-heavy this year. However, everything +/- says Harden was the main driving force behind their offense; and if they can't reach the finals again, won't they wish they had had another shot at a championship, even if it was for only one year? The OKC front office didn't want to go all-in on this one.
In hindsight it was a mistake to trade for an injured 9m/year-Perkins instead of just filling the roster with old, tall veterans on the minimum

The Rockets get a +/- superstar who's also young by only ginving up bad/unproven players. They just went from a ~35W to a ~43W team. From no man's land to no man's land. They're obviously thinking they'll be able sign Harden longterm. They'll need a good forward before they can make some noise

Biggest story this offseason, obviously. I don't agree with your reasoning as to why they did this: It seems as though this trade window was open the entire year. Why do it now? Is it really inconceivable they wouldn't be able to get a similar package (lukewarm mid 1st rook, expiring, and 2 future ~meh 1sts) from the Rockets again?

As far as the Thunder in the West... This chops them from a ~60-62 to likely a mid 50s, if not closer to low 50s range. Strong playoff team but I have trouble buying real championship equity. The best case explanation is the management feels this locks up that 2nd tier status for the rest of the decade, and by skirting the lux tax, they will continue to pocket 10m/year or whatever, rather than break even or lose slightly.

That troubles me and bothers me. It's a strong case as to why a small market team shouldn't exist in the first place; if you're not going to splurge for a James Harden, (clearly deserving the max in his own right; ~3rd best SG, who likely WILL be the best SG in a year or two) then you're not going to pay anyone. Further confounding things is the cap analysis, with a properly amnestied Perk, actually means the tax isn't too Draconian. For a strong title contender, actually, it's pretty reasonable.

Anyone who believes the Thunder are still a contender are mistaken. The #1 offense owed a huge portion of credit to Harden. He can't simply be replicated, ESPECIALLY not by KMart. (Who looks to be most affected by the rip rule changes) The West is very deep, and I can't separate them from the Nuggets, Grizzlies, Spurs, etc. I'd say the field probably gains the most championship equity, something where it's a 2 horse race with MIA then LAL, and the field a collective ~30% share.

Bobbofitos wrote:It seems as though this trade window was open the entire year. Why do it now?

I'd say less drama. The negative influence probably isn't huge, but it's not a good thing for the team (chemistry) when one important part of the team is constantly involved in contract negotiations and/or trade talks.

As far as the Thunder in the West... This chops them from a ~60-62 to likely a mid 50s, if not closer to low 50s range. Strong playoff team but I have trouble buying real championship equity. The best case explanation is the management feels this locks up that 2nd tier status for the rest of the decade, and by skirting the lux tax, they will continue to pocket 10m/year or whatever, rather than break even or lose slightly.

That troubles me and bothers me. It's a strong case as to why a small market team shouldn't exist in the first place; if you're not going to splurge for a James Harden, (clearly deserving the max in his own right; ~3rd best SG, who likely WILL be the best SG in a year or two) then you're not going to pay anyone.

The Thunder aren't your bottom small market team that constantly wins ~25 games and decides they don't want to pay 4/60 for a good player to get out of that bottom. They already have 3 of the best ~15 young players locked up longterm. Their future looks bright. They simply chose to be very good longterm, instead of extremely good one year, and then just good after that. I like that. Too many teams don't look ahead too much, and it usually hurts them

Anyone who believes the Thunder are still a contender are mistaken. The #1 offense owed a huge portion of credit to Harden. He can't simply be replicated, ESPECIALLY not by KMart. (Who looks to be most affected by the rip rule changes) The West is very deep, and I can't separate them from the Nuggets, Grizzlies, Spurs, etc. I'd say the field probably gains the most championship equity, something where it's a 2 horse race with MIA then LAL, and the field a collective ~30% share.

Interestingly the Thunder are at (over 58W: 1.85, under 58W: 2.00) at pinnacle, so Vegas expects them to win more than 58. Houston's over/under is @~31. That seems damn low. Where was it before the trade?

I have Harden as +3 and Martin as 0. Taking playing time into account, the downgrade for the OKC and the upgrade for the Rockets would be 2 pts per game.

That means the Rockets should add about 6 wins and the Thunder should lose about 5 wins with that (non-linear approach used). That makes about 55 wins for the Thunder and 41 wins for the Rockets as my estimates.

I have Harden as 2.13 and Martin as 0.75, so much smaller a gap.

DSmok - I have Harden +4.1 and Martin -0.1. Harden is also able to log many more minutes, as KMart is injured every other game.

Mystic - 41 wins for the Rockets seems overly generous

JE - People initially hammered the under in Vegas, along with other bets (Thunder vs Heat, Thunder vs LA, etc.) so they were taken down. I'm a bit surprised the future is still @ 58.

The main issue I have is this:

The Thunder aren't your bottom small market team that constantly wins ~25 games and decides they don't want to pay 4/60 for a good player to get out of that bottom. They already have 3 of the best ~15 young players locked up longterm. Their future looks bright. They simply chose to be very good longterm, instead of extremely good one year, and then just good after that. I like that. Too many teams don't look ahead too much, and it usually hurts them

Going from w25->41 is not nearly the move that going from 55->62 (approximately) is. One move may actually hurt longterm prospect and lock up mediocrity, the other presents a real title equity shift, from very nominal to very real.

Further, locking up Harden wouldnt prevent them from being just good the years after... It also hinges on what sort of deal they could conceivably get if they S&T Harden for the max come next year. (Which is a reasonable outcome) This was a move for Clay Bennett to lock up hefty profit rather than sensibly paying for a contender, and although Presti is doing maybe/probably the best he can, it's still losing value.

I have them losing 3 wins or so, from 55 to 52 (my model has quite a bit of regression built in). All it did was drop them from 2nd to 3rd (behind the Spurs).

For that, they turned a player without a ton of excess value (salary vs. open market salary) after this season into Lamb (+$12 mil), a Toronto Lottery Pick (About 9th or 10th, worth maybe $13 million), the Dallas pick ($5 million), and the Charlotte pick ($5 million).

That said, if you apply a discount rate to the future, and the rate should be pretty high, it hurts the value some. But in the long haul, OKC added perhaps $20 million in value vs. the salary cap.

DSMok1 wrote:Best way to react to a trade is to do some analysis:

Marginal Value of First Round Picks:

I don't think that your assessment is a good way to judge the value of draftpicks. The new CBA changed the amount of money the teams are charged with for veterans. And even the old CBA had the real costs for veterans fixed.

Last season for example 110 players signed for the veteran minimum. They had an average salary of $586050 and an average WS/48 of 0.044. If we look at the minute weighted average, it becomes $706199 for 0.076 WS/48. That essentially means that late first round picks are more expensive than signing a veteran to the minimum. And there are obviously enough veterans willing to do that. So, I'm not quite sure that those late pick by the Mavericks is actually giving you $5m over a real available replacement.

Maybe you need to adjust your model here in order to accommodate changes in the CBA.


Bobbofitos, I'm wondering how low you had the Rockets before the trade. With your bigger difference between Martin and Harden, it would essentially add 9 wins to a 32 wins team in order to come up with 41 wins. Do you had the Rockets way lower than that?

DSMok1 wrote:I have them losing 3 wins or so, from 55 to 52 (my model has quite a bit of regression built in). All it did was drop them from 2nd to 3rd (behind the Spurs).

For that, they turned a player without a ton of excess value (salary vs. open market salary) after this season into Lamb (+$12 mil), a Toronto Lottery Pick (About 9th or 10th, worth maybe $13 million), the Dallas pick ($5 million), and the Charlotte pick ($5 million).

That said, if you apply a discount rate to the future, and the rate should be pretty high, it hurts the value some. But in the long haul, OKC added perhaps $20 million in value vs. the salary cap.

The problem though is that's value that's realized for the owner, not for the fan. As in, what's the difference between earning 52 wins on 60 million or 55 wins on 70 million? To us, largely, it's 3 wins - that's not money from our pocket, nor does it actually illustrate potential basketball moves. Since that potential basketball move would be, well, I dunno, signing someone like James Harden.

In real terms though there's a huge shift from the marginal win above the 55 win cap or so; we can (fairly?) say a team without, say, 48 wins has 0% championship equity; maybe it's actually .1, but collectively the field constitutes less than 1%, when you're around that range.

However, at the top (MIA and LAL primarily, a few 2nd tier teams around the bottom) are fighting quite literally for massive chunks of championship equity there... So not all wins are created equal, basically.

My thoughts are that if the standing orders were to unload James Harden (which from Clay Bennett, they certainly were - I can't imagine this was Presti's innovation) they got a fine deal. The only problem is "fine" is relative; the best deal of all is simply retaining James Harden.

mystic, what I did to generate the marginal value:

-Calculated median production for the first 4 years
-Converted production to dollars, based on league-wide average value (3.8 million per point of VORP)
-Compare to rookie wage scale

I do need to update for the latest CBA, but shouldn't change that much...

mystic wrote:

DSMok1 wrote:Best way to react to a trade is to do some analysis:

Marginal Value of First Round Picks:

I don't think that your assessment is a good way to judge the value of draftpicks. The new CBA changed the amount of money the teams are charged with for veterans. And even the old CBA had the real costs for veterans fixed.

Last season for example 110 players signed for the veteran minimum. They had an average salary of $586050 and an average WS/48 of 0.044. If we look at the minute weighted average, it becomes $706199 for 0.076 WS/48. That essentially means that late first round picks are more expensive than signing a veteran to the minimum. And there are obviously enough veterans willing to do that. So, I'm not quite sure that those late pick by the Mavericks is actually giving you $5m over a real available replacement.

Maybe you need to adjust your model here in order to accommodate changes in the CBA.


Bobbofitos, I'm wondering how low you had the Rockets before the trade. With your bigger difference between Martin and Harden, it would essentially add 9 wins to a 32 wins team in order to come up with 41 wins. Do you had the Rockets way lower than that?

My projections are here: http://bit.ly/Y41J5n

I had them as a -4.0 PD team, so 29 wins.

I'll write a collective table and adjust for this trade sometime tonight. However there's a hurricane going on so I may not pump it out before the season starts!

I should probably just do it now, and figure out the Rockets' new win projection with Harden.

Bobbofitos wrote: My thoughts are that if the standing orders were to unload James Harden (which from Clay Bennett, they certainly were - I can't imagine this was Presti's innovation) they got a fine deal. The only problem is "fine" is relative; the best deal of all is simply retaining James Harden.

I think you are missing some implications from the CBA which would come with keeping Harden at max level salary. Teams, which pay the luxury tax are excluded from the possibility to make a sign-and-trade. Also, if you want to use the full MLE in order to sign someone, a team creates a hard cap at the APRON (lux tax threshold plus $3m). Keeping Harden would have pushed the Thunder close to APRON in the upcoming years, which means they could have only used the $3m Mini-MLE instead of the $5m full MLE. There are also differences in terms of trade rules. Tax paying teams can only take back 125% of the outgoing salary, while non-taxpaying teams can take back 150% until $9.8m outgoing and then until $19.6m they can add $5m. That makes trades for non-taxpaying teams easier to achieve, because they can offer more salary relief for example.
That is not even all things here, which needs to be considered, because in the future the luxury tax gets harsher for teams which were multiple offenders.

Overall not keeping Harden is not just something for Bennett's pocket, but has also positive consequences for the future financial flexibility in order to get opportunistic.

DSMok1 wrote:mystic, what I did to generate the marginal value:

-Calculated median production for the first 4 years
-Converted production to dollars, based on league-wide average value (3.8 million per point of VORP)
-Compare to rookie wage scale

I do need to update for the latest CBA, but shouldn't change that much...

I saw the thread in which you explained it. But I really think that there is not a linear relationship between "production" and "price". Especially the veteran minimum players increased their value under the new CBA and at the first glance the mid to late 1st rounders became less valuable. As a contending team I ask myself: Do I want to develop a young player or can I just sign a veteran instead? I guess that also implies that the value of a draft pick changes with the different strength of teams.

Also, why are you using median and not average? Isn't it more likely to get an average player for the position? Assuming average is lower than median value.