RealGM

Uber stat geek Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has an interesting piece about when NBA teams should give out max contracts.

Link: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe ... o-the-max/

Has your guy made an All-NBA team, or would it have been entirely reasonable for him to do so? Then offer him the max extension. If not, then don’t.

If it’s a close call, you might consider the player’s age, his injury history, his advanced defensive metrics, his leadership abilities, positional scarcity, your cap flexibility or whatever else pleases you.

Kyrie Irving hasn’t made an All-NBA team and he isn’t going to this season. But is he a close call or a flat ‘no’? He’s squarely on the left-hand side of our chart10 based on win shares — and that metric likes Irving a lot better than some other systems. ESPN’s NBA real plus-minus rated Irving as just the 37th (!) best point guard in the league, by contrast, in large part because it rates his defense as awful.

I like Nate Silver's writing. I enjoy his ability to bring a statistical mindset to all kinds of life situations. I have a minor quibble or two with some of this column of his, but thought it was interesting and well worth the read. Hope you enjoy it.

Pine, I went to the bottom line of that great article. Silver asserts that only about 5 percent of draft lotto players turn out to be worthy of supermax deals.

Looking at win scores, all NBA considerations, and progress curves particularly in years one and two gives clues as for what to expect in super max contracted years 5 thru 9. Third year or one year early is the decision year to award, but fourth-year progress contains important information.

I think Wall peaked in year three and he flattened out in year four. Based on his first two years, save for March of 2013, I don't think Wall proved anywhere near worthy of a max deal.

This past playoffs I think the best and worst of Wall was revealed in rounds one and two.
My feeling about the Wizards moving forward is Wall will never be an alpha type leader. He's above average with elite athleticism, but I don't like him as a max player.

On the positive side, his peak play is clearly max worthy. I think Wall can improve a lot defensively. Most of his hurdles are confidence related. If he commits to finishing at the rim more often, and subsequently drawing more fouls; then he'll be worth the super max deal. He needs to be in control and to play stronger than this past playoffs.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

leaving yourself alot of wiggle room there CCJ, arent you

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:Pine, I went to the bottom line of that great article. Silver asserts that only about 5 percent of draft lotto players turn out to be worthy of supermax deals.

Looking at win scores, all NBA considerations, and progress curves particularly in years one and two gives clues as for what to expect in super max contracted years 5 thru 9. Third year or one year early is the decision year to award, but fourth-year progress contains important information.

I think Wall peaked in year three and he flattened out in year four. Based on his first two years, save for March of 2013, I don't think Wall proved anywhere near worthy of a max deal.

This past playoffs I think the best and worst of Wall was revealed in rounds one and two.
My feeling about the Wizards moving forward is Wall will never be an alpha type leader. He's above average with elite athleticism, but I don't like him as a max player.

On the positive side, his peak play is clearly max worthy. I think Wall can improve a lot defensively. Most of his hurdles are confidence related. If he commits to finishing at the rim more often, and subsequently drawing more fouls; then he'll be worth the super max deal.

Eh I want to see him build his body Tim Grover style before he commits to attacking the lane. One key point of the article is that a max player is a serious burden on the team if they simply cant play due to injury. Wall played more tentative yes, but notice he missed ZERO games this year. I think one key lesson he learned from his injury year was to take fewer high-speed risks with his body, to steer clear of injury if you can avoid it. Now for sure he needs a more reliable jumper, and better range with it, and okay it would help him clear space for that skip pass if they had to collapse to the paint to stop his drive instead of playing free safety along the baseline trying to bait him into a corner pass where it can be picked off. But John Wall upright and playing is an all-star this year and worth good money (possibly his sub-supermax deal that he earned) whereas John Wall on the bench or in a suit is worth somewhere north of diddley, west of squat. Reference how many games Westbrook missed this year, and check other Calipari pal DRose in Chitown.

HOnestly the player I want John Wall to learn from is Tony Parker. He somehow gets into the lane and scores without getting all hell beat into him. His floater, pull up, curl routes into open lanes, ability to stay in motion and make decisions at speed, are all I want from John. And TParker came into the league with no great outside shot either. It's not his role. His role is to get players open for that shot who are more qualified to drop it in. Basically what John already does, only worlds better.

doclinkin wrote:"HOnestly the player I want John Wall to learn from is Tony Parker. He somehow gets into the lane and scores without getting all hell beat into him. His floater, pull up, curl routes into open lanes, ability to stay in motion and make decisions at speed, are all I want from John. And TParker came into the league with no great outside shot either. It's not his role. His role is to get players open for that shot who are more qualified to drop it in. Basically what John already does, only worlds better.

Very true. I absolutely love Tony Parker's game. He has always had great quickness but even as he's been hampered by age and injuries, he's been able to maintain it through craftiness (change of speed and/or direction). That's the area of John's game that I saw grow a little more this year, but still leaves much to be desired.

I credit much of his growth to PnR (chicken and the egg maybe?), which seems to be more about the cohesiveness with your teammate and your simultaneous assessment and reaction to what the opponent is giving you. To that point, Parker has had the benefit of a HOF coach and HOF PnR partner, which in my opinion are both (coach + teammate awareness) key components to any drive+dish rapid reactions as well.

Not to say that Parker wouldn't be able to elevate his teammates any less, but as nicely as Wall + Gortat's PnR has worked when they're in sync, imagine if Wall had someone savvy enough to pair with in the first few years of his career rather than a single season or if they had established offensive schemes that were more deftly designed and accurately executed. A player in that environment understands immediately what his role is and how to best operate within it. Now I don't think he'd be challenging for any hardware or any of that but I think we'd be more wow'd by his apparent cerebral take on the game (and probably facing the Heat right now instead of Indiana).

Who knows.

But that's what I'm hoping for from Wall: to not be impressed so much by his physical gifts but more in the way he chooses to use them to gain the advantage and win ball games.

doclinkin wrote:

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:Pine, I went to the bottom line of that great article. Silver asserts that only about 5 percent of draft lotto players turn out to be worthy of supermax deals.

Looking at win scores, all NBA considerations, and progress curves particularly in years one and two gives clues as for what to expect in super max contracted years 5 thru 9. Third year or one year early is the decision year to award, but fourth-year progress contains important information.

I think Wall peaked in year three and he flattened out in year four. Based on his first two years, save for March of 2013, I don't think Wall proved anywhere near worthy of a max deal.

This past playoffs I think the best and worst of Wall was revealed in rounds one and two.
My feeling about the Wizards moving forward is Wall will never be an alpha type leader. He's above average with elite athleticism, but I don't like him as a max player.

On the positive side, his peak play is clearly max worthy. I think Wall can improve a lot defensively. Most of his hurdles are confidence related. If he commits to finishing at the rim more often, and subsequently drawing more fouls; then he'll be worth the super max deal.

Eh I want to see him build his body Tim Grover style before he commits to attacking the lane. One key point of the article is that a max player is a serious burden on the team if they simply cant play due to injury. Wall played more tentative yes, but notice he missed ZERO games this year. I think one key lesson he learned from his injury year was to take fewer high-speed risks with his body, to steer clear of injury if you can avoid it. Now for sure he needs a more reliable jumper, and better range with it, and okay it would help him clear space for that skip pass if they had to collapse to the paint to stop his drive instead of playing free safety along the baseline trying to bait him into a corner pass where it can be picked off. But John Wall upright and playing is an all-star this year and worth good money (possibly his sub-supermax deal that he earned) whereas John Wall on the bench or in a suit is worth somewhere north of diddley, west of squat. Reference how many games Westbrook missed this year, and check other Calipari pal DRose in Chitown.

HOnestly the player I want John Wall to learn from is Tony Parker. He somehow gets into the lane and scores without getting all hell beat into him. His floater, pull up, curl routes into open lanes, ability to stay in motion and make decisions at speed, are all I want from John. And TParker came into the league with no great outside shot either. It's not his role. His role is to get players open for that shot who are more qualified to drop it in. Basically what John already does, only worlds better.

+1 Doc

Parker would be a great player to model his offense. Only Wall can be an even better defender and have the speed to coast to coast on breaks where he doesn't have to get clobbered.

D Rose.. we don't want that. He will get injured just the same if he does that to much. We saw him do that year one. I called him Crash.

Wall will likely be over paid on the out years of his contract but it was a good move for the Wizards to sign him when they did. I think he grow a lot as a leader this year and that was in no small part to the players around him.

His numbers where steady this year. Drives down. 3 pt shooting up. And W's up. Thats progress and it showed up in the most important numbers. Ws.

The key difference and area of improvement: where John pulls up and settles for a midrange jumper, Parker keeps his dribble alive and constantly probes the space between defenders, never allowing them to settle into a comfort zone. John would need to work on his handle even more than his jumper. Interesting because I think he sees this as an area of strength for himself, but I forget who mentioned the Chinese pingpong player anecdote but it seems to apply here.

The Chinese have long held the Olympic gold medal in Ping-Pong. At the 1984 Olympics, when they again captured the gold, the coach of the Chinese team was asked by a reporter, "Tell me about your team's daily training regimen."

"We practice eight hours a day perfecting our strengths."

"Could you be a little more specific?"

"Here is our philosophy: If you develop your strengths to the maximum, the strength becomes so great it overwhelms the weakness. Our winning player, you see, plays only his forehand. Even though he cannot play backhand and his competition knows he cannot play backhand, his forehand is so invincible that it cannot be beaten."

Quoted here for instance.

This is something that players like Tony Parker and Steve Nash have done. Nash said he knew he was never going to be the quickest player on the court but as a year round athlete growing up (bball, soccer, rugby) he knew he had great stamina, and worked to become the best conditioned player on the court so that he could stay in motion constantly, outwork and outrun you at his top gear, and to get open he learned to groove his shot so that he could take it the split second he was open instead of trying to outjump you. Practice his strengths.

Parker too, quick yes but his next-level skill has always been his heads-up dribble and control. Quick read-recognition skill. Pops genius was to recognize this as his primary asset to the team and drill him in constantly staying aggressive and keeping his dribble alive. I recall early on Pop would rip into him if he ever got passive and allowed the defense to dictate what he was doing or where he was going. As an 18 year old kid Pop would not allow him to get nervous or tentative, he was more nervous about the guy on his bench than the opponents. Head up, eyes alive attack attack attack make them adjust to you, not vice versa. And that's what I want from John.

John has the eyes, has shown a good dribble, wins with great speed and vision more than an outside shot. If we're trying to take full advantage of what he does well, yes I want him to have a change-of-pace gear, and a grooved shot and a three ball, but more than anything I want him to have full control off the ball even when he is going full speed through traffic. Once he gets that down then he's even more of a load for defenses to handle, and refs will give him the benefit of the doubt on his attack instead of whistling him for offensive fouls as they did his first couple years in the league.

The thing I hope he learned from the post season is the need to be able to finish through contact, that the refs are not going to bail you out everytime you get touched, and in the playoffs you can expect to be hacked on any attack. If it's not obvious they ain't calling it, and even then they might not. Vs Indiana the entire team lost their aggression once the refs stopped blowing whistles.

This is a bad habit I get concerned the youngsters might pick up from Nene. He was happy bullying the slender Noah, but as soon as his beef was out-beefed he used the excuse of an injured leg to get tentative, as he often does. For a big guy he can be timid, and babies himself when he is a little bit dinged up or is met with greater force. One reason why I do want Cousins despite reservations. Yes he too will bitch and whine and sulk, but he actually WANTS to be a bully at times, doesn't mind a fight, looks forward to it.

I want John to take the MJ example, the Jordan Rules example. That when the Bad Boys Pistons dribbled him off the deck so many times and knocked him out of the air to make him Floor Jordan instead he went into the gym with Tim Grover and said: make it so I can finish even if they hit me. Build me up.

John's a lean cat, but his body can take more strength, maybe not quite the same muscle that Beal will be able to build (with his football genetics Brad can get DWade strong, if not Lance Stevenson thick), but building that wiry tendon/ligament/interstitial strength to make him as resilient as a bundle of cables, that will help him as much as an improved dribble and reliable jumper. Confidence follows, and he won't be tentative on the attack.

I agree that Wall is not worth and will probably never be worth a max contract. But I don't think it's as black and white as Silver suggests. It's not like there is a Max Free Agent Supermarket where you can save up your money and go shopping. Opportunities to actually obtain a max-caliber or near-max-caliber free agent are extremely rare. You must either draft them or convince one to be traded to you (or, very rarely, you can sign them outright). So instead of a supermarket, it's a distant trading post. You only get there maybe once every 5 or so years, and often when you finally get there, the shelves are pretty empty and you are stuck paying full price for a substandard product, or else you go home empty-handed.

The Wizards weren't in a position to choose between Wall and some hypothetical true-max-caliber free agent. It was Wall or no one. They made the decision that is was better to pay $16M a year for a $12M-a-year player than to have him walk.

It's just not a simple yes or no question the way Silver implies. If it's a "no" what are your true alternatives? WOuld you rather have a good player overpaifd by $4 or 5M per year and try to subsidize that overpayment elsewhere on your roster, or would you just say "nope, that guy is overpaid" and let him walk? That piece of reality is missing from from the discussion.

fishercob wrote:It's just not a simple yes or no question the way Silver implies. If it's a "no" what are your true alternatives? WOuld you rather have a good player overpaifd by $4 or 5M per year and try to subsidize that overpayment elsewhere on your roster, or would you just say "nope, that guy is overpaid" and let him walk? That piece of reality is missing from from the discussion.

Agree with this and what nate33 wrote, but it helps explain some of the hand wringing about resigning Wall to the max almost as soon as it was possible, along with some of the Wall trade suggestions that cropped up at the time.

It'll be interesting to see what we end up doing with Beal going into the dreaded "fourth season." What type of numbers would he have to put up to warrant a max extension?

montestewart wrote:

fishercob wrote:It's just not a simple yes or no question the way Silver implies. If it's a "no" what are your true alternatives? WOuld you rather have a good player overpaifd by $4 or 5M per year and try to subsidize that overpayment elsewhere on your roster, or would you just say "nope, that guy is overpaid" and let him walk? That piece of reality is missing from from the discussion.

Agree with this and what nate33 wrote, but it helps explain some of the hand wringing about resigning Wall to the max almost as soon as it was possible, along with some of the Wall trade suggestions that cropped up at the time.

I was a hand wringer. Not only do I think it worked out fine, but I am glad that Wall's impending free agency -- even if it would have been restricted -- is not hanging over the franchise's head. NBA players don't look other players ORtg, WS/48 or PPA -- but they do have strong opinions about who is good and who they want to play with. Without Wall locked up, we would not have him being quoted in the press saying he wanted to recruit guys here, etc.

doclinkin wrote:The key difference and area of improvement: where John pulls up and settles for a midrange jumper, Parker keeps his dribble alive and constantly probes the space between defenders, never allowing them to settle into a comfort zone. John would need to work on his handle even more than his jumper. Interesting because I think he sees this as an area of strength for himself, but I forget who mentioned the Chinese pingpong player anecdote but it seems to apply here.

The Chinese have long held the Olympic gold medal in Ping-Pong. At the 1984 Olympics, when they again captured the gold, the coach of the Chinese team was asked by a reporter, "Tell me about your team's daily training regimen."

"We practice eight hours a day perfecting our strengths."

"Could you be a little more specific?"

"Here is our philosophy: If you develop your strengths to the maximum, the strength becomes so great it overwhelms the weakness. Our winning player, you see, plays only his forehand. Even though he cannot play backhand and his competition knows he cannot play backhand, his forehand is so invincible that it cannot be beaten."

Quoted here for instance.

This is something that players like Tony Parker and Steve Nash have done. Nash said he knew he was never going to be the quickest player on the court but as a year round athlete growing up (bball, soccer, rugby) he knew he had great stamina, and worked to become the best conditioned player on the court so that he could stay in motion constantly, outwork and outrun you at his top gear, and to get open he learned to groove his shot so that he could take it the split second he was open instead of trying to outjump you. Practice his strengths.

Parker too, quick yes but his next-level skill has always been his heads-up dribble and control. Quick read-recognition skill. Pops genius was to recognize this as his primary asset to the team and drill him in constantly staying aggressive and keeping his dribble alive. I recall early on Pop would rip into him if he ever got passive and allowed the defense to dictate what he was doing or where he was going. As an 18 year old kid Pop would not allow him to get nervous or tentative, he was more nervous about the guy on his bench than the opponents. Head up, eyes alive attack attack attack make them adjust to you, not vice versa. And that's what I want from John.

John has the eyes, has shown a good dribble, wins with great speed and vision more than an outside shot. If we're trying to take full advantage of what he does well, yes I want him to have a change-of-pace gear, and a grooved shot and a three ball, but more than anything I want him to have full control off the ball even when he is going full speed through traffic. Once he gets that down then he's even more of a load for defenses to handle, and refs will give him the benefit of the doubt on his attack instead of whistling him for offensive fouls as they did his first couple years in the league.

This is brilliant, Doc, and totally a propos. I think, as well, it scales from individual player to team. I.e. you acquire the best players you can, and you build around their strengths. You don't put nearly the same effort into getting a player to improve on his weaknesses, and above all you don't acquire any player to compensate for the weaknesses of another player on your team!

Note that this is why comments that Kevin Durant needs a post-up game seemed totally off-base to me.

pineappleheadindc wrote:Uber stat geek Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has an interesting piece about when NBA teams should give out max contracts.

Link: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe ... o-the-max/

Has your guy made an All-NBA team, or would it have been entirely reasonable for him to do so? Then offer him the max extension. If not, then don’t.

If it’s a close call, you might consider the player’s age, his injury history, his advanced defensive metrics, his leadership abilities, positional scarcity, your cap flexibility or whatever else pleases you.

Kyrie Irving hasn’t made an All-NBA team and he isn’t going to this season. But is he a close call or a flat ‘no’? He’s squarely on the left-hand side of our chart10 based on win shares — and that metric likes Irving a lot better than some other systems. ESPN’s NBA real plus-minus rated Irving as just the 37th (!) best point guard in the league, by contrast, in large part because it rates his defense as awful.

I like Nate Silver's writing. I enjoy his ability to bring a statistical mindset to all kinds of life situations. I have a minor quibble or two with some of this column of his, but thought it was interesting and well worth the read. Hope you enjoy it.

Silver is certainly correct if you think of the move based only its relation to "data" -- i.e. to results in terms of value. Level of play received by the team per dollar spent on salary. Something like that.

But, I think this kind of analysis leaves out a key factor -- every decision is made instead of some other decision. In other words, the question is always "what is the best decision available to me?" not "what is the best decision... period!?" You may not be able to make the absolute best decision; you do have to make the best decision available to you.

This might explain why any number of players get maxxed, even though, in an absolute sense, they may not be worth their new salary. Make sense?

nate33 wrote:
The Wizards weren't in a position to choose between Wall and some hypothetical true-max-caliber free agent. It was Wall or no one. They made the decision that is was better to pay $16M a year for a $12M-a-year player than to have him walk.

Agree with this. I'm sure every time Wall has a bad or so-so game there will be posters here screaming about how he's not worth the max. And they would be absolutely right. Fact is, there are maybe 4-5 players in the NBA who are truly worth a max salary. But we all know that...I hope.

I expect Wall to continue to get better and play at a high level most nights...maybe not at a max worthy level but certainly close to it. The Zards decision to go in all in with Wall and lock him up last summer was a good thing for the franchise last season as well as into the future.

DCZards wrote:

nate33 wrote:
The Wizards weren't in a position to choose between Wall and some hypothetical true-max-caliber free agent. It was Wall or no one. They made the decision that is was better to pay $16M a year for a $12M-a-year player than to have him walk.

Agree with this. I'm sure every time Wall has a bad or so-so game there will be posters here screaming about how he's not worth the max. And they would be absolutely right. Fact is, there are maybe 4-5 players in the NBA who are truly worth a max salary. But we all know that...I hope.

I expect Wall to continue to get better and play at a high level most nights...maybe not at a max worthy level but certainly close to it. The Zards decision to go in all in with Wall and lock him up last summer was a good thing for the franchise last season as well as into the future.

I think there may be more players deserving of a max contract. Imagining the top 4-5 players (LeBJ, Durant, Paul, etc) probably fairly deserve more than the max, that leaves a number of players that you could at least argue are worth the max or will reach that level during the contract, players like Aldridge, Harden, Westbrook, Howard, etc, along with some that might merit a max contract but don't have one (Curry, Parker, Horford, Noah, etc).

Based on the "could get there" criterion, Wall isn't to me undeserving of a max contract, as I'm not assuming he's peaked/plateaued yet. It's an investment, complete with risks.

montestewart wrote:
I think there may be more players deserving of a max contract. Imagining the top 4-5 players (LeBJ, Durant, Paul, etc) probably fairly deserve more than the max, that leaves a number of players that you could at least argue are worth the max or will reach that level during the contract, players like Aldridge, Harden, Westbrook, Howard, etc, along with some that might merit a max contract but don't have one (Curry, Parker, Horford, Noah, etc).

Based on the "could get there" criterion, Wall isn't to me undeserving of a max contract, as I'm not assuming he's peaked/plateaued yet. It's an investment, complete with risks.

You're absolutely right. There are more than 4-5 players worthy of max contract. Many of those you've named fall into that category.