Wages of Wins
by supac on Feb 1, 2008 3:00 AM PST
Email
PrintHere is DB's WP stats for every player in the L, up to the mid-way point of this season:
http://www.wagesofwins.com/AllPlayersMid0708.html
Camby is at 2...wow. And Kidd at 5 suprises me - how do you produce wins for a team that, well, doesn't? Kaman is at 15, but his WP48 is on the low side. Just from a glance it looks like WP really favors rebounds (and to a lesser degree assists).
As far as the rest of the Clips, I'm going to ignore everyone else with a positive WP other than Diaz at 258, 0.1 WP. So a double 10-day contract temp has been more "helpful" to the Clips than: Ross (281, 0 WP), Powell (321, -0.1 WP), Frahm (381, -0.4 WP), Davis (385, -0.4 WP)...and...wait for it...TT (421, -0.9 WP)!
Oh there's one last Clipper. Our very own Al Thornton. Rookie game snub. The same stud we saw during the NJ and Atl home games. He comes in at 440. Yes, FOUR HUNDRED AND FOURTY. The 7TH WORST NBA player at -1.9 WP. Color me confused.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Win Score
Thornton has been an inefficient scorer, a poor rebounder and even worse in the assist column. Win Score is not his friend.
It is worth noting that since January he's been much better. His shooting percentage is up, as are his assists (a little).
We'll need John R to give a more thorough defense of Win Score.
Defense, clap-clap
It is a brutal stat to look at cold though. I'd recommend reading the book to anyone that is interested. It might not sway you, but it is another way of thinking about the meta-game of the NBA: Putting a team on the floor within the contraints of the salary cap.
Al Thornton is a great example. I'll try expand on what ClipperSteve said and to be fair, but it will come off as brutal anyway. The kid doesnt do anything but score. Yes, he had a brilliant block but it was 1 block out of 16 he has in 39 games he has appeared in. For a forward he is a poor rebounder and he doesn't create for others so no assists. He does a good job of not getting turnovers, but since a turnover and a missed shot are the same thing, it all comes out in the wash.
So lets look at this scoring. I suspect in a theoretical case, a scorer could be so efficient that he could have a very high win score. (Sure enough... Unfortunately the stats for vs ATL seems to be broken.) Despite some flashes from Al, he is inconsistant, as we would expect a rookie to be.
He has games of 13-20, 8-12, 7-11, 10-17 shooting. All very good. But he also has nights of 3-13, 4-14, 4-12, 3-10, 8-19, 1-7. 1-6, 4-10, 7-17. All bad to very bad.
So as far as WoW is concerned, he only burns possessions. And for every night he has a done a great job of using them, he has more where he did an average to bad job.
Finally, since Al is a forward and WoW is position-aware, WoW has higher expectations of him in the rebounding and FG% departments. This can drive him down further.
Its all just food for thought for me.
Not brutal...
Near the bottom of that table I noticed the name of another rookie. A kid named Durant.
I have issues with Win Score. I understand that Berri et al arrived at it through a regression, but the simple fact is you can't really regress what is 'actually' important. The analyst's perspective enters into that as well. So one can arrive at a formula that adds up to the right number of wins - but that doesn't mean it's the right formula and is measuring the right things.
And in the end, Win Score doesn't pass the sniff test. There are too many head-scratchers in there for my money.
Other bloggers have dissected Win Score more thoroughly, eloquently and relentlessly than I. I find it to be an interesting tool - one that filters out the sometimes blinding light of scoring. So I am intrigued by the fact that it reduces Carmelo Anthony to the 88th best player in the league or Rashard Lewis to the 343rd best. I find those players to be overrated and one-dimensional, so as I say I'm intrigued. But I don't believe for a minute that Carmelo is not, in fact, more valuable than that.
And I want Al Thornton to be a better rebounder and a better playmaker, in short, not to just be a Carmelo Anthony.
Scoring may be overrated, but it is still incredibly significant. Take Camby versus Kaman. What's more valuable? Camby's .4 extra rebounds per game? His .8 extra blocked shots? Or is Kaman's 8 more points more valuable? And as it happens, Camby shoots a poorer percentage from both the field and the line than Kaman. In the WoW algebra, Kaman is burning possessions (with shots and with turnovers) and not getting enough points to make him more valuable than Camby. But as observers of the NBA, we know that the fact that the Clippers can throw the ball to Kaman in the post, and have him score or draw a double team to get a scoring opportunity for his teammates, is incredibly valuable on the offensive end. It makes him significantly more valuable than Camby as long as he's doing so well on the glass and blocking shots.
Kaman is obviously very highly ranked in Win Score - much higher than in PER. And Camby is a great player. But the fact that Kaman creates shots for himself and his teammates, while Camby does not, is clearly a plus (in actually putting points on the board) not a minus (in wasting some possessions) to coaches, savvy observers, etc.
So I like Win Score as a way to look at the NBA in a different way, and it makes me think about some stuff. But I often disagree with it.
by Steve Perrin on Feb 1, 2008 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Totally fair
If Iverson is so good, why are his teams always so bad? He hasn't really improved Denver since he got there.
Isn't Iverson/Melo/Camby a "big 3?" NBA marketing hype and scoring says yes. Results and WoW say no, not really. More like a big 1.5.
But no metric is perfect and we should all go into everything with eyes open.
Iverson...
Larry Brown found a formula that (in the Eastern Conference anyway) advanced to the Finals using an incredibly prolific if inefficient scorer, surrounded by role players.
But Denver is languishing in 7th with 2 all star starters and the defensive POY. Maybe Karl isn't as good a coach as LB. No, that couldn't be it.
by Steve Perrin on Feb 1, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Its possible its coaching
About that Finals team, as long as we rethink Iverson, isn't it worth going back and rethinking his roleplayers? He has quite a few guys with above average PERs. Mutombo posted a PER of 19.6 that season and was only 34. 14pts and 14reb and 3blk per game during the playoffs.
I think its a combination of putting guys around him to fit as the CW says, but those guys weren't as bad as the CW says either. Maybe the team was good enough to make it in spite of Iverson.
I knew you'd say that :)
Basically, it is a strange team. I cannot think of a less likely NBA Finals participant in my lifetime.
by Steve Perrin on Feb 1, 2008 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
Being a huge
I must say
For example, does anyone really believe that a team can be built around Marcus Camby (putting aside the injury issues - which I do not know if Win takes into account)? He's a great piece, but he's only a piece.
AI is a great scorer, but as you mentioned, he's not an efficient scorer, and perhaps not the best crunch time scorer, both of which would tend to devalue him IMO. I would think that pairing AI (who is in the top 5 in steals and up there in assists) with Carmelo, who is a more efficient scorer and who can be a good rebounder, and Camby (a great defender) should result in a great NBA team.
But it doesn't. The question is why. Not sure what the answer is. I suspect that coaching is a part of the problem and that chemistry may also be an issue (another issue that neither WIN nor other statistical analyses can track). I find it very difficult to watch the Nugs play because their offense has no flow and their defense is spotty. AI dominates the ball. Their pg is an afterthought. They have an up and coming SF in Kleiza but he doesn't get enough burn. SR is a cancer.
Thornton's game against CLE
Why isn't that enough explanation?
Thornton basically used 1/4 of the Clippers' possessions in Cleveland, but he only scored 23 points. Maybe a little more than 1/4 give or take, I don't want to do the math right now. He certainly took more than 1/4 of the shots and close to half the FTA. So if I told you a dude was going to use more than 1/4 of your teams' possessions and only produce 23 points, extrapolating out (generously) to 92 points for the game, you shouldn't expect to win very many NBA games.
So the Sportcenter bottom line shows Thornton had 23 points and 7 rebounds and everyone who didn't see the game thinks the rook played well. Scoring is MASSIVELY overrated as a metric for determining success. If you think about it, rebounding decided that game more than scoring did. When a team gets 15 extra chances, thats like 15 extra points. And sure enough, look at the difference. So when folks say WoW overrated rebounding, I don't know about that.
Q shot 3 of 7 and didn't get to the line. But lets extrapolate that out to the number of possessions that Al used. 43% shooting taken out to 25 attempts (21 FGA + 4 trips to the line) = 21.5 points. So the defensive specialist is almost as efficient as the offensive specialist.
Not good.
The answers (ha) are all there. There is a metric that explains the Nuggets. WoW explains it. It shows, once you read the book, how Carmelo and AI have been massively overrated.
Well
Second, whose fault is it that a player dominates the ball and is scoring inefficiently? The player? I would submit that this is a very complex issue that depends on a number of factors that really can't be reduced to numbers. I suspect that a good coach (aka Larry Brown) can run a system that exploits the most beneficial aspects of the players' specific games and minimizes the least beneficial aspects.
Phil Jackson does a pretty good job with the Lakers and the triangle (although he's constantly battling Kobe's tendencies). Not to rip George Karl, but I wonder whether he's even attempting to do so in Denver.
Iverson is a great, great player for a number of reasons. His talent just needs to be harnessed in a correct way. You can't just send these guys out there without any guidance whatsoever and expect them to perform in an efficient manner.
This of course doesn't always work. I don't blame MDSr for allowing Thornton to spend so much time trying to score because as we all know the Clippers have been decimated and there's literally no one else (unless of course you want to turn offensive powerhouse Q loose).
I guess what I'm saying is
If Allen Iverson hoists up 35 shots, making 10, whose fault is that? Isn't the coach supposed to reign in his players? Why is the team running a system that allows certain players to shoot so much at such a low percentage? Do you really doubt that AI could be more efficient if he was put into a system that allowed him to get the ball in a place that would allow him to be more efficient?
No assumptions
A player is responsible for the decisions they make. In a world where players make more than coaches, its kinda...unrealistic, to say that the coaches have the power. If a player decides to jack up a shot and misses, he has noone to blame but himself. Likewise when Thornton gets insanely hot, we don't give credit to the coach. I think this is one place where your outlook tends to fall very short. If the players fail, it is the coach's fault. If the players succeed, all credit to the players. This is not very congruous.
I agree that the Clippers hands have been tied for the past week, but Thorntons games this past week have fallen perfectly in to form with the rest of his season to date. In general, it doesn't really matter what a player's role is. He is who he is. If Thornton is the primary option, he seems to be red hot one game in three and struggle two out of three. If the Generic Clippers are intact, he seems to be red hot one game in three and struggle two out of three.
In fact, WoW goes WAY BEYOND all this and explains why players jack up their shots (its the money) and why management allows it (also the money.) I mean I just said it, but they prove it.
Let's just say that I wasn't surprised on the way home from the Atlanta game when someone called in to the radio show and said he didn't care if the Clippers won, he just wants to see Thronton shoot 25 times a night. Fans are dazzled by scoring. But scoring is only one part of winning.
Not only the player, but
Of course it matters what the player's role is in the particular system employed. There are many different types of offenses that ask players to do many different kinds of things.
Again, Thornton took so many shots simply because MDSr let him. I fundamentally disagree that Q Ross would be anywhere near as efficient if he was given more shots. If that's WOW's premise, then I just won't agree with it.
Don't you think that Coach Popovich gets the credit in San Antonio, Nelson in GS, Sloan in Utah, and the like? They get the credit when their teams win, as they should. MDSr's system doesn't work so well, which is one of the reasons why the team does not consistently win.
Proof
When I say something matters or doesn't matter, I mean statistically it has been shown that it matters or not.
The fact is, I'm not really interested in fault. That's for other folks. I'm interested in results. Results have reasons.
Even if the coach put the very perfect game plan on the floor, if the players don't or can't execute, that's where the buck stops.
This is where you
Statistics are not necessarily facts or "proof." I disagree with the entire premise upon which the interpretations that you allude to are based. So apparently do a number of people.
by Jax on Feb 4, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
Why not?
We do, because they are.
Owners pay millions of dollars to players based on stats. I hope they know what they are doing.
Statistics
Owners pay millions of dollars for talent, not stats. Why do you think they scout players? It appears that you believe you can measure the value of a player simply by looking at a box score. That's not the case.
by Jax on Feb 4, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
You can
Read the book. Then decide.
14 bucks on amazon right now. I don't need an economist to tell me that's a good value.
Statistics are proof of almost everything. Its how they decide who won the game, right? Once you accept that simple fact, you can go back and look at why they won the game. Its all there in the box score, if you know how to read it.
Morey
But so far, not so good...
BTW, Battier is probably on the opposite end of the AI in terms of CS's Rohrschach test.
Insightful
Maybe not for the reason you think, though.
PER has him at a career 13.9, which is slightly below average. This year he has a PER of 11.4 and a WP48 of 0.075. Average PER is 15. Average WP48 is 0.100. 11.4/15=0.76. .075/.100=0.75.
Freaky.
Mad props to supac.
I like diaries and commments that stimulate.
Switch Ends
Maggette falls in the "I'm trying but I still can't figure out when/where to go" category. Thomas falls in the "I just don't care" category. Cassell falls in the "I care but I'm physically unable to do anything about it" category. A coach can only do so much. A player can only do so much.
It's the same on the offensive end. I think Karl is highly overrated as a coach. But he can only explain to AI/Melo what he wants done. It's up to them to 1) listen, 2) understand, and 3) execute. And to do so for every play is damn near impossible.
A point not often spoken
What if, by simplifying defensive schemes, the coach felt like this would definitely lead to losses?
Is he wrong for not simplifying? Or is his next logical course of action to try to find players who can execute his schemes?
What if he is able to find these players, but is prevented from doing so for marketing/economic reasons?
If that coach is fired, would it change a thing?
The "Perfect Balance"
What if, by following the coach's plays, the player(s) felt like this would lead to fewer points?
Is he wrong for not following? Or is his next logical course of action to break from the play and try to get his team more points?
What if he does just that, and is successful more often than not, but is prevented from further doing so by the coach for control/alpha male reasons?
If the player is replaced, would it change a thing?
I'll say that MDSr is a terrific defensive coach, and a horrific offensive coach. Maybe I'm guilty of slight overstatements, but not by much. If the NBA is a videogame, and MDSr holds the controller, I think the Clips would be a well-oiled machine. But it's not.
Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate. It's because I can't commit myself to either side of the debate. I have enough fingers (and toes) to point at everyone, I'm a generous and charitable distributor of blame. I won't spare Sterling or EBSr. Nor us, the fans. And this season, let's all agree to pin the most blame on the most obvious and uncontrollable culprit: BAD LUCK.
You may be right
The player incapable of playing defense is incapable, but in your scenario, the player on offense is in outright rebellion.
As long as we are alluding to the Clippers, I don't think your specific scenario applies. The players generally execute the plays. During free throws I see the players run over and chat with the coach. We have seen the body language of players who don't respect their coach. They don't run over to talk to him and they certainly don't share a joke and a smile.
I've often wondered if this wasn't primary in shaping perceptions among the Nation. Those who see these sorts of interaction and subtlety and those who mainly watch on TV. Or maybe I just wish it to be true.
I'm not looking for blame, but I'm not really big on lets all share the blame. If you go that route, how can you really know how to fix it?
AI, the Rohrschach test
You should really read some of Ziller's stuff for the Anti-WoW position. He's probably the most eloquent and tenacious of the group that feels that shot creation is vitally important. To the question of Thornton's game in Cleveland, John draws an interesting conclusion - would the team want to end the game with only 92 points as Al burned a quarter of the possessions for only 23? Well, given that the team finished that particular game with 84, 92 would be a decided improvement, right? Sometimes there is no right answer that will result in a win for a team. The Clippers with 80% of the starters sidelined would fall into that category. 7 for 21 from Thornton was not good - but what were the alternatives. And no, you can't just suddenly tell Ross to shoot 21 times. If you give him the ball and tell him to shoot, it won't end well. He certainly won't make a third of such shots. All three of Q's baskets against Cleveland were assisted. Someone else had to create the shot opportunity in order for him to make it.
As I said before, I don't think WoW and Win Score end up being accurate - but I do think it does a good job of illustrating a point that we tend to overrate one dimensional scorers. AI is not the player I would have starting in the All Star Game - i.e. he's not one of the two best guards in the Western Conference. But he's also probably better than the 44th best player in the NBA.
I have
The thing about PER is it is a player rater. It doesn't have anything to do with wins. It fits perception because it is supposed to fit perception. I think we want to believe creating shots in important. I mean when Vince Carter reverse field and scoops in a shot over Kaman off the glass with english, thats a nice finish. But its still only worth two points.
I don't blame Al for that loss. I blame rebounding. And by blaming rebounding I mean I blame the injury/illness to K2 and EB. There was probably no way to win that game. But I wouldn't form my team around the prospect of scoring 92 points on 100 possessions each night.
How does anyone know Ross couldn't keep it up over 21 shots a game? In the Denver game he went 7-11 (as Al went 4-14). Whenever we look at one of these players who went from a bit player to a major player their numbers stay consistent or maybe get better.
Now I'm not advocating it for the Clippers. I'm just saying I think that history sides with me.
Finally on AI...is he the 4th best player in the league? Because that is how he is paid. If he scores, he gets paid. He knows this. How can you blame a coach who can't reign in a player against their economic best interest? I'm not saying Iverson doesn't care about winning, but why should he? His check is wrapped up in 23 points a night. Not winning 55 games.
Again, disagree strongly
Basketball can be a beautiful game. I would suggest that you stop trying to analyze the numbers and just sit back and enjoy it. The deficiencies and strengths of the players in this league are fairly obvious. There's really very little mystery to it.
Let the team professionals do what they are supposed to do, which is (a) find a good coach; (b) find players suited to that coach's system; and (c) make all of this work in a way that the team makes a profit.
If the coach isn't performing, don't re sign him to a $20 million contract. If the players aren't performing, don't re sign them. Trade them. Find others who are better fits with the team.
by Jax on Feb 4, 2008 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
What potential?
I wonder if it is a coincidence that he is tied for 4th in salary with Starbury.
Not to be harsh, but thanks for telling me how to enjoy basketball. If you aren't into stats and the salary cap meta-game, why did you join this thread? We are, that's why we are here.
If the deficiencies and strengths of the players are so obvious, why are there so many badly mismanaged teams out there? Why are clubs bringing in advanced stats guys into management?
If it was so obvious, wins and salary would match up. In the NBA, they rarely do.
If management
Not to be harsh, but what you're suggesting here is that one set of stats is the be all end all of everything, and I'm just pointing out that this is simply not the case.
Regarding AI - no one basketball player can alone win a game. As Supac says below, basketball is a team sport. Having said that, there is significant potential for AI, but like any player he's got to be in a system that is conducive to winning and also paired with other talent.
Of course, you seem to think that a team with five Qs would beat the Nuggets, so perhaps this is a pointless argument.
by Jax on Feb 4, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
Nonsense
Under your system of evaluation, a player is arbitrarily assigned a value, not based on much of anything (certainly not stats since these prove nothing!). At some time, probably by luck, he will enter a winning situation. The situation may be winning because of him, regardless of him or even in spite of him. There is no way to tell this except for arbitrarily deciding. Choosing a meme and sticking to it.
This pretty much describes AI's career. We are still waiting for Denver to get markedly better upon the arrival of the 4th highest paid player. So instead of blaming the player, now George Karl is a bad coach.
The Nuggets had Carmelo and Camby before AI arrived. They got him without giving up anything casual observers would consider significant. They added a supposedly great player. They team has not significantly approved.
Clearly it CANNOT POSSIBLY BE that Allen Iverson is, in fact, not a player that causes your team to win more games.
What is your point?
Just why is it that you are you blaming AI? Because the Nuggets aren't winning? What's he doing wrong in your mind? Be precise. Love to see your analysis.
Players cannot win a title all alone. I don't know whether AI, with all his talents, can ever be paired with anyone so that he would win a title. Maybe there's something inherently wrong wtih his game. I doubt, however, that this is something that can be determined solely by reviewing stats, much less one particular set of stats based on the assumptions set forth in WOW.
I didn't say that stats have no value but rather that they are a tool; nothing more, nothing less.
I don't have a system of evaluation.
by Jax on Feb 4, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
Who's blaming AI?
I feel like this is a common theme. It has to be this or that person's fault. Sometimes I am just describing a situation. A person can choose to accept my description or not. I understand that.
To me, the most likely scenario is the Sixers were wrong when they assessed his value and made him one of the richest few in hoops, and then the Nuggets made the same mistake when the traded Miller's smaller salary for Iverson's and are still getting basically the same results.
But an almost equally likely scenario is that both the Sixers and Nuggets knew what they were doing and wanted Iverson around because he sells tickets.
Nothing really wrong with that either. That's a rational action. That's why I pointed out that caller after the Hawks game. He didn't really care if the Clippers won or not. He would tune in (ticket sales) as long as there was the promise of Al Thornton doing something exciting.
Read the book. The basketball chapters are all about scoring and salary and wins and it is all intertwined. I am making footnotes on footnotes of their work.
I'll make this my last comment to Jax in this thread. He can have the last word.
Maybe there's something inherently wrong wtih his game. I doubt, however, that this is something that can be determined solely by reviewing stats, much less one particular set of stats based on the assumptions set forth in WOW.
If Iverson is the Rorschach test, and we can show that his teams' performance hasn't matched perception of him or his pay, and one metric claims to be able to explain it, why not learn more about it? What can it hurt?
I Love
Perhpas CS can hold a ClipperNation debate. Let the members vote. May the best candidate win. And give him four years of control over matters in ClipperNation.
Or let's just throw them in a steel cage.
Or book them a romantic hotel room. Kidding. I think. :)
I guess I'm glad it's a dictatorship over here and not a democracy.
You made a great diary
If you want to see vitriol, hang out on any WoW post involving Kobe Bryant. You'll probably want to wash your eyeballs out.
Kobe...Lakers...UGH
There are some sharp minds over at FB&G, though. I think you post there too (I don't). I try to direct my friends (all exclusively Laker homers) over there to at least get modestly educated. But there will never be a cure for fanboy-itis and hero worshipping.
Good stuff here by everyone. As Bubbles would say, much obliged. No bout a doubt it. KA would appreciate that reference.
Shot Creation IS Vitally Important
PER, WS, point differential, and whatever new-age hoops statistics are out there are all in their infant stages. We, whether dedicated junkies or casual observers, will instinctively find faults in each and every one them. Basketball statistics will never reach the Moneyball apex of baseball, it doesn't even matter if you separate offense from defense. There's one simple and obvious reason: Basketball involves five players simultaneously, baseball involves one (the batter). And in most cases, basketball has an even more important sixth member, the coach.
The Money...
First of all, I think Jax and John R are playing semi-nice in the sandbox. Thank you, gentleman. Let's continue to keep it civil.
The point I want to make here is about the money. Yes, Allen Iverson is tied for third highest paid player in the league. Tied with Stephon Marbury. And Michael Finley is second. And Shaq is fifth. And Jermaine O'Neal is seventh and Chris Webber is eighth.
Five of the eight highest paid players in the NBA are not on the All Star team and in no way deserve to be. At least Iverson is popular with the fans, and let's not ignore the importance of that.
WoW would argue that GM's are paying for the wrong things, and to a large extent I would agree. After all, Rashard Lewis is the 15th highest paid player in the league.
But guess who is 16th? Ben Wallace. And Andrei Kirilenko is 25th. So it's not just scorers who seem overpaid.
Discussing these players relative salaries is to a large extent pointless, since the NBA is not an open marketplace. The CBA determines maximum salaries and those maximums escalate with years of service. Inevitably, a player's skills diminish even as their salary increases. Hence the Shaqs and Webbers and Finleys on this list. Will Kevin Garnett be 'worth' $21M at the age of 35? Maybe, maybe not.
But salaries are paid based on supply and demand. LeBron James would be worth much more than any of these names, but the CBA limits his salary to $13M this season. When AI last negotiated his contract, Philly was willing to pay the maximum, and almost any other team in the NBA would have done the same at the time. He is the 3rd highest paid player in the NBA not because someone believes he is necessarily the third best, but because he commands a maximum salary and he's been in the league a while. It's that simple.
Now if WoW argues that players should not be paid according to how many points they score but according to how much they contribute to winning, I would agree with the first part. But if we're going to focus on salaries, we should focus on the business of the NBA. So shouldn't players be paid based on how they contribute to the bottom line of the franchise? And that would mean ticket sales and merchandise sales and cable TV deals. Sure, winning teams tend to sell more tickets. But marquee players do as well. And if the casual NBA fan is ignorant enough to be duped into thinking that high scoring players are the best kind of players, well... that's a self fulfilling prophecy for getting paid. Because those casual fans are the ones buying tickets and buying jerseys, right?
So while WoW argues somewhat esoterically that high scorers don't necessarily produce wins and therefore should not be getting paid the highest salaries, they make the mistake of assuming that those people making salary decisions are motivated by wins, when in fact they should be motivated by money.
To put it simply, there is no question in my mind that Allen Iverson would have made money for the Clippers had he come to LA. Whether the team would have won games is a completely different question.
SPOILER ALERT
Now comes the messy part. This can imply a divide in the fanbase into those who want to see scoring and those who want to see wins. Or maybe some only understand wins in terms of scoring? I don't know.
My concern now is that the Clippers will make a move (or not make a move) based on selling tickets and not on winning games. History tends to agree with me here too.
Who needs to win when you can promise the potential for wins by throwing a big-name scoring machine out there? Just fire the coach every couple years and they will keep coming back. He's a big name. Its gotta be the coach's fault, right?
Wacky...
I don't think the Clippers will overreact, and I'll tell you why. Inertia is a powerful force as well. As much as everyone wants to pay lip service to the old trope that 'injuries are not an excuse', of course injuries are a perfectly good excuse. So everyone from DTS gets a do-over on this season, and gets to see what happens with Kaman-Brand-Livingston and (probably inexpensive) tweaks. They could even choose to cut salary significantly and have solid justification. The one thing they won't do is overpay for a big name. At least I don't think they will. No Dominique Wilkins this time.
That's not fair
The Clippers didn't "sell out" to sell tickets before - they just lived on the edge of competency. Why do you think that they are going to go in that direction?
I too am concerned, and upset, because I believe MDSr with his nonsense squandered the chance to get ownership to be more competent. Of course, he opened the purse strings in the first place.
Like it or not, MDSr is not a good coach IMO, regardless of the team's decision to sign players who can help the team win. I think the right coach for example can win with AI - see Larry Brown.
by Jax on Feb 4, 2008 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Hamed Haddadi goes to the zoo
- David Stern changed the competition committee to push new rules, report says
- Nazr Mohammed films Oklahoma City Thunder fans welcoming the team back at 5:30 in the morning (VIDEO)
- The Orlando Magic finally part ways with both Stan Van Gundy and GM Otis Smith
- Mike D’Antoni breaks silence on New York Knicks exit: ‘An obstacle had to be removed’
