Daily Thunder.com

@4razr

If it ends up they "need" it and don't have it, I wonder if Durant would take the block more on offense or volunteer to guard a PF in the crunch.

@4razr
I certainly agree that we'll need a better inside presence than what we had this past year. I was just arguing that Presti still has us setup with cap flexibility in the future to acquire a big man. That's where all these young cheap assets, and expiring contracts, will all come in hand (if necessary down the line).

@Greg
I guess a big part of my skepticism comes down to questioning whether a champ can be built around an elite wing player. Durant is fantastic, but without an elite big the chip is hard to come by. Kobe's never done it (we don't have anyone close to Gasol, or even Bynum). Detroit did it one year. Chicago did it, and maybe we (Durant?) get that good--but the GOAT had incredible efficiency under playoff pressure, and it's almost impossible to find that kind of efficiency from a wing. When the defensive pressure, psychological pressure, fatigue of the season and playoffs start weighing, a team needs that reliable inside presence. That is the most difficult hole to fill and the most likely thing standing between OKC and the trophy. IMO.

If you don't want to create your own blend, you could just use Jon Nichols' Defensive Composite Scores as a guide. Or not.

If you can't decide which of 2 bins to put a player, give him the average affect of the two bins.

It could be, but it doesn't absolutely have to be for a rough cut that moves closer to what the available defensive data suggests.

Simply sort all players in 5 defensive bins based on some combo of team defense on/off, counterpart defense and, following the lead of SPM, the rates for blocks, steals and rebounds as indicators of active and presumably good defense beyond these specific stats.

Improve (reduce) the "team defensive rating" of the best 20% by 1.5-2 X%, the next 20% by 1X%, leave the middle as is and make the team defensive rating of moderately weak 20% worse (higher) by 1X% and the very weakest by 1.5-2 X%. Using whatever X looks right or seems temperate.

"team defensive rating" already moves from defense is team and equal by using the blocks, steals and rebounds of individuals. Granting that shot defense is not exactly equal is hard for many to do because it is hard to do precisely- so accept that and do it roughly seems like a decent solution to me.

Crow :@DSMok1

Would you have any willing to consider adding some weight for Team Defensive Rating On/Off or counterpart defensive data or both to your use of the same Team Defensive Rating for all teammates? I assume that the value of the Team Defensive Rating is helping Green’s value a lot, maybe too much given the on/off team defensive and counterpart efficiency information which is available on him.

That would be really complicated.

@4razr
The approach Presti's taken so far has a much better chance of winning a title than Green making an ASG. The Spurs won multiple championships developing their core from within, and signing cheap vets and talented rookies to surround. I don't know that I'd call it a prayer. Do you not have much faith in Ibaka and Harden? After all their 20 and 21 years old. Harden was also a #3 pick.

I'm pretty positive Presti will do something with his stockpile of assets he has built. If you were him what deals would you try to pull?

@Anonymous
That was me...

@Sammy

Of course. We'll see who is available in the next couple years, though. Who we pursue. What we'll end up with. We'll never be able to evaluate this precisely, but it'll be a fun thing to do in hindsight after seeing what actually happens.

@DSMok1

Would you have any willing to consider adding some weight for Team Defensive Rating On/Off or counterpart defensive data or both to your use of the same Team Defensive Rating for all teammates? I assume that the value of the Team Defensive Rating is helping Green's value a lot, maybe too much given the on/off team defensive and counterpart efficiency information which is available on him.

justin :@Sammy

What are the odds we could get a better deal on a better player than Al Jefferson? I guess we’ll find out.

Actually, the problem with evaluating this kind of stuff is we will never find out the odds. Because whether we do get a better team in the long run w/o Al Jeff than we would with him isn't a scenario we can run over and over a bunch of times and get an accurate percentage. Even if we don't put that money to better use, it doesn't necessarily mean passing on Big Al was the 'wrong' decision, just like taking Oden wasn't the wrong decision for the Blazers.

At any point who are your core keepers helps define your needs and budget.

Keith :
I think the greatest issue is the weight of “surplus” versus “utility.” That is, it is better to have a player making 10 million who is worth 12 than a guy making 1 million who is worth 4. Perhaps more specifically to this team, but in the end, it still means the first player (2 million surplus) is worth 3 times as much as the second (3 million surplus). From a financial standpoint, the second player is more cost-effective, but the first player is much more important to the ultimate level of his team.

Good point. Maybe a percentage would be useful.

The optimization challenge is spend your budget across 13-15 guys who split 240 total minutes a game to produce the most wins. Money is the constraint, wins the goal. You want to put the most efficient win producer mix on the floor for 48 minutes of clock. Good value ratios are helpful but not the ultimate goal itself. If you believe that successful NBA teams need several stars to win in the playoffs you do the best you can get to get them or near-stars. A blend of the best stars you can get and then good values is the path for most. Mid-range salary players are often better to avoid if you can get better guys or cheaper guys at near the same productivity but there are examples of good middle class player values. A few are ok, a lot is usually a recipe for disappointment and overspending.

@Sammy

What are the odds we could get a better deal on a better player than Al Jefferson? I guess we'll find out.

@Sammy
Completely agree. It's not like we can't go after a better fit in the future than Al Jefferson.

justin :
Also it’s better to use the money that’s available on Al Jefferson than to not use it at all. From a basketball perspective.

Opportunity cost, though. Yes, it's only three years, but three years is a significant chunk of the Thunder's window, so if the Al Jef experiment fails, it's a lot harder to adjust the roster to compensate. Whereas if you keep fiddling and keep flexibility, you have a better chance of being able to pounce on a Pau Gasol-type deal (maybe not that extreme, but you get the point). I'm fine with passing on Al Jeff.

@Keith

Agree... I don't think there's much argument that the best value proposition is an all-rookie team. Not sure what the goal of being cost efficient is if you aren't using your savings to pay for all-stars to win a championship.

I think the greatest issue is the weight of "surplus" versus "utility." That is, it is better to have a player making 10 million who is worth 12 than a guy making 1 million who is worth 4. Perhaps more specifically to this team, but in the end, it still means the first player (2 million surplus) is worth 3 times as much as the second (3 million surplus). From a financial standpoint, the second player is more cost-effective, but the first player is much more important to the ultimate level of his team.

Right now I'm not worried about who is overpaid, underpaid, or by how much. What worries me is that we have exactly one great player, one good player, and a bunch of role players. That is not enough to win a championship. Maybe Harden or Ibaka become good/great, but maybe they don't. And in the later case, having cost effective players will not make up for constantly missing out on the championship parade.

Also it's better to use the money that's available on Al Jefferson than to not use it at all. From a basketball perspective.

There are other things to take into consideration. Maybe Al Jefferson isn't worth $15 million in a vacuum, but if he's the piece that puts you over a hump then that's a different story.

Mark! :@DSMok1

I don’t necessarily think a distinction needs to be made between different types of contracts, though I think that would be interesting too. They are fundamentally different since rookie contracts are static and non-rookie contracts have agent involvement, team competition and player choice involved.
I still think your scale skews more to rookies than it should. I’d like to see your surplus calculation that weights score based on minutes played.
Isn’t a player that does not play — regardless of how much they are paid — overpaid by definition? They might have some value (practice, injury insurance, etc.), but that value doesn’t show up on the court if they don’t play, so why include them in your calculation?
I think rookies still come out on top. Not much argument against them in a purely dollar value analysis.

Sure, the bench-sitters are overpaid...

However, I projected them minutes based on how much a player of that caliber would play on an average team, when I did the value calculation. So the price is what they would be "worth" to a league-average team.

@DSMok1
Accounting for defense, system, and playoff performance, I don't think there's anyway Boozer was worth $22m last season. It wasn't a terrible signing considering the fit, but Booze was still overpaid.

The 11 named are evenly distributed by position. The perimeter guys generally have a 3 pt shot. The interior guys are generally good on defense.

@DSMok1

I don't necessarily think a distinction needs to be made between different types of contracts, though I think that would be interesting too. They are fundamentally different since rookie contracts are static and non-rookie contracts have agent involvement, team competition and player choice involved.

I still think your scale skews more to rookies than it should. I'd like to see your surplus calculation that weights score based on minutes played.

Isn't a player that does not play -- regardless of how much they are paid -- overpaid by definition? They might have some value (practice, injury insurance, etc.), but that value doesn't show up on the court if they don't play, so why include them in your calculation?

I think rookies still come out on top. Not much argument against them in a purely dollar value analysis.

@Mark!

One thought process would be to look the lists of Odom, Garnett, Allen, O’Neal, Hamilton, R.Wallace, Billups and Turkoglu, Lewis, Terry & Kidd and perhaps others and ask which type of player from among these listed do the Thunder most need and who else in the league is fairly similar to them, younger and somewhat attainable.

Anonymous :

f5alcon :@Sammyawesome, i think we have some of all those types, i think i am multiple types

As soon as I read this I already could see some of those on this site, but not gonna name anyone tho

Forgot to log in my bad.

@Mark!

Opportunity to acquire a legitimate 2nd option player is probably much rarer than 3rd option. Growing your own 3rd option is also probably more likely. Presti will be extremely picky about acquiring someone for either role until he feels he has to be more active. That time is not here yet. Might not ever be, but next 2 playoffs will give others more to base their comments on.

Alright.

Crow :@DSMok1

Ok. Is the new file available in place of the old one at the same address?

Not yet. Still fine-tuning things.

Against Boston- Lewis 34% raw FG% and 17% from 3. Carter 37% and 21%.

@DSMok1

Yes it was the Celtics coming on strong too. But Lewis and carter did not fill their responsibilities.

@DXL

If you have an opportunity to acquire a legitimate 3rd option player, you do it. Gasol isn't the only player in that category ever acquired outside the draft.

Odom, Garnett, Allen, O'Neal, Hamilton, R.Wallace & Billups were all top 3 players on championship teams acquired outside the draft.

Turkoglu, Lewis, Terry & Kidd were all top 3 players on conference champs acquired outside the draft.

I also think Jefferson = overpaid loser is hyperbole, but I'm not going to belabor that. There are legit questions about him; this season will tell the tale. I don't think he fits on this team either, but I don't think it's as painfully obvious as some armchair GM's are painting it to be.

It's more difficult to simulate how things would play out than that. Otherwise, there wouldn't be office pools or fantasy leagues.

@DSMok1

Ok. Is the new file available in place of the old one at the same address?

I now see a number of strong players were paid just under $15 million last season. The number on both lists will probably be a good deal higher next season. But it tends to equal out more over a career than it does by any given year.

Crow :
Using DSMok1′s file, I see 33 guys presented as “worth” $15+ million, 6 on rookie contracts. Last season only 17 guys were paid that much. I think only 5 were on both lists last season with a few missing from action.

I've changed my methodology since that file was posted, Crow.

Using DSMok1's file, I see 33 guys presented as "worth" $15+ million, 6 on rookie contracts. Last season only 17 guys were paid that much. I think only 5 were on both lists last season with a few missing from action.

Crow :
The Magic were the best team on point differential in the regular season and playoffs but somehow didn’t get it done against Boston. I’d say not having the right vets was a pretty big key.

I'd say it was because the Celtics weren't playing up to their ability in the regular season, for whatever reason.

John-o :@Crow

I also totally agree that the contract analysis isn’t appropriate for comparison between players in various age groups. First-round rookies are capped on pay based on draft position.
The 2 year team option also skews things since the players on the team option are usually underpaid relative to their fair market value.

Why isn't appropriate? If I were a GM, I would try to collect players who are underpaid! That's what Presti is doing and has done.
I believe Glenn Robinson was the last rookie that negotiated his salary under the old rules where there was no rookie scale. I would say rookies back then were paid much more in line with how veterans get treated in that you had many more overpaid young guys.

Mark! :@DSMok1

Your cost analysis doesn’t make much sense to me. You haven’t offered any specifics, so forgive me if I’m misunderstand. I’m just guessing at your method (feel free to correct.)
1) You take each player’s statistical production from an advanced box score and come up w/ some overall “score” using a weighting system of your design
2) You weight that player’s score based on the salary they earn to come up w/ an average $ per point on your “score” metric
3) You compare the $ value each player’s “score” to their actual salary to calculate surplus
That seems like it would have flawed logic built into the design. Nevermind how you choose to calculate “score” (your own design, PER, WS, etc) and the problems inherent w/ that in determining player value, a method like I outlined would be bias toward rookie contracts as a rule.
Every player who is highly paid and produces NOTHING skews your scale (McGrady, Redd, Arenas, Curry). It’s also skewed by players everyone agrees are *dramatically* overpaid despite providing some production (Dampier, Lewis, Brand, Stojakovic, etc.)
This elevates the value of rookies by a lot.
That’s not to say I disagree about rookies being valuable. I just think the Thunder need a third piece to build around. Unless Ibaka or Harden become a legit, game-carrying option, I dunno how much gas our team has putting value-conscious choices around just Durant and Westbrook. JMO…
I would be curious to see what kind of results your surplus calculation comes up w/ if you put a heavy weight on minutes played. That would at least weed out overpaid, non-producers and should minimize the effect of the acknowledged, terrible contracts to arrive at something a little more reasonable.

I'm using a new Statistical Plus/Minus calculation. That provides a fairly close measure of a player's contribution per 100 team possessions, measured in points above or below average. I then regress that measure based on the estimated error. Then I take the regressed value and estimate how many minutes such a player would get for a league-average team. I then multiply the points above replacement level (-3) for each player, multiply by their estimated minutes played, and sum for the whole league. Dividing the total payroll of the NBA by the sum provides a value per production. I then take that rate and go back and multiply each player's points above replacement by their estimated minutes and then by the NBA rate to arrive at a value.

Basically, this is similar to how value is estimated for baseball (see http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&... ). It is basically a Production Rate*Minutes Played = Value metric.

The analysis is not "skewed". It simply highlights how some players are "underpaid" relative to production, and some are "overpaid". The wise GM will focus on the underpaid!

@John-o
he was the reason they went to the current rookie scale

The Magic were the best team on point differential in the regular season and playoffs but somehow didn't get it done against Boston. I'd say not having the right vets was a pretty big key.

@Crow

I also totally agree that the contract analysis isn't appropriate for comparison between players in various age groups. First-round rookies are capped on pay based on draft position.

The 2 year team option also skews things since the players on the team option are usually underpaid relative to their fair market value.

I believe Glenn Robinson was the last rookie that negotiated his salary under the old rules where there was no rookie scale. I would say rookies back then were paid much more in line with how veterans get treated in that you had many more overpaid young guys.

Crow :
Orlando would seem very likely to do another deal before the deadline.

I really hope they do. Because of Dwight, I think they have the best chance of beating Miami (Celtics and Bulls also in the mix). I think if they can upgrade at the 2 or 4 position, they have a good shot of being in the Finals.

Also keep in mind pure box score analysis excludes the intangible items that allow a team to be consistently successful in notching wins over an 82 game season - and especially in the playoffs.

The Magic 2 years ago were the only Eastern or Western Conference champion team in recent memory that didn't rely mostly on veterans (players with less effective ratio of box-score production relative to $ earned)

I agree with Mark! that value of production on rookie contracts and later contracts are different beasts and it would be informative to see the average surplus values for each set.

I also think it would help to see the net value for minimum salary guys and the rest of non-rookie contracts as a distinct sub-groups.

Both Ibaka and Harden were efficient offensively and both could become very nice two-way players with good all-around games, and they were aged 20 and 21 respectively this year. Both have bright futures, and it wouldn't surprise me if either became the 3rd scoring option we need.

If neither is able to fulfill that role, then maybe a combination of both fills the void? And if that isn't enough, we still have flexibility to consolidate our assets and young talents by trading for an even better player.

Say we trade for Jefferson and he blows out his knee again? Awesome, we just threw away 3 chances at a title. It's not a risk worth taking when you have young, cheap players who could potentially fill the missing voids, while retaining flexibility in the future to acquire better talent (if needed). I don't have a single complaint with the direction Presti has the team headed (pending a possible Jeff Green extension).

Orlando would seem very likely to do another deal before the deadline.