Building the 60 Million dollar team. The Math.

[thecampster]

In a post recently, I made the point that an NBA team is 9 players that are in the rotation and 3-6 who are there for practice and emergency fill. They aren't the real team, but just ornaments. When you consider that the cap + exceptions comes out to about 60 million dollars and most of that needs to go to 9 players, you understand what it takes to build a team. Looking back at the 09-10 Hawks, I decided to do a comparison of the top 9 paid players based on the percentage of the team money they earned and what percentage of team stats they got in the key stat areas of points, rebounds, assists. quantifying their defensive contribution would be much harder so I won't attempt that right now. Salaries according to hoopshype.com.

Player ---------------Salary----------Sal%-----------Pts%----------Reb%--------Assist%-----%totals added Total/sal%

Joe Johnson - 14,976,754 ----- 24.24%--------21%-----------11.1%-------21%--------------53.1----------------2.19

Josh Smith - 10,800,000 ------- 17.48%--------15.5%---------22.2%------19.5%------------57.2----------------3.27

Jamal Crawford - 9,360,000 --- 15.15%-------17.7%-----------6.3%------13.6%------------37.6----------------2.48

Marvin Williams - 7,500,000 ----12.14%--------10%-----------13.1%-------8.1%-------------31.2----------------2.57

Mike Bibby - 6,217,617 ---------- 10.06%---------9%--------------5.8%------17.7%------------32.5----------------3.23

Zaza Pachulia - 4,750,000 ------- 7.69%--------4.2%------------9.2%--------2.4%------------15.8----------------2.05

Al Horford - 4,307,640 ------------- 6.97%--------14%------------25.2%-------10.8%----------50.0----------------7.17

Maurice Evans - 2,500,000 ------ 4.05%---------5.6%-----------4.85%-------2.7%-----------13.15--------------3.25

Jeff Teague - 1,373,880 ---------- 2.22%---------3.1%-----------2.1%---------7%--------------12.2---------------5.50

-------------------------------------------

Total - 61,785,891

Points - These 9 players accounted for 101.6 PPG, 3172 rebounds and 1753 assists when they played. Their contribution percents are listed per those total numbers.

The total% divided by the salary % gives you a "did we get our money's worth rating" on each of our players. What this chart does is say that based on the money we pay you, we expect that kind of production. Showing the investment is low for Teague and Horford, the return they gave was very high. Bibby's investment wasn't high...it was almost exactly average for his pay and so the expectation wasn't high based on pay. Look at the difference between Joe's Pay and Josh's. Similar pay. The number at the far right shows their return on investment. The number on the right should be divided by 3 for their categories. So in Joe's case, he scored a 2.19. divide that by 3 and you get 73%. They got a 73% return back on their investment in Joe back based on these 3 categories. The pay is the expectation level. Josh, Bibby, Evans all come in at about 107-109% return on investment. Marvin 86% return, Crawford 84% return, Zaza a 68% return on investment and no surprise at all, Teague a 183% return on investment and Al Horford a 239% return on investment.

If you were a CEO, you would have to say you were paying JJ more than he brought back, same with Marvin and Crawford. You would consider firing Zaza and giving Horford a raise.

for everyone saying pay JJ the max, this is what it does to us financially when you do that. Now consider defense a second. Josh, Al, Marvin get bumps for solid defense based on pay all have holes but all are above average defensive contributors....JJ again is expected to be stellar defensively (above average but not elite). Bibby and Crawford would get marked down for their defensive contributions against their salary. Both are average or above average salary wise but killed us defensively this year.

Edited June 9, 2010 by thecampster

[Diesel]

In a post recently, I made the point that an NBA team is 9 players that are in the rotation and 3-6 who are there for practice and emergency fill. They aren't the real team, but just ornaments. When you consider that the cap + exceptions comes out to about 60 million dollars and most of that needs to go to 9 players, you understand what it takes to build a team. Looking back at the 09-10 Hawks, I decided to do a comparison of the top 9 paid players based on the percentage of the team money they earned and what percentage of team stats they got in the key stat areas of points, rebounds, assists. quantifying their defensive contribution would be much harder so I won't attempt that right now. Salaries according to hoopshype.com.

Player ---------------Salary----------Sal%-----------Pts%----------Reb%--------Assist%-----%totals added Total/sal%

Joe Johnson - 14,976,754 ----- 24.24%--------21%-----------11.1%-------21%--------------53.1----------------2.19

Josh Smith - 10,800,000 ------- 17.48%--------15.5%---------22.2%------19.5%------------57.2----------------3.27

Jamal Crawford - 9,360,000 --- 15.15%-------17.7%-----------6.3%------13.6%------------37.6----------------2.48

Marvin Williams - 7,500,000 ----12.14%--------10%-----------13.1%-------8.1%-------------31.2----------------2.57

Mike Bibby - 6,217,617 ---------- 10.06%---------9%--------------5.8%------17.7%------------32.5----------------3.23

Zaza Pachulia - 4,750,000 ------- 7.69%--------4.2%------------9.2%--------2.4%------------15.8----------------2.05

Al Horford - 4,307,640 ------------- 6.97%--------14%------------25.2%-------10.8%----------50.0----------------7.17

Maurice Evans - 2,500,000 ------ 4.05%---------5.6%-----------4.85%-------2.7%-----------13.15--------------3.25

Jeff Teague - 1,373,880 ---------- 2.22%---------3.1%-----------2.1%---------7%--------------12.2---------------5.50

-------------------------------------------

Total - 61,785,891

Points - These 9 players accounted for 101.6 PPG, 3172 rebounds and 1753 assists when they played. Their contribution percents are listed per those total numbers.

The total% divided by the salary % gives you a "did we get our money's worth rating" on each of our players. What this chart does is say that based on the money we pay you, we expect that kind of production. Showing the investment is low for Teague and Horford, the return they gave was very high. Bibby's investment wasn't high...it was almost exactly average for his pay and so the expectation wasn't high based on pay. Look at the difference between Joe's Pay and Josh's. Similar pay. The number at the far right shows their return on investment. The number on the right should be divided by 3 for their categories. So in Joe's case, he scored a 2.19. divide that by 3 and you get 73%. They got a 73% return back on their investment in Joe back based on these 3 categories. The pay is the expectation level. Josh, Bibby, Evans all come in at about 107-109% return on investment. Marvin 86% return, Crawford 84% return, Zaza a 68% return on investment and no surprise at all, Teague a 183% return on investment and Al Horford a 239% return on investment.

If you were a CEO, you would have to say you were paying JJ more than he brought back, same with Marvin and Crawford. You would consider firing Zaza and giving Horford a raise.

for everyone saying pay JJ the max, this is what it does to us financially when you do that. Now consider defense a second. Josh, Al, Marvin get bumps for solid defense based on pay all have holes but all are above average defensive contributors....JJ again is expected to be stellar defensively (above average but not elite). Bibby and Crawford would get marked down for their defensive contributions against their salary. Both are average or above average salary wise but killed us defensively this year.

There's a flaw in your statistics.

For instance, your statistics says that Mo Evans, Teague, and Bibby are three of our most profitable players and that Joe, Craw, and Zaza are on the bottom. This is not true. It's almost as if you set up a system that rewards the cheap guys. I would hate to see what's down for Joe Smith and RandMo.

[thecampster]

There's a flaw in your statistics.

For instance, your statistics says that Mo Evans, Teague, and Bibby are three of our most profitable players and that Joe, Craw, and Zaza are on the bottom. This is not true. It's almost as if you set up a system that rewards the cheap guys. I would hate to see what's down for Joe Smith and RandMo.

There is no flaw in this math at all. Joe wants to be paid 24% of the team salary, then Joe needs to produce 24% of the production. He's not worth that kind of money. The numbers bear that out. Maybe the best example of that (remember this is tangibles only), is Marvin's piss poor production against his salary.

[gsuteke]

There is no flaw in this math at all. Joe wants to be paid 24% of the team salary, then Joe needs to produce 24% of the production. He's not worth that kind of money. The numbers bear that out. Maybe the best example of that (remember this is tangibles only), is Marvin's piss poor production against his salary.

Good point

[Guest]

Yes, the only thing a team does is score, rebound and assist. And let's just carelessly add the percentages together, weighting them all the same, and then POOF! We get the stats that you want to present.

Let's also forget you claim that our 9 players account for 101.6 ppg yet our team scored 101.7 ppg. So the other players only accounted for .1 ppg? That would be .1ppg*82games = 8.2 points. So our other players scored ~8 points all season?

[MaceCase]

Admittedly the weighing of the particular stats are flawed in terms of defining the overall impact of a team and it's parts, I still gave the post a +1 for the time and effort he spent on it plus he is only echoing a sentiment that many share on here albeit by a different (possibly biased) metric. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to pay Joe the max but the reality of the NBA goes beyond certain metrics determining a player's worth. Besides, I don't mind the Hollingerlos (think less devoted juggalos). As your sig suggests, just last year we were confronted by the NSJI.

[lethalweapon3]

Let's also forget you claim that our 9 players account for 101.6 ppg yet our team scored 101.7 ppg. So the other players only accounted for .1 ppg? That would be .1ppg*82games = 8.2 points. So our other players scored ~8 points all season?

It's the New Math! :smile:

But no, that understandably happens since players don't all play in the same games. If all 14 players played in each of the 82 games then you could add their averages together.

I suppose the problem comes once you apply the denominator to develop the inferences: do you use the aggregate of the 9 players (again, apples and oranges since they probably didn't all appear in the same games), or the 101.7 (resulting in %ages that wouldn't add up to a neat 100%).

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

Whatever the methodology, could somebody apply it to the Cavs and Heat so the ratios of Joe's summit contemporaries can be considered? I'd try it myself but I've screwed up enough numbers in real work today (no, I don't schlep for BP).

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

It's the New Math! :smile:

But no, that understandably happens since players don't all play in the same games. If all 14 players played in each of the 82 games then you could add their averages together.

I suppose the problem comes once you apply the denominator to develop the inferences: do you use the aggregate of the 9 players (again, apples and oranges since they probably didn't all appear in the same games), or the 101.7 (resulting in %ages that wouldn't add up to a neat 100%).

Correcting myself, I trust camp didn't use "per-game" stats to make the %ages, but rather the "totals," so that resolves the conundrum.

~lw3

Edited June 10, 2010 by lethalweapon3

[thecampster]

Correcting myself, I trust camp didn't use "per-game" stats to make the %ages, but rather the "totals," so that resolves the conundrum.

~lw3

Totals on rebounds and assists. Percentages on points because the lower level players contribution was typically replaced by other marginal players. FYI, the 9 best paid, did have the highest scoring averages.

I'll try the Lebron, Wade, Amare comparisons in a sec. This took me about an hour to compile on our team so give me a bit.

[Guest]

Admittedly the weighing of the particular stats are flawed in terms of defining the overall impact of a team and it's parts, I still gave the post a +1 for the time and effort he spent on it plus he is only echoing a sentiment that many share on here albeit by a different (possibly biased) metric. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to pay Joe the max but the reality of the NBA goes beyond certain metrics determining a player's worth. Besides, I don't mind the Hollingerlos (think less devoted juggalos). As your sig suggests, just last year we were confronted by the NSJI.

I have no idea how much actual effort was put into it, some people put a lot of effort into short post and others put no effort into really long drawn out posts that are just ramblings. Length doesn't give an indication, and "number crunching" also doesn't give an indication of effort. If you have knowledge of something as simple as excel it takes no time at all to calculate averages, but if you don't it may take a minute more to whip out your calculator and compute. I just can't judge the effort.

But the math (which is supposed to be the main point of this thread) just is awful. For one, there is no reasoning behind adding points, assists, and rebounds together. What purpose does that serve? And then just to drive the point home, why would anyone trust the "math" of someone who calculates the PPG of 9 players by just adding their PPG without taking into account they don't play the same number of games as the team? I don't like pointless math with no reason and I also don't like incorrect math. With this board, I feel there needs to be someone to point this out or else you risk no one realizing the flaws.

[thecampster]

Whatever the methodology, could somebody apply it to the Cavs and Heat so the ratios of Joe's summit contemporaries can be considered? I'd try it myself but I've screwed up enough numbers in real work today (no, I don't schlep for BP).

~lw3

Cleveland Cavaliers - top 9 payroll $76,317,987 (skewed as Antawn Jamison's contract was only partial paid by Cleveland)

Lebron James - $15,779,912 for 20.7%

29.7 ppg - top paid 9 on team 102.1 - 29.1%

Rebound totals - 2477 - Lebron 554 for 22.4%

Assist Totals - 1690 - Lebron for 38.5%

The math (38.5+22.4+29.1) / 20.7 divided by 3. = 4.35/3 = 145% return on investment.

FYI Shaq made 20 million. 26.2% of payroll. His percentages added up to 30.8% /26.2% /3 =39.2% return on investment. Yes, paying Shaq hosed them. To figure out what he should have made vs. his production you multiply his salary $20,000,000 x his return 39.2% and you get his team worth of $7.84 million dollars.

Miami - top 9 payroll of 69,527,387 (Jermaine O'neal making 23 million kills them)

Dwayne Wade - $15,779,912 - for 22.7%

26.6 ppg - top paid 9 on team 92.1 - 28.9%

Rebound totals - 2843 - Wade 373 for 13.1%

Assist Totals - 1001 - Wade 501 for 50%

The math (28.9+13.1+50.0) / 22.7% divided by 3 = 4.05/3 = 135%

FYI, Jermaine Oneal was similar in production to Shaq, Production minorly skewed because Chalmers is not top 9 paid.

Phoenix - top 9 payroll of $57,084,458

Amare Stoudemire - $16378325 - for 28.7%

23.2 ppg - top paid on team 106.4 - 21.8%

Rebound totals - 2826 - Amare 732 - 25.9%

Assist totals - 1756 - Amare 82 - 4.7%

The math - (21.8+25.9+4.7) / 28.7 /3 = 1.826/3 = 61%

The reason Amare's is so low is he only scores and rebounds. No assists. He requires others to get him his points. Although he is a force, Without Nash and Richardson he would suffer. Additionally, the extra 10 million plus in salary this team is missing that would bring his salary percentage down was lost when the team traded for and then waived Ben Wallace last June. That would have skewed the numbers significantly. What this shows is that his value was closer to Josh Smith level money at about 10-11 million. Maybe twelve.

This metric works extremely well to expose flaws/holes in a players game that should keep him from getting a max contract. There are 9 players competing for about 60 million dollars. That means the average player should earn 6.67 million. When we gave Joe over 15 million, we were saying we expected him to produce about 250% of an average player.

[thecampster]

I have no idea how much actual effort was put into it, some people put a lot of effort into short post and others put no effort into really long drawn out posts that are just ramblings. Length doesn't give an indication, and "number crunching" also doesn't give an indication of effort. If you have knowledge of something as simple as excel it takes no time at all to calculate averages, but if you don't it may take a minute more to whip out your calculator and compute. I just can't judge the effort.

But the math (which is supposed to be the main point of this thread) just is awful. For one, there is no reasoning behind adding points, assists, and rebounds together. What purpose does that serve? And then just to drive the point home, why would anyone trust the "math" of someone who calculates the PPG of 9 players by just adding their PPG without taking into account they don't play the same number of games as the team? I don't like pointless math with no reason and I also don't like incorrect math. With this board, I feel there needs to be someone to point this out or else you risk no one realizing the flaws.

That is a fair point but because of the exact issues you raise, there is no fair way to calculate that. I've given countless math related posts to show a players value. Most come to the same conclusion. That although Joe is a good player, he is not a max contract player. If you go with the base premise of my post and realize that a few games missed here and there and minutes divided are based on players value, you realize this is pretty close to accurate. The conclusion states Joe was worth 73% of the money paid to him which = 10.933 million. That still shows him to be a fine player but not a max contract player.

A rebound stops the other team from getting another chance at the basket or gives you another chance. NBA statistics show that each shot attempt is worth about 1 point. Assists are worth 2 points in the real world of the NBA as you only get an assist if you make a basket. So split the difference between the passer and the shooter and that's worth a point. So yeah, I have no problem with that. I consider rebounding and playmaking to be equally important to scoring in the game of basketball. Using this flaw in Joe's game to bear out the stats. If you go to 82games, you will see Joe had the ball in his hand an enormous amount of time for the team. That should lead to more assists (see Lebron/Wade), rebounds (following your shot) and points. But other players on the team were much more efficient with their touches. getting more assists and points per touch. I understand Joe draws a lot of doubles but his opportunities to score are much higher than everyone elses and that means his assist chances are just as high.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Admittedly the weighing of the particular stats are flawed in terms of defining the overall impact of a team and it's parts, I still gave the post a +1 for the time and effort he spent on it plus he is only echoing a sentiment that many share on here albeit by a different (possibly biased) metric. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to pay Joe the max but the reality of the NBA goes beyond certain metrics determining a player's worth. Besides, I don't mind the Hollingerlos (think less devoted juggalos). As your sig suggests, just last year we were confronted by the NSJI.

LOL . . . at least the NJSI was pretty much accurate to how those players shot the ball, and the categories I put them in.

The NJSI was based off of the premise that a particular shooter in this league is pretty much going to take the same type of shot, regardless of where he is on the court. If he can create his own shot, he's more than likely going to create his own shot from just about anywhere on the floor. If he has to be set up for a shot, the same applies to that shooter. The NJSI simply put an index number to what that shooter did on his jumpshots. From that, I was able to group players on a .050 scale, according to how well or how bad they shot the basketball.

It accurately depicted in the 2008 - 09 season how Smoove was a horrible jumpshooter ( even though he didn't qualify to have an NJSI really done on him that year ) . . . how JJ was just a somewhat inconsistent jumpshooter . . . how Marvin was becoming a highly inconsistent jumpshooter . . . and how Bibby was the best jumpshooter on the team.

Overall, I believe my top 3 shooters in the league that year were Jameer Nelson, Anthony Morrow, and Steve Nash. The worst were guys like Iverson, Iguodala, and Stephen Jackson

And if I did an NJSI on the Hawks this year, it will probably show that a guy like Marvin digressed from a somewhat inconsistent jumpshooter, to a horrible jumpshooter ( although with the low number of 3 point attempts he took, he may not have qualified to have an NJSI done on him ).

My NJSI was accurate as hell, even if people said I couldn't do "this or that". I specifically gave parameters on what I was doing, so that every player in the league couldn't have an NJSI done on them. There wasn't a person out of place in that index.

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/337506-the-northcyde-jumpshot-index/page__hl__NJSI__fromsearch__1

What Camp is trying to do, is interesting, but skewed heavily toward those guys who are either the sole star on a team, or are high scoring + high rebounding guys. And anytime something can be skewed to say that Bibby played up to his value more than Jamal Crawford did, you have to question that big time.

By his metric . . . this is Kobe

Salary: $23,034,375 . . . ( Salary % - 25.2 )

Points: 27 ppg . . . ( top 9 paid on team = 97.2 . . . 27.8% )

. . . and this skews it already, because 2 of those top 9 paid ( #6 Adam Morrison and #9 Luke Walton ), don't even play. LOL . . even the #7 guy in payroll ( Sasha Vujucic ) hardly plays. The guys who do play ( Shannon Brown and Jordan Farmar ) are the 10th and 11th highest paid on the team. You take away Luke and Adam, which represents 4.8 points . . and add Shannon and Jordan, which represents 15.3 pts, you'd have a total of ( 97.2 - 4.8 = 92.4 + 15.3 = 107.7 pts ).

107.7 pts . . . despite the Lakers only averaging 101.7 ppg as a team.

So Kobe's true adjusted Points % would then be 27 / 107.7 = 25.1%

Rebounds: 391 . . . ( Team total - 3635 . . . 10.8% )

Assists: 365 . . . ( Team total - 1730 . . . 21.1% )

27.8 + 10.8 + 21.1 / 25.2 = 2.37 / 3 = 79%

or

25.1 + 10.8 +21.1 / 25.2 = 2.26 / 3 = 75.3%

So Kobe is worth either 79% of his investment ( if you count Walton and Morrison, but takeout Brown and Farmar in the point total )

. . . or 75% of his investment ( if you add Brown and Farmar, but take out Walton and Morrison . . which accurately represents who the top 9 players actually were, according to rotation. )

So if we go by this, Kobe should've made about 17.4 million . . instead of the 23 million he's getting. But Lebron is supposed to be making a shade under 22.9 million and Wade making 21.3 million?

It's interesting what he did . . . just flawed as hell. Guys like Lebron and Wade, who were basically the only stars on their team, are definitely going to look like better returns on their investments, than guys like JJ and Kobe, who actually played with decent players across the board.

Edited June 10, 2010 by northcyde

[dlpin]

David Berri does this sort of stuff. You should check him out, as he is quite sophisticated.

The problem with your approach is that it doesn't consider defense, and doesn't consider match ups.

Check his wages of win blog and you will see what I mean.

[MaceCase]

Aye North, I'm not hating on your NSJSI or even Camp's post. I don't care if either are flawed from the floor up or if you guys spent 2 seconds compiling your posts, I just appreciate any attempt at expressing an opinion on this board that is not based on "Pay Joe the max? Naw he got no emotions, you should be paid based on every yelp and fist pump you make." or "not even God himself should make 20 million a year because I am fundamentally opposed to any person that makes more than me."

I aint dumb (poor grammar intentional) I can see the flaws and advantages of all your systems, simply attempting to create one breaks up some of the monotony that sometimes goes on here. I also have no issue with those that wish to correct or entirely debase said posts, it's all part of what makes this place so enjoyable. If somebody wants to come up with an index that shows Teague's scoring average on odd numbered days as opposed to even numbered ones I'd probably give that a +1 too then again...... I think I'll get on that one.

[niremetal]

In a post recently, I made the point that an NBA team is 9 players that are in the rotation and 3-6 who are there for practice and emergency fill. They aren't the real team, but just ornaments. When you consider that the cap + exceptions comes out to about 60 million dollars and most of that needs to go to 9 players, you understand what it takes to build a team. Looking back at the 09-10 Hawks, I decided to do a comparison of the top 9 paid players based on the percentage of the team money they earned and what percentage of team stats they got in the key stat areas of points, rebounds, assists. quantifying their defensive contribution would be much harder so I won't attempt that right now. Salaries according to hoopshype.com.

Player ---------------Salary----------Sal%-----------Pts%----------Reb%--------Assist%-----%totals added Total/sal%

Joe Johnson - 14,976,754 ----- 24.24%--------21%-----------11.1%-------21%--------------53.1----------------2.19

Josh Smith - 10,800,000 ------- 17.48%--------15.5%---------22.2%------19.5%------------57.2----------------3.27

Jamal Crawford - 9,360,000 --- 15.15%-------17.7%-----------6.3%------13.6%------------37.6----------------2.48

Marvin Williams - 7,500,000 ----12.14%--------10%-----------13.1%-------8.1%-------------31.2----------------2.57

Mike Bibby - 6,217,617 ---------- 10.06%---------9%--------------5.8%------17.7%------------32.5----------------3.23

Zaza Pachulia - 4,750,000 ------- 7.69%--------4.2%------------9.2%--------2.4%------------15.8----------------2.05

Al Horford - 4,307,640 ------------- 6.97%--------14%------------25.2%-------10.8%----------50.0----------------7.17

Maurice Evans - 2,500,000 ------ 4.05%---------5.6%-----------4.85%-------2.7%-----------13.15--------------3.25

Jeff Teague - 1,373,880 ---------- 2.22%---------3.1%-----------2.1%---------7%--------------12.2---------------5.50

-------------------------------------------

Total - 61,785,891

Points - These 9 players accounted for 101.6 PPG, 3172 rebounds and 1753 assists when they played. Their contribution percents are listed per those total numbers.

The total% divided by the salary % gives you a "did we get our money's worth rating" on each of our players. What this chart does is say that based on the money we pay you, we expect that kind of production. Showing the investment is low for Teague and Horford, the return they gave was very high. Bibby's investment wasn't high...it was almost exactly average for his pay and so the expectation wasn't high based on pay. Look at the difference between Joe's Pay and Josh's. Similar pay. The number at the far right shows their return on investment. The number on the right should be divided by 3 for their categories. So in Joe's case, he scored a 2.19. divide that by 3 and you get 73%. They got a 73% return back on their investment in Joe back based on these 3 categories. The pay is the expectation level. Josh, Bibby, Evans all come in at about 107-109% return on investment. Marvin 86% return, Crawford 84% return, Zaza a 68% return on investment and no surprise at all, Teague a 183% return on investment and Al Horford a 239% return on investment.

If you were a CEO, you would have to say you were paying JJ more than he brought back, same with Marvin and Crawford. You would consider firing Zaza and giving Horford a raise.

for everyone saying pay JJ the max, this is what it does to us financially when you do that. Now consider defense a second. Josh, Al, Marvin get bumps for solid defense based on pay all have holes but all are above average defensive contributors....JJ again is expected to be stellar defensively (above average but not elite). Bibby and Crawford would get marked down for their defensive contributions against their salary. Both are average or above average salary wise but killed us defensively this year.

Well, that was 2 minutes of my life that I'll never get back...