Knicks · average salary vs average ws48 (page 1)

The average salary is 4.1 million while the average ws48 is .100.

So, how about we pay an average of 4 million per for an average player with a ws48 of .100?

I think that this would be a good place to start.

and, lets say that for every .10 increase of ws48 we give the player another million? seems fair?

so a player with an ws48 of:

.100 = 4 million (average)
.110 = 5 million
.150 = 9 million

And, how about if the player is a superb defender, we double his salary?

so a player with a .150 ws48 who is a super defender gets 18 million. Fair?

This would be with the current salaries against the current cap. Of course this would go up with a new cap.

Now please show me how a player like Jennings should get paid above average when he is a below average player and is not a good defender?

Yes, you get it. Players have to be paid based on productivity. Here's the thing, though. What you're describing yields average success (roughly .500). If you get average return on investment, you're an average team. Granted that would be an improvement for us but it's still not what we want to aim for. If you look at Spurs or Warriors players making around $2 mil, they generally have WS48s around or higher than .100. The top teams don't aim to have players on reasonable contracts. They get their players on bargain contracts.

Bonn1997 wrote:Yes, you get it. Players have to be paid based on productivity. Here's the thing, though. What you're describing yields average success (41-41 or .500). If you get average return on investment, you're an average team. Granted that would be an improvement for us but it's still not what we want to aim for. If you look at Spurs or Warriors players making around $2 mil, they generally have WS48s around or higher than .100. The top teams don't aim to have players on reasonable contracts. They get their players on bargain contracts.

and for that you need synergy among the highest-paid who is also ideally the de facto most valuable player, the coach, and the gm. i doubt the knicks are in this situation right now. players won't sacrifice money unless they see a healthy franchise.

mreinman wrote:The average salary is 4.1 million while the average ws48 is .100.

So, how about we pay an average of 4 million per for an average player with a ws48 of .100?

I think that this would be a good place to start.

and, lets say that for every .10 increase of ws48 we give the player another million? seems fair?

so a player with an ws48 of:

.100 = 4 million (average)
.110 = 5 million
.150 = 9 million

And, how about if the player is a superb defender, we double his salary?

so a player with a .150 ws48 who is a super defender gets 18 million. Fair?

This would be with the current salaries against the current cap. Of course this would go up with a new cap.

Now please show me how a player like Jennings should get paid above average when he is a below average player and is not a good defender?

There are several reasons why jennings WILL get paid (even though he SHOULDN'T) - basically its not just about math:
- first of all and most importantly, the CAP is about to explode. teams will have way more excess to spend
- there's the human element. meaning dummies like the knicks who overpay mediocre players.
- also theres supply and demand economics. everyone wants a PG...most teams have one. but there are a few teams (knicks, nets, sixers) who DONT have one. therefore the DEMAND goes up since there isnt a lot of SUPPLY in this years free agents class.
- Lastly, you have to take into account that some teams (sixers) have more cap room than others (about 70mill in cap space). therefore, they can offer more $$$

mreinman wrote:The average salary is 4.1 million while the average ws48 is .100.

So, how about we pay an average of 4 million per for an average player with a ws48 of .100?

I think that this would be a good place to start.

and, lets say that for every .10 increase of ws48 we give the player another million? seems fair?

so a player with an ws48 of:

.100 = 4 million (average)
.110 = 5 million
.150 = 9 million

And, how about if the player is a superb defender, we double his salary?

so a player with a .150 ws48 who is a super defender gets 18 million. Fair?

This would be with the current salaries against the current cap. Of course this would go up with a new cap.

Now please show me how a player like Jennings should get paid above average when he is a below average player and is not a good defender?

remove all the rookie scale contracts and come back to me with this proposal. If you are including rookie scale contracts into your "average pay" to WS48 than this post is worthless

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:The average salary is 4.1 million while the average ws48 is .100.

So, how about we pay an average of 4 million per for an average player with a ws48 of .100?

I think that this would be a good place to start.

and, lets say that for every .10 increase of ws48 we give the player another million? seems fair?

so a player with an ws48 of:

.100 = 4 million (average)
.110 = 5 million
.150 = 9 million

And, how about if the player is a superb defender, we double his salary?

so a player with a .150 ws48 who is a super defender gets 18 million. Fair?

This would be with the current salaries against the current cap. Of course this would go up with a new cap.

Now please show me how a player like Jennings should get paid above average when he is a below average player and is not a good defender?

remove all the rookie scale contracts and come back to me with this proposal. If you are including rookie scale contracts into your "average pay" to WS48 than this post is worthless

I was thinking about that point too. I definitely would not say the OP is worthless. It's a good start to the most important issue in making roster decisions: Making sure you get good return on investment. I'm going to guess that WS48 .100 veterans make around 6 or 7 mil and if you want to be a .500 team you pay them that much. But if you look at the rosters of the top teams (like I described above), almost every player including veterans is on a bargain contract

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:The average salary is 4.1 million while the average ws48 is .100.

So, how about we pay an average of 4 million per for an average player with a ws48 of .100?

I think that this would be a good place to start.

and, lets say that for every .10 increase of ws48 we give the player another million? seems fair?

so a player with an ws48 of:

.100 = 4 million (average)
.110 = 5 million
.150 = 9 million

And, how about if the player is a superb defender, we double his salary?

so a player with a .150 ws48 who is a super defender gets 18 million. Fair?

This would be with the current salaries against the current cap. Of course this would go up with a new cap.

Now please show me how a player like Jennings should get paid above average when he is a below average player and is not a good defender?

remove all the rookie scale contracts and come back to me with this proposal. If you are including rookie scale contracts into your "average pay" to WS48 than this post is worthless

I was thinking about that point too. I definitely would not say the OP is worthless. It's a good start to the most important issue in making roster decisions: Making sure you get good return on investment. I'm going to guess that WS48 .100 veterans make around 6 or 7 mil and if you want to be a .500 team you pay them that much. But if you look at the rosters of the top teams (like I described above), almost every player including veterans is on a bargain contract

Do you really believe feeding prior production numbers into an algo and assembling a roster based on that is the best way to build a team?

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:The average salary is 4.1 million while the average ws48 is .100.

So, how about we pay an average of 4 million per for an average player with a ws48 of .100?

I think that this would be a good place to start.

and, lets say that for every .10 increase of ws48 we give the player another million? seems fair?

so a player with an ws48 of:

.100 = 4 million (average)
.110 = 5 million
.150 = 9 million

And, how about if the player is a superb defender, we double his salary?

so a player with a .150 ws48 who is a super defender gets 18 million. Fair?

This would be with the current salaries against the current cap. Of course this would go up with a new cap.

Now please show me how a player like Jennings should get paid above average when he is a below average player and is not a good defender?

remove all the rookie scale contracts and come back to me with this proposal. If you are including rookie scale contracts into your "average pay" to WS48 than this post is worthless

I was thinking about that point too. I definitely would not say the OP is worthless. It's a good start to the most important issue in making roster decisions: Making sure you get good return on investment. I'm going to guess that WS48 .100 veterans make around 6 or 7 mil and if you want to be a .500 team you pay them that much. But if you look at the rosters of the top teams (like I described above), almost every player including veterans is on a bargain contract

Do you really believe feeding prior production numbers into an algo and assembling a roster based on that is the best way to build a team?

At this point, the stats are good enough to be a critical piece of information but not the only piece. I'd add that WS is a great stat but not the only one I'd look at. Like Mreinman pointed out, the Spurs won the best analytics team in professional sports award. They're not that open about what they do but I've read they give a lot of weight to the player tracking data. The bottom line regardless of how you assess players is that to be a great team, you have to aim to have every player on a bargain contract. You might miss the mark every once in a while but you start out trying to get bargains. This is not just a knock on Melo's contract, BTW. Almost every player on our team for the whole century has been paid more than they produce.

There is nothing that demonstrates that the Spurs have cherry picked high win share players from around the NBA. They more so hit on 3 major draft picks forming there core. They have drafted pretty decent late in the draft to find some quality role players. Like Hill, Splitter, I think Millis to. As well as developing Green from out of the D league. And a lot of that has to do with Pops ability to coach up players as well as the winning environment and leadership. Since they win they also get vet players that are willing to go there for less to win. Hill played well in the playoffs driving up his value. But they already had Parker so they flipped him for a needed SF. Who was of course nurtured into a beast playing around the vets that he does.

76ers have had cap space and lotto picks for these past few yrs. Yet they dont have many players with high win shares even though they are heavy in analytics. They seem to have trouble netting high win share players despite the resources. Probably because its not as easy as it sounds.

Do we even know how many players in the NBA have a 100. WS48. As the less players there are that maintain that rate the more in demand they are which would drive up cost regardless. And I could understand taking a flyer on a young unproven guy at a cheaper price hoping that he shines over paying Affalo 8mil even though its a flexible deal. But that doesn't apply to a player like Melo.

Keep building, keep our draft picks, And hope to hit on picks with what we got. They will become the value that we need. With the potential to put them in a winning situation.

newyorknewyork wrote:There is nothing that demonstrates that the Spurs have cherry picked high win share players from around the NBA. They more so hit on 3 major draft picks forming there core. They have drafted pretty decent late in the draft to find some quality role players. Like Hill, Splitter, I think Millis to. As well as developing Green from out of the D league. And a lot of that has to do with Pops ability to coach up players as well as the winning environment and leadership. Since they win they also get vet players that are willing to go there for less to win. Hill played well in the playoffs driving up his value. But they already had Parker so they flipped him for a needed SF. Who was of course nurtured into a beast playing around the vets that he does.

76ers have had cap space and lotto picks for these past few yrs. Yet they dont have many players with high win shares even though they are heavy in analytics. They seem to have trouble netting high win share players despite the resources. Probably because its not as easy as it sounds.

Do we even know how many players in the NBA have a 100. WS48. As the less players there are that maintain that rate the more in demand they are which would drive up cost regardless. And I could understand taking a flyer on a young unproven guy at a cheaper price hoping that he shines over paying Affalo 8mil even though its a flexible deal. But that doesn't apply to a player like Melo.

Keep building, keep our draft picks, And hope to hit on picks with what we got. They will become the value that we need. With the potential to put them in a winning situation.

WS48 is standardized so that the league average is .100.
Your other points may or may not be right but either way the bottom line is the best teams have nearly all their players on bargain contracts.