Should the NBA have a hard cap?

[AHF]

If the NBA and players negotiated a hard cap, it would look a lot like the luxury tax line.

[NineOhTheRino]

Yes it is. See New York Knicks v. Oklahoma Thunder. I think you are seriously overstating it. In my mind, payroll is a significant contributing factor and not close to something where the correlation is "directly proportional."

but would you consider this the norm?

[AHF]

but would you consider this the norm?

How many times has the team with the highest payroll won the championship in the last 10 years? If it is directly proportional, we should see the top payroll team winning most years, right?

[NineOhTheRino]

How many times has the team with the highest payroll won the championship in the last 10 years? If it is directly proportional, we should see the top payroll team winning most years, right?

not fair. The Spurs and Pistons would muck up all the math. More sports/larger sample size and a longer duration of time would prove me right.

Edited June 2, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[Buzzard]

but would you consider this the norm?

Of course its the norm. Of the top 8 teams; best 4 from each conference, only we were out of the top 10 in payroll (resign JJ and Horf and we will move up no doubt) ; and of the top ten only the Knicks did not make the playoffs.

Maybe this is what you need to look at to become convinced. Instead of finding the two teams, San Antonio and the Pistons, who throw things out of skew. Just go look at the top ten in payroll and see how many make the playoffs vs how many in the top ten in payroll do not make it....

Edited June 2, 2010 by Buzzard

[AHF]

not fair. The Spurs and Pistons would muck up all the math. More sports/larger sample size and a longer duration of time would prove me right.

So how many times has the team with the highest payroll won the championship over the last 30 years? From 1980 on. If payroll is directly proportional with wins, we should see something over 50%, right?

Edited June 2, 2010 by AHF

[Diesel]

For the nba, a hard cap is not a great idea.

You only have 12 players.

While a hard cap will limit what an owner can spend, it also limits the ability of low market teams to compete.

In the game there are about 5 superstars, about 20 stars, etc. Having this luxury tax allows a small market team to get some of these star players and compete with these big teams that get the superstars.

The Celtics and the Lakers and the Knicks will always be able to draw the superstars because of their media market. However, the small teams never will. Even if things were made equal. They won't be able to compete because they are a small market. Right now, the cap allows these teams to gather two or three of the star players and hold on to them and be competitive against the Kobe's. One of the best things I have ever watched was Detroit beating LAL. And the season before that Philly being competitive with LAL. Had there been a hard cap, that Detroit team and that Philly team would not have existed. While I'm sure that LAL would have still had Shaq-Kobe.

[Buzzard]

For the nba, a hard cap is not a great idea.

You only have 12 players.

While a hard cap will limit what an owner can spend, it also limits the ability of low market teams to compete.

In the game there are about 5 superstars, about 20 stars, etc. Having this luxury tax allows a small market team to get some of these star players and compete with these big teams that get the superstars.

The Celtics and the Lakers and the Knicks will always be able to draw the superstars because of their media market. However, the small teams never will. Even if things were made equal. They won't be able to compete because they are a small market. Right now, the cap allows these teams to gather two or three of the star players and hold on to them and be competitive against the Kobe's. One of the best things I have ever watched was Detroit beating LAL. And the season before that Philly being competitive with LAL. Had there been a hard cap, that Detroit team and that Philly team would not have existed. While I'm sure that LAL would have still had Shaq-Kobe.

Detroit would have easily existed. They were not in the top 15 in cap. Philly don't know but I am sure they were up in payroll with Iverson.

[Buzzard]

So how many times has the team with the highest payroll won the championship over the last 30 years? From 1980 on. If payroll is directly proportional with wins, we should see something over 50%, right?

You are looking at it from a "one" team perspective vs 29 other teams. Just look at the top ten teams in payroll and you will find 80 to 90% of those teams make the playoffs year in and year out. Bring in a hard cap and it tightens up the the field significantly.

[Diesel]

Detroit would have easily existed. They were not in the top 15 in cap. Philly don't know but I am sure they were up in payroll with Iverson.

The point is still true.

You can't put together a team filled with just stars or close to stars if you have a hard cap. Top 15 is relative but meaningless.

[Buzzard]

The point is still true.

You can't put together a team filled with just stars or close to stars if you have a hard cap. Top 15 is relative but meaningless.

Sure you can and Detroit did. They were well below the cap. Hard cap or not...below is below.

[AHF]

You are looking at it from a "one" team perspective vs 29 other teams. Just look at the top ten teams in payroll and you will find 80 to 90% of those teams make the playoffs year in and year out. Bring in a hard cap and it tightens up the the field significantly.

What you are describing is not directly corresponding to payroll as was stated earlier. Saying that the highest 33% of teams in payroll constitute 80-90% of playoff teams is a correlation - not a something where payroll is directly tied to wins which is what we were discussing. I think payroll is a significant factor, which goes along with what you are saying.

I will note, however, that money is not spent equally on good and bad teams. More payroll goes into teams that are believed by their owners to be good enough to contend. That is why the Wizards' payroll was high this season - because they miscalculated and thought they were in a window where they could spend some extra dollars and contend in the East. They will be among the lower payrolls the next few years but that won't be a function of the team's changing ability to pay so much as a function of where management sees a good investment opportunity. Conversely, most really bad teams shed payroll so they can rebuild on the cheap and maximize their draft position. I don't view that aspect of team budgeting as a function of disparate markets presenting disparate payroll opportunities.

Edited June 2, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

AHF- I think you are splitting too fine a hair once you are arguing about the difference between "payroll is directly correlated with winning" and "payroll is directly proportional to winning". To most people those are pretty interchangable statements.

Edited June 2, 2010 by spotatl

[AHF]

AHF- I think you are splitting too fine a hair once you are arguing about the difference between "payroll is directly correlated with winning" and "payroll is directly proportional to winning". To most people those are pretty interchangable statements.

nineoh continued arguing the point after this post so my debate has really only been with him. I think it is too much to say what he did and I also don't think payroll directly correlates with winning. I think payroll is one of a number of significant factors that influence wins on a team. You can win with a low payroll and lose with a high payroll. My problem is that the playing field is unbalanced in my mind where certain markets have significant advantages over other markets on a long-term basis. Those disadvantages can be overcome but it stacks the deck. I find this to be more of a problem in baseball since the NBA is superstar driven and most teams draft their superstars and every team has an equal chance to get a superstar regardless of payroll. Having the best player in the game or a top 5 player in the game gets you a long way in basketball compared to baseball.

Yes it is. See New York Knicks v. Oklahoma Thunder. I think you are seriously overstating it. In my mind, payroll is a significant contributing factor and not close to something where the correlation is "directly proportional."

Edited June 2, 2010 by AHF

[NineOhTheRino]

So how many times has the team with the highest payroll won the championship over the last 30 years? From 1980 on. If payroll is directly proportional with wins, we should see something over 50%, right?

highest, OKC and NY Knicks???? You're using extremes. I'd rather throw out the top 10% and bottom 10% and base my conclusion on the middle 80%. I'm not trying to be a smartypants. I honestly do this when basing anything on hard data.

Edited June 2, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[AHF]

highest? You're using extremes. I'd rather throw out the top 10% and bottom 10% and base my conclusion on the middle 80%. I'm not trying to be a smartypants. I honestly do this when basing anything on hard data.

How is that a direct connection between payroll and winning? If the connection is direct, should we see the highest payroll teams dominating?

2008-09

Top 5 Payrolls

New York Knicks - 100M - Missed playoffs

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/salaries/

Cleveland - 90M - Out in ECF

Dallas - 86M - Out in second round of playoffs

Portland - 81.6M - Out in first round of playoffs

Boston Celtics - 80.6M - Out in second round of playoffs

If there was a "direct" correlation here, one of the top 5 teams would have made the finals and won it. Instead, none of them made the finals. Moreover, 80% of the top 5 payrolls failed to finish among the top 4 teams. 80% did not do any better than the Hawks.

Again, I see payroll as a significant contributing factor and not something with a direct correlation/proportion/etc.

In basketball, I'd take landing a top 3 player in the draft with a middle of the roll payroll over no top 10 player and a top 5 payroll. In baseball, I would take the opposite stance.

Edited June 2, 2010 by AHF

[AHF]

If what you are saying is that you agree with me and there is no direct correlation/propostion/etc. then I would term salary as one of several significant factors and not one that directly is responsible for a team's success.

[NineOhTheRino]

Again, I see payroll as a significant contributing factor and not something with a direct correlation/proportion/etc.

I think you're being a bit literal here. In no way did I meant that in such an absolute manner.

Edited June 2, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[spotatl]

Bottom 10 in payroll

OKLAHOMA CITY 1st round

MEMPHIS Lottery

PORTLAND 1st round

DETROIT Lottery

LA CLIPPERS Lottery

SACRAMENTO Lottery

NEW JERSEY Lottery

MINNESOTA Lottery

PHILADELPHIA Lottery

GOLDEN STATE Lottery

Top 10 in payroll

WASHINGTON Lottery

MIAMI 1st round

PHOENIX 3rd round

NEW YORK Lottery

DENVER 1st round

SAN ANTONIO 2nd round

ORLANDO 3rd round

BOSTON 4th round

CLEVELAND 2nd round

DALLAS 1st round

LA LAKERS 4th round

I mean you can say that you see no correlation between payroll and winning but I'd have to simply question your math skills. I mean you can think that things are uncorreltated (payroll has nothing to do with winning) or indirectly correlated (payroll HURTS your chance of winning) but I can't imagine you want to make that case. Payroll and winning are pretty obviously directly correlated.

Edited June 2, 2010 by spotatl

[NineOhTheRino]

however, i will agree with you on my use of the term "directly proportional" I would have been better off using "closely tied / related" or any phrase that allows for deviation.

Edited June 2, 2010 by NineOhTheRino