RealGM

Across a variety of metrics, over a long period of NBA history, I’ve found that there are a relatively set number of players who perform at various levels in any given season.

Around five players per season perform at a “supermax” level, worth 35 percent of a team’s salary cap or more, as well as significantly add to a team’s championship equity.
Another 10-15 perform at a “veteran max” level, worth 30 percent or more of the cap.
A further 20-25 players perform at a level justifying a “rookie max” at 25 percent of the cap or higher.
Between 30-35 produce at around 20 percent of the cap.
Another 50 to 75 provide some additional championship equity on top of their “everyday” production, but only a minor amount.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

falcolombardi wrote:Not sure why kawhi seems to be evaluated in his 2021 version when he has not played in a year but davis doesnt get to be evaluated on his last healthy season

falcolombardi wrote:Not sure why kawhi seems to be evaluated in his 2021 version when he has not played in a year but davis doesnt get to be evaluated on his last healthy season

sp6r=underrated wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:Not sure why kawhi seems to be evaluated in his 2021 version when he has not played in a year but davis doesnt get to be evaluated on his last healthy season

Anthony Davis's last healthy season was 2020.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I'm sorry but I think this list is pretty bad. At some point you have to factor in decline for players that have shown it over a 1-2 year sample while dealing with both injuries and advanced age when they cross the 32-33 mark. Harden and CP3 as top 15 guys for next season simply does not compute for me nor does KD as a top 4 player and Kawhi as top 7. I feel like the whole point of these lists is just pointless clickbait tbh. None of these guys bring anything new in terms of evaluation and how they come to their rankings.

In order, players were considered from the standpoint of value to a top 10-ish team looking to contend for a title next season and are contract-agnostic. Thus the tiers are not intended to reflect “asset values” of players, and age is only considered as far as the likelihood of sizable improvement or rapid decline heading into next year.

Doctor MJ wrote:I'm going to assert my objection to the use of "Franchise Player" as a synonym for "the very best players".

Kevin Durant is one of the very best players, at this point it's clear, he's not a franchise player, because you'd be a fool to build your franchise around his caprice.

In order, players were considered from the standpoint of value to a top 10-ish team looking to contend for a title next season and are contract-agnostic. Thus the tiers are not intended to reflect “asset values” of players, and age is only considered as far as the likelihood of sizable improvement or rapid decline heading into next year.

Colbinii wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:I'm going to assert my objection to the use of "Franchise Player" as a synonym for "the very best players".

Kevin Durant is one of the very best players, at this point it's clear, he's not a franchise player, because you'd be a fool to build your franchise around his caprice.

From what I had gathered from the articles, this is solely for next year.

In order, players were considered from the standpoint of value to a top 10-ish team looking to contend for a title next season and are contract-agnostic. Thus the tiers are not intended to reflect “asset values” of players, and age is only considered as far as the likelihood of sizable improvement or rapid decline heading into next year.

I interpreted this is if I could somehow acquire a certain player or players based on value in a vacuum, this is how they would be separated by the author.

Doctor MJ wrote:I'm going to assert my objection to the use of "Franchise Player" as a synonym for "the very best players".

Kevin Durant is one of the very best players, at this point it's clear, he's not a franchise player, because you'd be a fool to build your franchise around his caprice.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:I'm going to assert my objection to the use of "Franchise Player" as a synonym for "the very best players".

Kevin Durant is one of the very best players, at this point it's clear, he's not a franchise player, because you'd be a fool to build your franchise around his caprice.

So this is OT but let's go with terms that annoy us. I'll go with small markets.

I've seen the following teams called small-market: Atlanta Hawks, Dallas Mavericks, Toronto Raptors. Instead I really wish we used Alpha Markets (NYC/LA), Large Mid Market, Small Mid Markets and true small markets. It is granular but accurate.

But I'll always be irritated when I read people write small market and then the team listed is the Washington Wizards. I also get chronically irritated when the Heat is listed as a team with the same advantage the Lakers have over the Hawks.

Hawks have no one to blame but themselves, to pick on Atlanta, for Miami being the first choice of people wanting to play in the south. They are very similar tier cities for appeal.

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:I'm going to assert my objection to the use of "Franchise Player" as a synonym for "the very best players".

Kevin Durant is one of the very best players, at this point it's clear, he's not a franchise player, because you'd be a fool to build your franchise around his caprice.

So this is OT but let's go with terms that annoy us. I'll go with small markets.

I've seen the following teams called small-market: Atlanta Hawks, Dallas Mavericks, Toronto Raptors. Instead I really wish we used Alpha Markets (NYC/LA), Large Mid Market, Small Mid Markets and true small markets. It is granular but accurate.

But I'll always be irritated when I read people write small market and then the team listed is the Washington Wizards. I also get chronically irritated when the Heat is listed as a team with the same advantage the Lakers have over the Hawks.

Hawks have no one to blame but themselves, to pick on Atlanta, for Miami being the first choice of people wanting to play in the south. They are very similar tier cities for appeal.

the size of the market is not really the thing, there.
there are destination markets, that can attract top FAs.
mid level markets, that can retain their own but not attract new ones.
low level markets, that will likely lose their own FAs unless everything goes perfect and they find the right kind of star that is not interested to leave (Timmeh, Giannis, Jokic...)

Miami is not a big market but is in the first list, for instance.

___
Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app