2011 Overpaid Players
Williams more overpaid than Davis? If only we could all focus on results and not expectations...
11 months ago
John R
79 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I saw
Failed attempt at sarcasm on my part.
I really have no idea why people keep on bringing up Travis Outlaw
So NJN is stupider than the Clippers. Big deal.
by Michael White on Jul 1, 2011 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Personally, I've never brought him up before
I understand what you’re saying, though. I just like typing “Travis Outlaw.”
I believe that some people brought him up here as an example
of the failure of the FO to sign FAs
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Travis Outlaw is the guy that makes Ryan Gomes look good by comparison
I think it’s a coping mechanism that we keep bringing him up.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Cherrypicking?
Mo struggled through a career worst season last year. Looking at only one season of play and extrapolating future value for these two players is flawed analysis.
Looking at production over the past three seasons, the picture changes quite a lot, especially taking into consideration that Baron was the more highly paid player of the two during that time (and going forward).
Baron put up WP’s of 3.5, 6.2, and 1.5 (11.2 total).
Mo put up WP’s of 0.1, 5.2, and 7.1 (12.4 total).
Also, it’s worth noting that Mo played much better in LA than he did in Cleveland. I don’t have the split on his WP’s, but in terms of WS/48, Mo played a little below his career average in LA (0.073 v. 0.088), and was awful in Cleveland (-0.005). Last season looks like a statistical anomaly in Mo’s overall career from here.
My position on the Baron trade hasn’t changed much since shortly after the trade was made. I can’t accurately judge it without knowing how the Clippers use their cap space. I can say that over the past three seasons, Mo has been the better player. Mo also seems to be the better bet to produce commensurate with his contract going forward. The Clippers may miss Baron’s passing, but they sure don’t miss his shooting. And they picked up a reasonably productive PG to replace him.
by ClipCat on Jul 1, 2011 11:56 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Mo played better in LA
But not as well as Baron did.
I don’t know why both the stat head (John and I) and the scouting guys (everybody else) aren’t in agreement on this. From a scouting perspective it seems like a no-brainer. Mo isn’t even a freaking point guard. He’s like the textbook definition of a combo guard. Yes, he can shoot which is great. But the best offense being run last year was the pick and roll with BG and EJ and the lob alley-oop from Baron to DJ and BG. We basically lost one of the two offensive plays the team ran. Rewind a year and the best play the team ran was the pick and pop with Baron and Kaman.
by Michael White on Jul 1, 2011 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Completely serious suggestion
Willie Warren might be the best “true point guard” still on the team.
by Michael White on Jul 1, 2011 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess the fact that BD showed up fat and out of shape and got hurt causing an 0-13 start
doesn’t factor into his play relative to Mo. I wonder if one could say that this effectively sabotaged the season . . .
I wonder if there’s a stat for fat and out of shape PGs who get hurt causing a horrible start to a season which you could work into your statistical analysis. Not that I really care whether Mo is a PG or not.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Jul 1, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
While that's also true
I’m calling small sample size on the post trade comparison, especially since after the trade Baron missed 10 of 25 games and started only 9 times. Also, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that “everybody else” is a scouting guy when everything in my post was stats or derived from stats. I don’t claim to be a statistical expert at all, but I do understand numbers enough to recognize the flaw in considering only one season’s stats when projecting the future, which is all that really matters.
Taking your also arbitrary 3 season arc into consideration
One player had an average WP/48 of 0.083 and the other had an average WP/48 of 0.085.
Its not really accurate to describe either one as “better”.
So his decision to take 3 seasons into account is arbitrary but
the decision to focus on only one season is not arbitrary?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
It is arbitrary, of course
But we do it all the time. The MVP award isn’t arbitrary, is it?
The difference is I wasn’t the one waving around incorrect accusations of cherry picking.
Idiot.
What's the difference?
You clearly have a viewpoint regarding the BD trade. This post seems to support your viewpoint. You could pick all kinds of stats to analyze the two players involved, but you picked this. Presumably to support your opinion.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
LOL
Yes, it is the first time I have ever linked to a Most Overpaid or Most Overrated or anything like that on the Wages of Wins Journal.
What’s that? I link to all of them?
Just more Jax lies.
Not sure what I'm lying about
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Its probably gotten really hard for you to keep track
We understand.
No, just not interested
I do find this comment interesting though: “Williams more overpaid than Davis? If only we could all focus on results and not expectations…”
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Jul 1, 2011 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Right - they are about the same - but one is far cheaper than the other
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
That first season in LAC was terrible
Fine, I’m a BD apologist I guess, but I’d call that the anomoly here.
by Michael White on Jul 1, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I mean if you want to talk cherrypicking
You couldn’t have made it worse for Baron Davis by stopping at 3 years. The two years prior to that he equaled Williams’ total for the last three years each year…
Three seasons is arbitrary, but reasonable. I chose it to compare the two players since Baron’s time with the Clippers began (and Mo’s time with Cleveland, too). For purposes of evaluating the trade (i.e. projecting their current level of “overpaid”), it seemed to be the logical period to evaluate.
To me, there are only two meaningful periods to evaluate
If you want to talk about what they did last season, you talk about what they did last season.
If you want to talk about the future, you use their entire careers and compare versus historical similars.
Anything else is completely arbitrary.
Should their relative ages factor into the future analysis?
What about the contracts?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
How can you compare historical similars without taking age into account?
How can you talk about who is overpaid without taking contracts into account?
Idiot.
There you go again
Memo to John R – if you are going to post on a website, be prepared for other people to discuss the issues. They might actually call into question some of your assumptions.
Reading this post, it is obvious that you are so defensive that it gets in the way of objectivity.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Cool
So you didn’t have anything more on topic to say. Its always about me with you. At least you tried to pretend it wasn’t for a minute this time. But we could all see right through that.
Idiot.
I wasn't focusing on you
Actually, I didn’t know who made the post. I thought it was interesting and a good topic of discussion
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
You didn't know you were replying to me?
Hilarious.
No, just saw the post and read the link
Sorry to disappoint but happy to humor you
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Hey, if you are going to try to claim that you didn't know the comment you hit the little reply button on wasn't written by me
I’ll let everyone judge your honesty on that point for themselves.
No offense but I doubt anyone here shares your obsessions
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Jul 1, 2011 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, that's you projecting again
My passions include basketball and advanced stats, yours include me. So yes, we don’t share obsessions, but your silly mind is having trouble keeping things straight again.
Well, you call me names all the time
I tend to chalk that up to obsession
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Jul 1, 2011 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
One can have fun without it being an obsessesion
And it is certainly fun to show you up. And easy.
Calling others names is juvenile
Which is why I keep offering you free advice to act like an adult.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Jul 1, 2011 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
chuck d says,
“HERE WE GO AGAIN!”
No gang...... Independent....
by Clipochistic on Jul 3, 2011 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
One other meaningful comparison:
The duration of their current contracts.
Their entire careers would also include cheap rookie contracts, so careers might be difficult to assess without evaluating all of their career contracts.
Fair enough on the stats thing
It wasn’t my intention to call you out.
by Michael White on Jul 1, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, I sort of thought you called everyone out except for you and John R
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Would me calling you a non-stats guy be "calling you out" ?
That much seems obvious. In every thread you mention the limitations of statistics.
I was mostly saying that John R and I seem the most slavish to statistics.
by Michael White on Jul 1, 2011 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Yah I understand
I think statts are very helpful. I don’t think I mention that in every thread . . .
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Starting to miss ClipperChuck
Anybody checked the morgue or is he just training?
"Nobody thinks of Scottie Pippen. The reason I do is because he is named after my favorite musical" Phil Dunphy
I suppose whether or not someone is a stats guy is a pretty relative thing. I’m not claiming anything more than being an interested Clipper fan with an interest in numbers. But if there’s a split between stats and scouting, I’m definitely on the stats side. I don’t get to watch enough games to base my opinions on anything else. I didn’t feel particularly called out by your (MW) statement, but I was surprised by it as a response to what I wrote.
I don't understand why I'm a "non-stats guy"
I actually like stats and believe they are useful. I guess you could call me skeptical of the opinions some make based on certain stats. But that’s just because I’m interested in the numbers.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Jul 1, 2011 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
"Perhaps there’s more to life than stats . "
“Stats are overrated”
“Stats do not tell the whole story.”
“Same with those who use stats to form such opinions”
And unlike you, I didn’t even have to leave June 2011. You are clearly at minimum a non-stats guy and its fair to call you anti-stats. You don’t understand them as you have demonstrated time and again so how could you be a proponent of them.
You can certainly call me what you will
(and you do). But please do not confuse the fact that I disagree with your often flawed and biased interpretations of them to mean that I don’t understand them.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Jul 1, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
It seems like everyone has the same impression of you
So this one isn’t just me. But yeah, you are pro-stats, which are also overrated. Is there anything you won’t lie about?
Really, this discussion is going nowhere
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Jul 1, 2011 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
A classic pro-stats quote from Jax...
“I disagree that “advanced” (read – unnecessary) stats are that helpful for reasons that have been well documented"
They are unnecessary and not helpful, but you are for them. Check.
“You need to view the team as a whole and you can’t just look at stats to determine whether the SF needs to be upgraded.”
That’s just LOL.
“Individual stats do not necessarily translate to "wins""
If one doesn’t believe individual stats don’t have anything to do with team success, I don’t see how one could also possibly claim to value individual stats.
“He has no idea – he just looks at the stats”
Heh, if you can’t get an idea from the stats, how can you be for them?
Man there are like 200 more like this.
Two offensive plays? Sounds about right
If I had a nickel for every time someone set an off-the-ball screen, I’d have a handful of otter pops.
Baron was better, yes, but not per dollar (over a 3 yr period), which seems to be ClipCat's point
However, as we’ve already gone over in other threads, wins-produced-per-dollar doesn’t really matter when you’re not even spending your full cap. Thanks DTS.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
No I was saying Mo has been the better player over the past three seasons
I’ll concede there’s an argument to be made for either player as being “better” over the past three years depending on which strengths and weaknesses you choose to emphasize. Advanced stats aren’t especially conclusive either. Mo has a slight edge in Wins Produced though the difference is pretty insignificant. In terms of WinShares, Mo leads 17.3 to 7.9. Looking at PER, Baron slightly edges Mo.
Of course as you pointed out, when dollars are factored in, Mo was easily the better value. But whether or not the cap space the Clippers created by moving Baron actually helps to improve the team is still to be determined.
On a related note, it looks like the Cavs don't like BD either
NBA today 6/24
When Ryen Russillo and Chad Ford reviewed the recent draft on their podcast, they were saying how Baron isn’t well-liked by the Cavs (who picked pg of the future, Kyrie Irving at Number 1). So much so that they would probably pull a Jamaal Tinsley on BDiddy, i.e., still pay him but ask him not to show up for work. They think he would be a bad influence on the young’uns on the team.
I didn’t know BDiddy was despised this much by the Cavs. Is this story legit? I’ve never heard of this before.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=3634017
Now I don’t know if this is true, but it sure doesn’t sound very good for BD and supports the Clipper FO’s decision. I wonder if the naysayer(s) will some day appreciate this move.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Good points all
Stats can tell a number of stories – it’s all about what stats you’re interested in.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
What's cherrypicking about it?
Its an analysis of who was the most overpaid players last year. Calling that cherrypicking is equivalent to calling the MVP award cherrypicking because it only takes into account who was the most valuable player that year.
It's the implied use of the WOW table to compare the relative value of Baron v. Mo that is cherrypicking.
Of course the table itself is just a ranking of numbers and calculations with some interesting anomalies (Nick Collison for one).
However, the use of the post to compare the Clippers’ two primary PG’s last season clearly alludes to the trade and previous discussion about the trade. Taken from that perspective, the only meaningful comparison between Baron and Mo is how they will play relative to their contract going forward. Although you didn’t explicitly make that comparison, it certainly was implied. Otherwise, why write about Baron and Mo at all?
No, it still isn't
We can talk about their value this season. That isn’t arbitary. In fact, its completely standard.
Anything else is prejudice on your part. I have often posted links to the wages of wins journal, including in the time before Olshey.
As to why to write about Baron and Mo…they were the players on the list who were Clippers this year? Will it satisfy you if I also note Darko is on the list? I mean doing that feels truly arbitrary…
If that's all you really meant, fair enough
However, I’m not sure why anyone would care who was more overpaid over the past season only. And you should be able to see how the context of your recent critique of the trade would lead a reasonable person to assume this post was intended to justify that criticism.
Because it is interesting?
Why did they write the post in the first place and include Davis and Williams in it?
They are probably biased against Mo Williams too….
I basically did the exact same thing
In this fanpost and it inspired plenty of conversation.
by Michael White on Jul 1, 2011 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Baron is also a better movie star/actor than Mo
"Nobody thinks of Scottie Pippen. The reason I do is because he is named after my favorite musical" Phil Dunphy
Thinking the same thing
Erik O’s boss must be looking over his shoulder. Corey Maggette would turn this photo into a GQ front cover!
"Nobody thinks of Scottie Pippen. The reason I do is because he is named after my favorite musical" Phil Dunphy
His actual picture is far too sexy to be safe for work
So here’s his shadow:
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Should Bledsoe grow a beard and sport a headband?
Energy * Focus * No Excuses
"For [Griffin]getting in the way of Andre Miller’s 40 yard dash?" -Steve Perrin
by Takebb909 on Jul 1, 2011 12:52 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
You want him to be young Baron?
I think Harden already has that claimed.
"It's better to be an optimist who is sometimes wrong than a pessimist who is always right"unknown
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
