# Sam Smith: Where are MJ's Free Agents?



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

"There was this notion that everything people like Michael Jordan tough turns to gold. And championships. It's the stuff of fairy tales, not reality. Major free agents have not come to Washington and don't appear interested. Even Wizards players aren't sure whether they want to remain."

More at:

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/misc/1425523.html


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> "There was this notion that everything people like Michael Jordan tough turns to gold. And championships. It's the stuff of fairy tales, not reality. Major free agents have not come to Washington and don't appear interested. Even Wizards players aren't sure whether they want to remain."
> 
> More at:
> ...


Read my response on the Wizards board. Sam Smith once again shows his foolishness.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

First off, as great a player as I believe Michael was, I never viewed him as a demi-god. 

I think Smith is off-base. Basically, Sam's case against Jordan is this:

1) The Wiz have yet to re-sign free agent veteran forward Popeye Jones.

2) Houston's Steve Francis, a D.C. native, signed a contract extension with the Rockets instead of waiting a year for a chance to sign with the Wiz.

3) In general, free agents have not "flocked" to Jordan's franchise.

Jones is a solid role player, nowhere near a star. He's been in the league 9 years and has yet to make the playoffs. The Wiz are unlikely to make the playoffs this season. Can't blame Popeye for wanting to set sail.

Francis signed a multi-year contract extension that has the maximum value allowed under the league's collective bargaining agreement, that is, a max deal. Criticizing Jordan for this development is a monumental stretch.

The Wiz have been a losing team and star free agents have not formed a line to sign with them. Hmmm...sounds familiar. I'm trying to think of a single star free agent over the last few years who has jumped ship to sign with a losing team. Nope, I can't think of any. Maybe someone can help me with this one.

Though Krause and Jordan may not be best buds, the Wiz and the Bulls are taking a very similar approach to rebuilding...first dump veteran salaries then draft talented kids and supplement them with an occasional trade or non-star free agent acquisition. In today's NBA, it's the smart way to do it.

Sure, some fans and media predicted that the Wiz would have an edge on other teams (because of MJ) in terms of signing free agents, but I can't recall Michael saying it, and knowledgeable observers knew this wasn't going to happen.

Cheap shot, Sam.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I don't know...Smith is a little catty here, and the fact that Popeye might not re-sign is inconsequential, but there are some legitimate points often overlooked by the Jordanphiles in the media (especially at ESPN).

It's safe to assume that attracting a marquee free agent is a major component, if not the centerpiece, of Jordan's rebuilding effort. The Wiz virtually gave away Juwan Howard in a trade and waived Rod Strickland and Mitch Richmond--those two cuts draining over 20 million dollars from the franchise's bottom line--all to gain cap room to sign an elite, "franchise"-level player.

Smith merely points out Jordan's difficulties in getting this done given the realities of the current marketplace: these types of players are tending to re-up with their own teams, especially if their initial deal was signed after the lockout. The current rookie contract structure gives the drafting team a huge advantage in retaining its players--not many players (or their advisors) are gutty enough to turn down big money to play out that fourth year, risking injury and the whims of the cap once they've achieved unrestricted free agency. If a guy like Baron Davis isn't going to leave his team, who will? 

This is all in stark contrast, as Smith notes, to what we were told would happen when Jordan took the Wiz job--marquee free agents would take massive pay cuts to sit at Jordan's right hand. The Jordan name would prove irresistible to players young and old alike. Jordan would build a basketball Athens on the banks of the Potomac. 

What's actually happened is that two likely and logical targets--Francis and Carter--re-upped at home before any buzz over a possible move to DC could even develop. None of the near-term elite free agents--the Kidds, Duncans, J. O'Neals, etc.--is likely to pick up stakes and move to the MCI Center. Smith's point is that the Jordan cachet has meant nothing--as far as free agents are concerned, he's just another GM of another lousy team. 

Smith also touches on another salient point you'll never hear from a cheerleader like David Aldridge--as long as Jordan plays, the Wiz won't really know how good their young nucleus is. The value of their players will remain depressed and possibly preclude the Wiz from obtaining high-level talent via a trade.

Overall, the reason I like Smith's article is that too many other writers are letting Jordan's comeback as a player obscure the reason he went to DC in the first place--to rebuild the Wiz. His one signature move in that role--clearing cap space as noted above--seems to have been for naught.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Why is it safe to say grabbing a marque name was the centerpiece of rebuilding? Jordan has consistently said he was going for young players and is rebuilding. Because of speculation by the media you make it look as if it were fact he was supposed to go after a marque name. 

As for your salient point, and calling Aldridge a cheerleader, did you bother to read his article on ESPN specifically about the Wizards young players? 

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/aldridge_david/1409617.html

I think he makes a point that everyone understands, that for the Wizards players to prove themselves completely, it will have to be without MJ. However, it ignores everything else that MJ is instlling into them, about commitment and what it takes to win. 

Smith's article is about sour grapes. Your specific comments on it show a bias twoards a distinct Chicago view of it.


----------



## Agent911 (Jul 11, 2002)

BCH has several good points here and on the Wiz board:

Sam Smith's sour grapes
Popeye's limited value to the Wiz
No specific overtures could be made to Francis/Carter, so there were no specific, embarrassing rejections of the Wiz
MJ has made some good rebuilding steps with cuts and drafts

I think that MJ's work has been the equal of most GM's around.

But Smith and ScottMay also have a point: MJ was hired to be better than just another GM. His cachet was supposed to be enough to convince free agents to accept pay cuts just to be around him. We don't know if the Wiz owners shared this expectation, but the media and fans certainly spouted this idea. Smith is reporting that this expectation has certainly not been fulfilled. MJ is no better than any other GM.

Or is he? Granted, lightning has not struck in the form of a premier free agent. But MJ has created hoops interest in the capital and put butts in seats better than most GMs. And he has pulled in one top FA for cheap - Michael Jordan. Of course, the jury is out on that one - did he contribute to the team and sport by improving competitiveness? Or just prolong the rebuilding? 

I think that Jordan's earning a C- when measured against lofty expectations set by media and fans when he took the GM job. But on a (more fair?) scale of his GM peers, I think he at more of a B+


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I hadn't read that Aldridge article, thanks. It's a marked departure from his usual gushing. However, it's still not exactly based in reality:

"When the Wizards won last season, it wasn't because Jordan scored 40; it was because Haywood blocked shots, or White and Thomas controlled the paint and gave the Wizards second chances with offensive boards. Mostly, it was when Jones made a big play, either taking a charge or setting a pick to get Jordan or Hamilton open."

Come on now. Do you honestly agree with this? Why were the Wiz 7-15 without Mike and 30-30 with him, then? And if you do agree with it, you have to cede Smith's point about the importance of re-signing Popeye, no?

We've been in circles before over Jordan's so-called teaching of younger players--I personally find the notion laughable, especially given Jordan's track record. He respects hard-nosed players like Paxson, Oakley, Kerr, Cartwright, Etan Thomas, and Popeye. He has no tolerance whatsoever for non-self-starters like Toni Kukoc, Horace Grant, or Kwame Brown. As long as he plays, his will to win will overshadow the development of individual players.

Smith's article could be sour grapes, but I see nothing pro-Chicago about my observations, other than what I know about Jordan from watching him all those years.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

ScottMay,

Jordan's injury coincided with Haywoods injuries, and there were games when Jordan and Hamilton were out at the same time. Laettner's broken leg wasn't a benefit either. I did not mean pro-Chicago viewpoints but limited Chicago viewpoints.

Aldridge is correct. Jordan was not the reason the Wizards won games other than his ability to get the guys on the floor to play together and to play tough on defense. These are the things he is teaching them, and if you watched all of their games you would see these are the things they are picking up on. When the Wizards won it was usually due to the contributions of others and MJ picking his spots. As Rip matures that will be his role.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Agent911</b>!
> BCH has several good points here and on the Wiz board:
> 
> Sam Smith's sour grapes
> ...


MJ has done what he could. He has not performed miracles for sure but he has given the Wizards franchise direction. TO say no cachet was brought to the Wizards is incorrect as you say, the Wizards were among the top of the league in overall attendance, if not the best, but I am not inclined to look that up to verify.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> Aldridge is correct. Jordan was not the reason the Wizards won games other than his ability to get the guys on the floor to play together and to play tough on defense. These are the things he is teaching them, and if you watched all of their games you would see these are the things they are picking up on. When the Wizards won it was usually due to the contributions of others and MJ picking his spots. As Rip matures that will be his role.


I'll end on this post as this is clearly yet another issue to be filed in the "check back in 3 years" file.

I didn't see all of the Wizards games, only bits and pieces of about 40-45 of them. I don't know what happened the rest of the time, but in the games I saw, Jordan was utterly dominating the flow of the offense (as one would expect from a guy who led his team not only in scoring but assists).

I completely agree with you about Jordan's impact on the defense. Hamilton has improved immensely in that regard. But saying that Jordan's not the reason they won games is either spin or naivete, plain and simple.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

I think MJ's tenure as GM for the Wizards has been well beyond reproach. I'd probably give him a grade of a B+/A-. He hasn't done everything perfectly (few GMS do) but has has done a lot more good than bad. Here is a catalog of some of his more notable decisions:


1. Getting rid of Juwan Howard, Mitch Richmond and Rod Strickland.

This is MJ's most impressive feat as GM. He actually pulled off the seemingly impossible moves to even allow the Wiz to rebuild. The effect of these moves saved them 2-3 years in the rebuilding process.

2. Drafting Kwame Brown at #1 in 2001

Sorry, but I'm just not convinced this was a good move. I think there was much better value to be had with that pick. Brown was very clearly the 3rd best high schooler in that draft, yet somehow he catapulted over Curry and Chandler? Jordan, like his nemesis Krause, was trying to "outsmart" people. And while I think Brown will be a good player, I think he was a poor value.

3. Trading for Brendan Haywood

Great move for the future given Brown as their future PF. Haywood is a great lane-clogger, rebounder and shotblocker when motivated, and Jordan is just the guy to motivate him.

4. Drafting Jared Jeffries and Richard Hamilton

Solid, if unspectacular draft picks. Both will be very strong starters for a long time. Jeffries brings quality defense to the perimeter and interior that will benefit the team a great deal. He's just the type of physicaly specimen that Jordan can bring out the best in.


Overall, Jordan has done well in positioning the team for the future. He has done a sufficient job in the draft, often better in the later picks. As far as FAs go, he has put the team in position to both attract and afford FAs. Unfortunately the current NBA often makes it difficult to reel them in. I don't blame Jordan YET, but if he comes up empty in next year's big FA pool, then I think you can begin to shift some blame to him.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Jordan didn't draft Hamilton.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll end on this post as this is clearly yet another issue to be filed in the "check back in 3 years" file.
> ...


Jordan ran the offense and it did flow through him, but he did not play all 5 positions and he did not score all the points. Hamilton was outscoring MJ when everything was running as well as it could and before Rip went down with injury.

The Wizards were one of the few teams that statiscally had a good defensive season and did not make the playoffs. That is where it begins with them, and not on the offensive end.

The spin is by the media and people like you that fail to realize how much more is invloved in the game than points and assists. The Wizards improved because of defense on the interior and because of rebounding. They also improved because they started to come together as a team under the leadership of Jordan the player.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Sourgrapes my exterior orafice. Smith should have it stuck to him early and often. MJ inherited a team that should have been at least .500 and said so himself. He spent his time in his Highland Park Mansion and at Hoops Gym in Chicago instead of Washington and on the road scouting where a general manager belongs
He was paid more more money than any general manager in the history of basketball and given for free a piece of the team. The team didn't perform.
What does Jordan do, gets rid of people and gets praised. He didn't get close to what Denver got for Juwan Howard and threw Calvin Booth, a very serviceable center into the mix. He got Etan Thomas who has yet to show he belongs and Courtney Alexander who he traded for a #17 pick, wow! and as Kneepad pointed out he inherited Hamilton.
He gets lucky (sic) and gets the #1 pick and drafts Kwamee Brown who they admitedly mishandled. Come up with this fresh theroy that showing the team how to make the playoffs will make the rest better in the long run when he comes back to play. Coming back to play made them money to partially justify the money they wasted on making someone with zero NBA management experience a general manager and at an exorbitant price not to mention a piece of the hockey team). Give me a break.
In the meantime they don't make the playoffs, wind up with the 11th pick (way to rebuild) didn't clear enough room to get a good free agent, aren't getting one anyway as there future is long term bad and pick up a free agent Larry Hughes who has great athletic ability, proven to not be a good point guard to play point guard and signed him for several years. Are not going to get back Popeye Jones who only wants the veteran minimum and would help and if MJ comes, even in a diminished capacity, will still win enough games to miss getting a great pick.
This franchise is being mismanaged beyond belief but MJ will sell tickets again this year. Their payment for Haywood may be a long way off, but it could be a very high pick, worth at least as much as Haywood if not more.
There are 29 NBA teams, the large majority of which would like to get somewhere, a less than total commitment to a sound philosophy is going to make the Wiz exactly what I call a wiz which is a number one on the washroom scale.
Only a team that has been in the dumps for almost 2 decades would have welcomed MJ and his only real value is selling tickets as a player.
What Sam Smith wrote is just the beginning of the legacy the $50 mil in GM salary and percentages of the Wiz and Hockey team will yield to the soon to be long and even longer frustrated Washington Wizards fans.
This is not gloating at all, I feel very sorry for you. Nothing less than incompetent ownership would have hired MJ to mismanage your team. You need new ownership and yesterday.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> This is all in stark contrast, as Smith notes, to what we were told would happen when Jordan took the Wiz job--marquee free agents would take massive pay cuts to sit at Jordan's right hand. The Jordan name would prove irresistible to players young and old alike. *Jordan would build a basketball Athens on the banks of the Potomac. *


He is .

It will culiminate in MJ limping through another season and taking his pedestrian teammates with him and the MCI Center being renamed * The Crapopolis *

As the ancient Greek sage , Eccliastes, intoned :

_ Rejoice O Young man in thy youth _ 

And if you believe Sam Smith , youth it shall be , as MJ gets a lesson in "full boat" free agency to be taken by Professor Krause- with the Wizzer doing it tough rowing up **** creek without a paddle , and being relegated to lottery after lottery once SS "MJ part 3 " gets decommissioned.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Larry Hughes for the full exception is just flat out embarrasing 

If it was not for MJ filling up his dance cart , I dare say Larry would still be a wallflower coming into training camp


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Hughes for 4.5M a year is not an embarassment. A couple of other teams targetted him at the same number. He has shown something in the NBA, whether you like what he has done or not, his stats have _real_ promise. Signing ERob for $42M over 6 years was an embarassment.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Hughes for 4.5M a year is not an embarassment. A couple of other teams targetted him at the same number. He has shown something in the NBA, whether you like what he has done or not, his stats have _real_ promise.



:laugh: 

Yeah love that _ real _ promise that hoists up 11 shots a game every two and a half minutes for a career 39 % FG conversion rate and 20% from 3 

No problem hoisting 11 shots a game which say may be the hallmark of a legit 3rd option in an attack - but at that level of efficency? Ugghhhh:sour: 

Maybe he needs to work other options around him more .

:uhoh: 

But then it might have something to do with the 1.7 :1 assist to turnover ratio that he averaged in Golden State the last couple of years

He has plenty of razz and he is the elusive "big guard" that everyone seems to bone up about - and will no doubt give a few uneducated MJ/Wiz bandwagoners a few cheap thrills with a couple of gratuitous tricks .....

But there are reasons Golden State sent him on his way as there were why Jerry passed him over for the 2nd lottery pick he had in the 2000 draft - just as there were reasons why Larry Brown got rid of him in Philly 

And what it reallt boils down to is that he has plenty of glitz but can't really shoot a lick or run an offense properly 

And other teams wanted him too huh ? 

Wolves ? Hawks ? 

Hawks may have been boneheaded enough to acquire him at that price but mainly due to the fact that they can't decide no commit to Terry at the 1 or 2 spots.

The Wolves ? Kevin McHale making a quick move to snavel Larry ?
Rest assured McHale and his front office will be mired in quicksand for another year 

Enjoy Larry at $4.5M per when you had no serious competition for him at that price

:laugh:


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Props FJ. I couldn't believe anyone really wanted Hughes.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Amusing you fail to mention the Sixers who wanted him back. Jerry's not deciding to pick him is hardly condemnation. I mean he did pick Fizer and Bagaric. Sorry if I don't share your opinion. He shot 42% last year about the same as Trenton Hassel.


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

BCH,

You do realize that you just compared a 5 year NBA vet who was selected with the eight pick of the 1st round in '98 to a rookie who was drafted in the second round?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I do. I also realize they are about 2 months apart in age and Hughes is hardly a five year vet.


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

And, that is your basis for this comparison? Come on man... At least compare their rookie seasons.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

My basis of comparison is that the guy is young. FJ knew he shot 42% last year and wants to bring up career stats for someone who is the same age as a guy who was a rookie last year? Very ogjective don't you think? But then again, maybe he figured I was one of the "uneducated" Wizards fans.


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I do. I also realize they are about 2 months apart in age and *Hughes is hardly a five year vet.*


How do you figure that? He has played 2 seasons for Philly and 3 for Golden State. What am I missing?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

1 1/2 in Philly 2 1/2 in GS.


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

My bad. You are right. Take everything I said and replace the 5 with a 4


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>higginj44</b>!
> My bad. You are right. Take everything I said and replace the 5 with a 4


Criticize the guy, but do it fairly. The Wizards wanted him. They have wanted him since last season. He was one of a couple guys they looked at early in the signing period and they grabbed him. The Sixers had indicated they were interested in him as well as a couple of other teams. Whatever their reasons for wanting him are moot. The Wizards made a decisive move, and Hughes signed with the ability to make equal money in different cities. He is still very young and he signed a 3 year deal, hardly a crippling contract. His 3 point percentage looks bad but he averages about an attempt per game. He has a good scoring average and can pass and rebound. He can play multiple positions. I am not sure how this got into a defense of Hughes, but outside of Smith I have read little criticism of the signing by anyone.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Regardless. Minds have been closed to this subject. The upcoming season will show whether it was a good move or not. I guess everything the Wizards did last year was all because of Jordan the player. I just pray he can do it for us again. Then I hope we clone him and have him forever. THere is nothing left to say, so I will leave it up to the Bulls fans to close this out. Enjoy.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

This is amusing

BCH , 

Trent shot 42.5% last year and 36.5% from 3 . He also had 26% of his shots that were taken from beyond the arc 

Lozza shot 42% and 18% from 3 - where only 11% of his shots were taken from beyond the arc.

M'friend, I was not referring to you when I was referring to the bandwagoner "uneducated" Wiz fan - you are far too all knowing and sly .

So when you call me out for allegedly twisting stats just make sure it is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black - and if you want to compare him to Trenton , just make sure you retain your objectivity by understanding and disclosing their shot correlations - and the impact this will have on FG percentages if you want to _ respectersize _ Lozza by comparing him to a quality baller like Trenton

Also , I thought considering how one's contract should be a function of one's past accomplishments , it was entirely reasonable to look at their career averages

If I really was not objective and wanted to stick the slipper straight into Lozza , I would point out his diminishing output over the last 2 seasons which is there for all to see who care to be objective .

I chose to be fair with Lozza and just point out averaged career output - perfectly reasonable in the context of the debate

I find your comment on Krause passing on Hughes and picking up Fizer and Bagaric hilarious ( OK fair ( but easy ) comment on Bags ) 

Fizer in his first two full seasons averaged 11 ppg , 5 rpg, shot 43% and 22 % from 3 on 11 shots per game , 1.3 apg and 0.76 : 1 assist to turnover ratio - all in 24 mpg 

Hughes averaged, 13.3 ppg, 4.2 rpg, shot 40% - 20% from 3 on 12 shots per game, 2.2 apg and 1: 1 assist to turnover ratio - all in 27 minutes per game

If you wanted to apply a productivity index over their first two seasons and compare , I think you would find Fizer is the marginally superior player on a per minute basis

And you get your cheap shot in on Krause for passing Hughes over and drafting Fizer. 

:laugh: 

Good stuff!

In terms of me failing to bring up the Sixers - yes the needed backcourt help and scoring help - the two were not necessarily entwined. The fact is the Sixers had been negotiating with Greg Buckner all over the summer and if the Sixers had of got Lozza for Greg Buckner money ( read : HALF THE EXCEPTION ) than I am sure they would have considered taking him back .

I didnt mention the Sixers because I honestly forgot them which was easy to do because even though their likely reasonable starting point of $2.4M a year was fair and they were not hot and heavy for him at his asking price - if they were it would have been a cleaner crapshoot. The Hawks and Wolves ( like the Sixers ) with their luxury tax concerns were not going to sign a marginal talent like Hughes either who would not contribute to either of them progressing past the 1st round 

It was only MJ . Only MJ . And he gave him the full $4.5M

Hilarious :laugh: 

My point was - was not that anyone didnt want him - just not at the price your team paid for him . 

The Wiz were trigger happy on this marginal talent and MJ overpaid him . You know it .

:laugh:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Here is a comparison for you.

Donyell Marshall, age 29, Career Stats
12ppg/.433 1.6apg 6.8rpg 1.6TO .9BLK .8STL 27.1mpg

Larry Hughes, age 23, Career Stats
13.3ppg/.403 3.2apg 4.2rpg 2.3TO .4BLK 1.4STL 28.3mpg

Draw your own conclusions. Hughes took a hit when the GSW decided to screw with him at the end of last season. Donyell has had a couple of years with John Stockton to bolster his FG%.

I say let the season begin, so we can see what the real deal is. Of course if MJ plays, Hughes will just be a product of MJ on the court, right?

For those that want, check out the stats for Billups and George, two other players that signed for the full mid-level, and Clark as well. There is little separation for any of these players, with George having substantially lower statistics than the rest, and Hughes is the youngest of the bunch.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

What would be wrong with Hughes being a by product of MJ on the court? Actually that could really improve his overall game IMO. I always thought Hughes had it in him to be a real talent. Maybe going to Washington will do the trick. 

As for Marshall, i will be very happy if Donyell gets his average and nothing more. Not so much his scoring but his 6.8 rebounds at the sf/pf spot should really help us out.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

:laugh: 

Could not stay away huh ?

Of course the difference is is that Donyell's production has been expanding at an impressive rate whereas Lozza's has been receding - even before those rich white devil slavemasters otherwise known as Dave Cowens and staff decided to "screw" with him last year 


Gee Wiz do you think it could have had something to do with the fact Lozza's shot selection blows and that he can't run the point ?

Check out my stat breakdown on Yell in my article "Did someone holla for a Marshall ? " where you may learn he was a 19 and 8 guy in over 30 minutes before going down in the New Year last season . Oops I forgot that was all John Stockton - which means if the Jizz had Qualmy Brown lasy year , Qualms would have been ROY and I guess Jahidi would have been an allstar if they had him too.

Your comparison to Clark is ludicrous ( as was your call on Fizer in the initial instant to which I responded to - in the context of eye for talent which is what I assumed you meant re Krause ) given the different positions and skills they bring to the mix in how they are productive. Keon is not creating for others or trying to make his own offense - Lozza is . Comparative to their roles in what they are meant tobe doing - Keon is a zillion times more productive that what Lozza is .

Keon was a luxury tax victim - Lozza was not . Lozza was someone else's scraps - the Warriors no less that was overpaid for by a team that didnt have to.

Fine if you want to compare him to Chauncey and Devean - both 42% FG shooters - same as Lozzels last year

But then you look into it ( at the behest of your invitation ) and you see that Raunchey Chauncey had an assist to turnover ratio his last couple year's in Minnesota of 3 : 1 compared to Lozzell's 1.7: 1, you see that Raunchey Chauncey shot 35% of his shots behind the arc shooting at an impressive 38% - more than double the clip of Lozzells

Similarly, Devean George - who the Lakes probably did overpay for to keep the championship team together - but who can fault that ?

Devean had 36% of his shots last year taken from behind the arc and converted at .. you guessed it nearly double that of Lozzells - 37% - but had an overall FG conversion rate comparable to Lozza at 42%

Poor effort BCH and frankly quite disappointing coming from you 

Lift your game


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> My basis of comparison is that the guy is young. FJ knew he shot 42% last year and wants to bring up career stats for someone who is the same age as a guy who was a rookie last year? Very ogjective don't you think? But then again, maybe he figured I was one of the "uneducated" Wizards fans.


And age as you use as a basis for your debate has got stuff all to do with anything 

2 months difference between he and Trent , 18 months between he and Raunchey Chauncey - who gives a rip ?

its what you do on the court with the benefit of tenure that you have had in the league - the rest is just what it says on your drivers license

Loz has had 4 years to prove himself and has proven to be an abject failure - not just a failure , but an abject failure


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

And if you really want to look at comparative worth may I suggest you take a look at the superior Jeff McInnis who signed on with the freewheeling Blazers ( where money is no object ) for $3M - and this for a guy that enjoys an assist to turnover ratio of over 3: 1 and is a 32% 3 point shooter and 44% overall

You could also look at Antonio Daniels who is on the last year of his rookie contract at $3.75M and who almost certainly will be playing for less next year 

You could look at the multi positional and much better Rodney Rogers ( on the basis you say Loz is a multi positional player ) and the $3M he will take from the Nets 

You could look at Erick Strickland .....


I could do on....

Ahhhh but I get it -Loz has got upside right ? well after 4 years you think he would producing better than all of these guys I mentioned in this post ... alas .. he is not 

Enjoy him chewing 10% of your salary cap ( average ) for the next 3 years


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ.

You are doing a poot job of proving Hughes was an abject failure especially when you compare him to the other players signed at the full mid level. Your boy, Marshall has hardly shown a steady increase of anything over his career. He seems to have flatlined long ago.

The season awaits. What will be the excuse this year? Get them ready now.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I think you all are looking past a key point... playing for Golden State and St. Jean kills your career.

I don't think either of the players career numbers or reputations are fair because of the Golden State factor. They were cursed when they decided to dismantle Run TMC.

Timmy, Mitch, Chris, Tyrone Hill and Alton Lister... l loved watching that team play.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Damn BCH you changed your post before I could respond 

I took mental note of what you wrote before you changed your post so I will respond to your points as I remember them 

First of all you erroneously contested the fact that Billups had an inferior FG % . Fact is overall they were similar. Devean George's were slightly lower at 41%

My point about them taking a higher ratio of shots from beyond the arc is self explanatory I would have thought 

When one in three shots is being taken from 3 point range, it stands to reason that your overall FG% will be lower 

To mitigate this however , Billups and George both shoot at around a 38% clip - double Lozza's

You queried as to " how Hughes averaged more points a game" than both these two and inferred it might have something to do with his superior FG% which you contested ( again erroneously ) was superior 

I was going to point out to you that Loz cranked nearly 2 extra shots a game than Chauncey last season and around 5 extra shots more than Devean - I guess its easy to average more points a game when you take more shots - except your boy Loz did not average more than Chauncey - they were about comparable - but undoubtedly Billups was the superior player on a number of fronts that I have already illustrated for you herein and that I do not care to repeat if you continue to deny reality 

Again, where they are different , is that Chauncey is the more rounded player with better shot selection and can actually shoot the rock . Combine this with an assist to turnover ratio of 3 : 1 compared to 1.7 : 1 - and Loz is .. well half the player almost .. which I guess means half the exception which is what Philly wanted him to take ( and rightly so ) 

The statistical facts are .. all of the players I have mentioned, Rogers, Strickland , McInnis, Daniels, Billups and George are all more productive and beneficial to their teams than what Loz was - this is irrefutably a case of where the numbers do not lie

Just accept the fact that you got a player with shooting touch of Derrick Dial and the playmaking ability of Emanuel Davis - all mixed into the smoke and mirror show of Larry Hughes. You got $4.5M worth of upside which is a pretty safe call when you're at rock bottom and the only way is up .

The truth can be inconvenient at times and we can cringe as our head remains submerged in the sand .. but your front office messed up. Pure and simple .

Just try and put it behind you like a good lad and enjoy your season and concentrate on the College season to see who looks good for you guys in the top half of the lottery.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I think you all are looking past a key point... playing for Golden State and St. Jean kills your career.
> 
> I don't think either of the players career numbers or reputations are fair because of the Golden State factor. They were cursed when they decided to dismantle Run TMC.
> ...


Yes Retro .. perhaps Billie St Jean King and the Waz are cursed for dumping all over basketball's holy trinity ( a.k.a Run TMC ) or was there blood on Nellie's dagger ..... on reflection me thinks twas Nellie

Anyhoo no bookoo voodoo on Masters JRich or Arenas.

Perhaps it could be that there front office are just bungling buffoons that have not been able to amass adequate talent and meld it into a workable mix

If you have a look at who has passed through their doors the last few years ( and who is still there ) it is hardly inspiring 

No .. sorry Ret ole pal , no matter how sorry an organisation is an individual player has to take some individual responsibility as to whether they are going to make it or whether they in fact blow

And Larry Hughes blows like a Hurricane - Billie St Jean King is just the weathergirl telling it like it is ( hmmm sounds like someone else we know )


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

My first post which I deleted refered to career stats but you seem to be interchanging career with last season rather fluidly to suit what ever point you are ttrying to make.

For last season, You keep using the word more productive in reference to Billups and you have yet to show it. He takes more shots behind the arc, converts then at a higher clip, shoots the same percentage and averages about the same points, .2 more. So what is the net gain? He takes 1 less shot per game? Hughes averages more than .5 steals more and .5 offensive rebounds rebounds more. Guess that makes up for that extra shot per game. Did I mention Billups is also a couple of years older than Hughes?

Devean George more productive? You want to go over that again? Lower shooting percentage, lower scoring average, his rebounds are .4 higher but then again he is a SF, his assists as similarly about 3 less per game. Try again.

So again we get to the part where I ask you what your point is and you go into your basketball patois, trying to prove a point that doen't exist. You cant acknowledge that the GSW screwed with Hughes at the end of last season and even then, looking at his stats you still have nothing to say other than the guy is a poor 3pt shooter. Go holla for your Marshall, you are going to need to, to make yourself feel that he actually _is_ worth the full exception. Talk about no competition for a player. As soon as Marshall knew he couldn't fleece the Jazz, he ran to the only offer on the table.

Understand that in determining Marshall's worth I have your idea of fairness to draw on whether he is worth it or not.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

I think it's safe to say that Bulls fans are going to say that Marshall is worth more, and Wiz fans are going to say that Hughes is worth more.

But what do their former teams think of them?

The Warriors- the worst team in the league- didn't think Hughes was even worth $3.2 million (the qualifying offer it would have taken to keep him)

The Jazz- a playoff team- offered Marshall a 3 year, $21 million contract to stick around.

Yeah, BCH, I know- different teams, different circumstances, blah blah blah. I'll leave it to you to explain why Hughes wasn't worth $3.2 mil to a 21-win team while Marshall was worth $21 mil to a playoff team...


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> I think it's safe to say that Bulls fans are going to say that Marshall is worth more, and Wiz fans are going to say that Hughes is worth more.
> 
> But what do their former teams think of them?
> ...


I posted a while back on this thread saying that Sam Smith's article on MJ was out of line. I haven't read anything here that changes my mind. It's not that I disagree with Smith's conclusion (that Jordan appears to be a damn site better as a player than he is a GM), I just thought his evidence was weak.

As for this Marshall vs. Hughes thing, BullsNews, you're logic is pretty good, though it is open to the argument that GSW was stupid low and the Jazz was stupid high. I don't think either was stupid, which is to say, I think you're on target. Marshall is a more valued player. For what it's worth, RealGM's rankings have Marshall at #53 and Hughes at #107, though I'm sure that someone can pick apart RealGM's methodology enough to explain away this significant difference.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> MJ inherited a team that should have been at least .500 and said so himself.


If Krause was wise in deciding not to resign Pippen and blowing things up, give MJ some credit for realizing that the roster he inherited was nowhere close to winning. A core of Hamilton and Howard does not a contender make.



> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> He didn't get close to what Denver got for Juwan Howard and threw Calvin Booth, a very serviceable center into the mix. He got Etan Thomas [and Dixon]


Trading Howard was considered to be all but impossible. He got it done, and got some good young bodies. Booth was a pending free agent and MJ got a better center in Haywood for a lot cheaper than a $30M contract.

As far as what Dallas received in trading Howard, they got the opportunity to give LaFrentz a near max contract and pay VanExcel, Wahid and AJ another $80M over the next few years. In my book, both MJ and Vandeway both pulled one over on Cuban.



> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> He gets lucky (sic) and gets the #1 pick and drafts Kwamee Brown who they admitedly mishandled.


Actually, it was nice to see Wiz management (Jordan and Collins) admit their mistakes if it was only spin as this had to take some pressure off the kid. In comparision, Krause would never admit a mistake in a million years. 



> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> Come up with this fresh theroy that showing the team how to make the playoffs will make the rest better in the long run when he comes back to play.


In my book, there is something to be said for learning how to play competitive basketball and earning your court time. This is so much better than the entitlement minutes given to guys like Dolly for the Bulls last year. As for the loss of a higher pick, the Bulls were lucky to get a top #2 pick. After that the draft was a real crapshoot. I would say that it’s almost even money as to whether a Jeffries or a Butler have as nice a career as a Gooden or a Dunvealy. I would definetely take a lower pick for the Bulls this year if that means that we can contend for a playoff spot.



> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> This franchise is being mismanaged beyond belief but MJ will sell tickets again this year


A young core of Haywood, Brown, Thomas, Jeffries, Hamilton and others is not that bad. I remember early in the year when Ainge felt that Haywood and Brown were much superior to Chandler and Curry. No one can argue that Jordan’s veteran influences including himself did a heck of a lot better for the Wiz than guys like Anthony and Oakley for the Bulls. It’s not like Jordan brought back Ewing and Barkley, too. MJ can still play. 

The bottom line: There is no one that I would rather have influencing a young basketball team than MJ. No one questions his will to win.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> I think it's safe to say that Bulls fans are going to say that Marshall is worth more, and Wiz fans are going to say that Hughes is worth more.
> 
> But what do their former teams think of them?
> ...


Some teams and players don't work. McInnis didn't work in Washington and got cut. I am sure Oakley would have been much more effective somewhere else last season. Also, if you are going to hold what the GSW front office does as a torch of anything other than futility, that is your right. If Golden State was willing to not pick him up seeing what they did to Marc Jackson last season, then I am all for it.

I will agree with you though that it is a matter of perspective as to who is worth what.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

BCH

I have compiled a rating index for valuation purposes

It is an extrapolation of the Jammer index which largely mirrors a similar productivity and rating index that has been used from time to time on ESPN I believe

Anyway a player is assigned a rating by starting with their points scored , subtracting a point for a missed shot , half a point for a missed free throw , add a point for each rebound, assist , add half a point for each steal and block. Subtract a point for each turnover and foul 

This will leave you with a figure that you divide into the number of games a player plays over the season ( if you are using their output over an entire season to determine productivity ) 

This will leave you with a player rating number 

As some players play more minutes ( and therefore have more opportunities than others ) I have pro rated the player ratings (as detailed in the calculation thereof above) using Larry Hughes's 28.1 minutes as a base 

_For example_ :

Using the extrapolated Jammer/ESPN index , Gilbert Arenas had a rating of 8.87. Applying the Larry Hughes minutes base to pro rata and compare productivity there was a factor of 1.14 x to apply to Gilbert's rating ( Hughes's 28.1 mpg divided by Arenas's 24.6mpg = a prorated factor of 1.14 x ) 

Consequently , Arenas's adjusted rating was 10.1 compared to Hughes's rating of 9.6 

*Valuation Methodology *

The idea of providing a single prorated integer for each player identified is to use it in a context of how much they have been paid according to such rating , that , on such a direct rating will rationalise a fair and reasonable market cost for Larry Hughes.

*Ratings of comparables/ 2002 free agents and Cost*

The base comparative : Larry Hughes @ a 9.6 rating for $4.5M 




* Chauncey Billups @ an 11.3 rating for $4.5M

* Jeff McInnis @ an 8.5 rating for $3M

* Gilbert Arenas @ a 10.1 rating for $512K

* Jacque Vaughan @ an 8.4 rating and $700K 

* Devean George @ 7.4 rating and $4.5M 

* Erick Strickland @ an 8.2 rating and not signed but played for minimum last year out of opting out of $3M + guaranteed

* Rodney Rogers @ a 10.3 rating and $2.74M 

* Donyell Marshall @ a 13.4 rating and $4.5M 

* Rashard Lewis @ a 11.8 rating and who won't sign a contract starting at $5.5M 

* Matt Harpring @ a $9.3 rating and $4.5M

* Keon Clark @ an 11.2 rating and $4.5M 


_ Averaged apportionment _

Averaged player rating is @ 10 on an average cost of $3.37M

Extending Larry Hughes's rating @ 9.6 ( 96% ) of the average salary - you get a marker for what may have been his fair market worth which comes out at $3.24M . This was the qualifying offer that the Warriors elected to pass on 

_Other adjusted "fair market value" salaries on Average apportionment [_




* Chauncey Billups @ an 11.3 rating for $5.083M

* Jeff McInnis @ an 8.5 rating for $2.85M

* Gilbert Arenas @ a 10.1 rating for $3.4M

* Jacque Vaughan @ an 8.4 rating and $2.83M 

* Devean George @ 7.4 rating and $2.49M

* Erick Strickland @ an 8.2 rating and $2.76M

* Rodney Rogers @ a 10.3 rating and $3.47M

* Donyell Marshall @ a 13.4 rating and $6M

* Rashard Lewis @ a 11.8 rating and starting at $4M

* Matt Harpring @ a $9.3 rating and $3.1M

* Keon Clark @ an 11.2 rating and $5.04M



_ Direct comparative analysis _

I have chosen Jacque Vaughan's $700K for a player rated 8.4 and Chauncey Billups's $4.5M for a player rated 11.3M 

I chose these two for Direct comparative purposes to establish a low value to high value range because they represented the players at Larry Hughes's position that got paid the least and the most this summer ( so far ) 

The player rating differential between Jacque and Larry is 14% - applying this factor to salary and adjusting it off Jacque's base of $700K - Larry Hughes's adjusted salary at the lower end of the indicator range is $800K . Obviously this is far too low

So , applying the player rating differential between Chauncey and Larry at 15% and applying it to Chauncey's base of $4.5M - Larry Hughes's adjusted salary is $3.8M 

Combining the low end of the range with the high end of the range, one arrives at a figure of $4.6M which you average to arrive at direct comparative market worth indicator of $2.3M - which essentially is what the Sixers wanted to sign Larry for and the money that ultimately gace to Greg Buckner.

_ Adjusted apportionment v Direct Comparative analysis _

Under adjusted apportionment we have Larry's adjusted FMV at $3.24M whereas under Direct Comparative ( midpoint ) analysis, Larry's FMV comes in at $2.3M

On a qualitative level I think Larry's FMV has got to come in at the lower figure due to the fact the GSW preferred Gilbert Arenas and Dean Oliver to him during the 2nd half of the season and for the fact that GSW rejected his worth at $3.25M when they had the chance to pick up his option with a qualifying offer.

Larry Hughes was not screwed by the GSW- this is just wild unsubstantiated speculation on BCH's part - when the facts of the matter remained that they had a guy that will cost them $512K this year in Gilbert Arenas and who it has been statistically proven is a superior performer to Larry Hughes. 

It is not "screwing" with a player when you start and play players 
that perform better. This is why Hughes's minutes got cut and why as I previously have correctly purported , his productivity declined across consecutive seasons

When their are issues with Larry Hughes's game such as his poor shooting and his poor control of the ball , his FMV at the higher end of a range will get ignored by a rational bidder for his services due to the fact he is tainted ( rightly or wrongly )and a rational buyer will only pay toward the lower end of a range where they can acquire such goods or services.

MJ and the Wiz exhibited no such rational mind when they overpayed for Larry Hughes. And they did. It is proven fact based on these irrefutable numbers outlined in this rational valuation methodology that only takes into account productivity in output across a sample range and who paid who for what.

Even though I personally believe that Larry Hughes deserved no more than $2.5M , I will be fair in the conclusion as to what his realistic market worth may have been if the Wiz had not been fiscally imprudent in signing him .. and that is , I have chosen to average out _ The Average apportionment method v the Direct Comparative ( midpoint ) method _

*$3.24M + $2.3M = $5.54M/2 = $2.752M

* Conclusion *

Larry Hughes's FMV is $2.75M and the Wiz overpaid to the tune of $1.8M a year for the next 3 years.

Entering into a phase of having salary cap room to sign free agents next summer , the $1.8M that is overcommitted to Larry Hughes is a significant sum that could mean the difference between landing a marquee free agent that can actually make a difference ( unlike Larry )over the course of the next 3 seasons

Any which way it is sliced this was an impulsive and unnecessary signing by MJ / Wiz management that effectively paid for something that they did not really need in the first place - but moreover paid 65% over the market for something that they did not really need.

As I said in my initial post when I entered this thread , siginng Larry Hughes for $4.5M is just flat out embarrasing


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

I commend you on you reffort but there are several faults in your system. Pro rated statistical analysis in a game where production vs minutes played are not linear. You can try to do it, but your data is skewed no matter how much you try and justify it.

Your Jammer index also cannot take into account, the games where Hughes was thrown in the game for 4 or 5 minutes and pulled. It also cannot take into account the teammates each player plays with. You also are applying this to last season alone, why not for their career? How are you taking into account thei age, and length of contract? Factors that play into any deal signed.

Your arbitrary assinging of salary value is based on what? Why not make it complete and take every starting PG in the league for your direct comparative analysis. Your numbers work better with the guys you choose or what? These are rhetorical, I know valid reasons not to do it this way, but it goes to show how arbitrary an incomplete, set your own assumptions, statistical anaylsis really is.

Your effort is not wasted and it provides an intersting read but your method is lacking. There are many subjective issues involved that you are unable to account for. You have also chosen an incomplete set of data arbitrarily. What it comes down to is that player value is set by the market. What are people willing to pay. It has always been this way. It will always be this way. Hughes was pursused by multiple teas at the full mid level.

BTW if Ron Artest lights you up for 26 does your Jammer Index go up or down?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> It is an extrapolation of the Jammer index which largely mirrors a similar productivity and rating index that has been used from time to time on ESPN I believe
> 
> [ ... methodology explained ... ]
> This will leave you with a player rating number


This methodology is good for comparing players' play during a season with the understanding that defense is not fully accounted for. However, this has a HUGE flaw in valuing a player's worth. Take a crack at the Chandler \ Brand trade from last year. Bet it looks like a Clippers knockout. Seems that potential is not accounted for. Hughes still has a lot of potential.




> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> It is not "screwing" with a player when you start and play players
> that perform better. This is why Hughes's minutes got cut and why as I previously have correctly purported , his productivity declined across consecutive seasons ... siginng Larry Hughes for $4.5M is just flat out embarrasing


It's a gamble to sign Larry for $4.5M but given the number of years, it's a much smaller gamble that eRob and a worthy risk. If GSW overpaid, it's only slightly. They might have been better to sign people to only 1 year contracts and have more cap space next year, but I can't blame a team for wanting to win now especially as cap space is not guarentee for big FAs. 

I live in Oakland and have had the pleasure of watching a lot of GSW games. Hughes is one of a handful of players in the league whom can get his shot at any time. He handles the ball extremely well. He is still very young. GSW envisioned a Harper-type PG which Larry could very well be. However, GSW was missing MJ and Pip. Their replacements, Richardson and Jamerson, are good players but unfortenetely poor ballhandlers. Richardson was good enough for GSW to say good-bye to Hughes. And Arenas can play. And Hughes would have pushed GSW to lux tax land.

Now, in Wash, Hamilton, Jeffries and MJ all have the ball handling skills that could allow you to play a Harper like PG.

Bottom line - Signing Hughes is no embarrasment.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line - Signing Hughes is no embarrasment.


I said siging Hughes for $4.5M is embarassing and provided the proof based on most recent "sales" of players services in valuation metodology toprove it

It was impetuous and fiscally imprudent.

Just telling it like it is with the facts to back me up


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Where were the facts again?

I saw a lot of arbitrary numbers, and some sketchy assumptions being made.

Using a linear formula and then pro rating per game stats for a player, Arenas, to try and prove a point. 

Convenient if you ask me.

Based on what you have written, I am assuming your assumption is that Larry Hughes became worse as a PG from the 00-01 season to the 01-02 season at the age of 23?

Also based on career numbers Billups is a what on this index? An 8.7 compared to Hughes at 10.25? We can just take into account Hughes played PG the last two seasons and see his index number last year was 11.4. Based on that "fact", what is their relative worth? You have any "facts" that take into account contract length? How about some "facts" to take into account defense, unless you are going to claim steals and blocks are representative of defense?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Where were the facts again?


Ditto. 

FJ, Considered it noted that you did not care to discuss any of the flaws pointed out in your arguement.

Again, if your rating index for valuation purposes can't evaluate a trade such as Brand for Chandler, how can it evaluate a FA signing?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, I didn't get in this debate because I thought the it was so off the wall goofy as to be not worth debate.

Larry Hughes might be slightly overpaid, but it's impossible to say. He's young and has plenty of potential. In the right system and situation he could positively blow up.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

in truth we could debate this all we want, but no one will really know for sure until the season is well on the way! IMO i hope both guys turn out good!


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> in truth we could debate this all we want, but no one will really know for sure until the season is well on the way! IMO i hope both guys turn out good!


Amen.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> FJ,
> 
> I commend you on you reffort but there are several faults in your system. Pro rated statistical analysis in a game where production vs minutes played are not linear. You can try to do it, but your data is skewed no matter how much you try and justify it.


I think you need to go back and understand the model better.

Each ranking of this summer's free agents that have signed or yet to sign has been adjusted with a mpg factor relating back to the mpg base of Larry Hughes 

In other words everyone's ranking readjusts to 28.1 mpg so the base for comparison in minutes played is fair 

This cannot be any fairer or rational 



> Your Jammer index also cannot take into account, the games where Hughes was thrown in the game for 4 or 5 minutes and pulled.


Nor for the other players - and in fact you could make a case that this inherently works in their favour anyway in that if they were pulled after short minutes it would be more likely than not that they were stinking up the joint - and thus in the process only hurting their ranking. This is an assumption but one that works in favour of all player's rankings



> It also cannot take into account the teammates each player plays with.


I concede that this is too unwieldy to measure and if you tried would be too convoluted to have any base of credibility due to the fact that there are so many immeasurable intangibles 

I also concede that in terms of man on man defense and denial of ball flow , setting of picks , boxing out and getting partial credit for someone else's rebound is also immeasurable - yet this will provide value in the context of the overall team effort 

Whilst important though, comparatively , they don't hold much water compared to the items of productivity that you can legitimately measure

Any valuation of any asset for any business , regardless of the methodology employed is never going to be 100% perfect 

One needs to accept that any valuation of any asset for any business is always going to be an imprecise science , yet , in any commercial endeavour businesses rely on inherently "imprecise appraisal of worth by a 3rd party - IE a valuer" to determine a FMV ( Fair Market Value ) at a particular given time 

Most rational businesses will them make decisions based on this on the asset valuation -pertaining to the asset.

Understand , that I am not advocating my model measures everything - but I think it is fair to say that it makes a fair fist of measuring and comparing everyting that there is to compare based on the provision and access to official statistics and data available




> You also are applying this to last season alone, why not for their career?


For a couple of reasons actually .

* The first reason * I brought up Hughes's career stats initially and you voiced your disapproval of such as a basis for comparison . You seemed to think that for the fact that someone who has had 4 years of NBA experience and had played big minutes in that time - right from day one , that age and "upside" still had something to do with it.

I LMAO everytime on these boards , or elsewhere in the basketball media , I hear the old chestnut - _ so and so is really worth so much more ( intrinsically ) because they are 18 months younger _

There seems to be a completely unjustifiable and irrational correlation to someone's comparative "age and upside" so much so you see ridiculous statements that are made such as _ someone is 18 months younger but has had 4 years to prove himself and so for the fact he is 18 months younger and producing inferior results he therefore has greater upside _

How does one even try and rationally argue with this when the issue of age and upside after some point in time (when someone has had ample opportunity to prove themselves to be worth x $'s) is redundant ? 

IMO it should never be a factor in any rational model in the first place as it is all based on hope and speculation that someone may be a stud . They could also be a dud - but for people that promote the youth is beauty line ( and think there is consequent worth attached thereto ) fail to provision for a first class express trip to Dudsville.

The bottom line is your hankering on the age issue is meaningless.

* The second reason * was that in considering FMV in the assessment of value on any asset , it is normal form to consider most recent data available 

For example , a commercial office building - if you are capitalising the Net Operating Income stream ( NOI ) from that property you are going to consider :




*Comparative capitalised yield rates on other sales

* Whether rents paid on the property that comprise the NOI are representative of what other rents on a per m2 are market rents being paid for the occupation of similarly graded space

Using the most recent data available , rather than using averaged data over a 4 year period , will give you the most pertinent data available as to what is happening with your inputs in a given market at a given point in time

To try and keep integrity in my model and comparative analysis, I stayed true to this commonly accepted and fundamental commercial principal in asset valuation.



> How are you taking into account thei age, and length of contract? Factors that play into any deal signed.


Totally irrelevant as pointed out above, and , length of contract has nothing to so with it - its what they start out and what their payment is in an intial instant at a given point in time - which is now . So length of contract is irrelevant too that has no bearing whatsoever on someone's immediate value.



> Your arbitrary assinging of salary value is based on what?


Again , I would suggest you go back and comprehend the model better . 

There is no arbitrary assigning of salary value whatsoever. I have used factual market data with what player's signed for , or in Rashard Lewis's case where his contract starts at in the first year - and in Erick Strickland's case ( with no offers as of yet ) what he earned last year 

They were ranked, then had the minutes prorated to the Larry Hughes base of mpg so they were all on the same level playing field and then had their ratings readjusted to whatever minute factor differential was appropriate on an individual player comparison to Larry - again so everyone was on the same level playing field.

The 12 players I used as my inputs were then averaged - both in adjusted player rankings to the Larry Hughes Base and starting salaries next season 

That is how I came up with my averages of ( player ranking ) 10 and salary of $3.37M

I then applied a differential factor for each player to the player ranking average and applied to the average salary to get an approximation of player worth 

As Larry's player rating was 9.6% thus representing a 96% extension factor to the average - we arrived at a figure of $3.24M .

I adjusted everyone else's salary accordingly based on their factor to the avergae player rating of 10 and applying it to their starting salary of next year.

I then , by position that Larry plays , picked the player at the low end of the range ( Jacque Vaughan ) to the player at the high end of the range ( Chauncey Billups )

I used the adjusted salaries ( calculated on the same basis I have outlined above ) and averaged them to get a midpoint value which came out at $2.3M

So I used two very rational and plausible valuation methodologies based on the full availability of data to hand - and one returned a value of $3.24M and the other returned a value of $2.3M

I went with the lower end of this range in the assignment of value for the then _ subjective _ and _ qualitative _ reasons I had about Larry getting upstaged by Gilbert Arenas ( a 2nd round draft pick ) and having poor ball control and shot selection, getting cut by the worst team in the league last year - all of which - from a negotiating point of view could have kept his value down at the lower end of the range

I stayed on the clinical path - and said " two methodologies - two values / 2 and the result is he is worth no more than $2.75M 

Even at $3M to be generous you still paid 50% more for a player that arguably you don't really need and whose $1.5M - $1.8M can still get in the way to sign free agents that actually may make a difference. Dumb move.

* Again, this is factual data utilised on a commercially rational model of asset valuation - there is nothing arbitrary about it. It is factually incorrect for you to state it as such *



> Why not make it complete and take every starting PG in the league for your direct comparative analysis. Your numbers work better with the guys you choose or what?


Well I could have but it would not have meant as much as to what owners are paying for services NOW - meaning this summer's free agents. It would pollute the model further to have Terrell Brandon and Charlie Ward style contracts in the mix - only because they are not representative to currency of inputs in what owners will pay for services NOW

By choosing inputs with the most recent data available I am representing what owners are paying NOW



> These are rhetorical, I know valid reasons not to do it this way, but it goes to show how arbitrary an incomplete, set your own assumptions, statistical anaylsis really is.


Again - not arbitrary . Factual . Using the most recent and measurable information to hand . As I freely state, valuation is an imprecise science but the integrity of an asset valuation is in tact and will gain acceptance in the commercial world if you have used the most recent and measurable information to hand. 

You cannot argue with the fact that I have done that.



> Your effort is not wasted and it provides an intersting read but your method is lacking. There are many subjective issues involved that you are unable to account for.


No my method is not lacking - both methods employed are based on fundamental methods employed in asset valuation - you may not like the result. 

But that's OK I am used to people in the commercial world getting pi55ed when their asset worth is not commensurate with the emotional premium that they attach to it and deride a figure that has been arrived at using correct methodology and the most recent factual and measurable data available.

Subjective issues do not and should not come into play when viewing asset worth - because they are not measurable . It only becomes measurable if someone acquires an asset after it has been bought for a similar or increased price over and above what the initial acquirer of the asset bought it for - and if they do then invariably it will be based on empirical evidence which shows improvement in performance or otherwise



> You have also chosen an incomplete set of data arbitrarily.


Once more for the record - Nyet . I have used the full availability of data that is accessible and is measurable



> What it comes down to is that player value is set by the market. What are people willing to pay. It has always been this way.


That's what I'm saying and I have proven with the my data and methodology in checking the price that your front office signed for your free agent his summer that your GM paid somewhere between 50% to 65% over the market for someone that it was even questionable in the first place whether you really needed him 





> Hughes was pursused by multiple teas (sic) at the full mid level.


This is just wild and unsubstantiated speculation on your part. 

I have come to stick to the facts in this thread based on research and analysis.

You should do the same rather than bandy around loose comments that are unable to be proven


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> However, this has a HUGE flaw in valuing a player's worth. Take a crack at the Chandler \ Brand trade from last year. Bet it looks like a Clippers knockout. Seems that potential is not accounted for. Hughes still has a lot of potential.


The valuation methodoloy only really applies to free agency where you have ( in theory ) more than one bidder for a players services as what you are constrained by in trade 

As to potential - that is subjective , unable to be proven and by your inference only accounts for "upside" not "downside" such is the smoke and mirror show of the "sell' in the NBA.

Potential , age and other such warm and fuzzy things don't mean jack in determining worth right now based on productivity and what buyers ( owners ) are paying for that productivity over a sample range 


Read my reply to BCH about the imprecise nature of asset valuation - it is never and never will be 100% but we need ita s giude to understand ranges of value .It these appraisals that guide business decisions for rational businesses



> It's a gamble to sign Larry for $4.5M but given the number of years, it's a much smaller gamble that eRob and a worthy risk.


This is subjective. How do you retain objectivity here and justify risk using factual data in comparison?

You can't .

Its only your opinion and of course you are entitled to it even if it is incongruent with market proof.

And we are not talking about ERob - this is a submerged discussion within an thread talking about MJ's stewardship of the Wiz 

This should not be a Cindy Brady tit for tat / did not did too style type of discussion. Try and focus to the discussion at hand

For the record - I agree we did overpay ERob



> If GSW overpaid, it's only slightly.


You call 50% to 65% over the market slightly ?

Whoa



> They might have been better to sign people to only 1 year contracts and have more cap space next year, but I can't blame a team for wanting to win now especially as cap space is not guarentee for big FAs.


And Larry is going to help them win now is he - when he lost his job to a 2nd round draft pick ? Hmmmm

Too big of a leap of faith for me to jump on the love train 



> I live in Oakland and have had the pleasure of watching a lot of GSW games.


Pleasure ? Warriors ? 20 wins ?

Tis true. There is a fine line between pleasure and pain



> Hughes is one of a handful of players in the league whom can get his shot at any time.


Sure he can - when he's not turning it over trying to take it or bricking it when he can get it off



> He handles the ball extremely well.


1.7 : 1 .

That smells.



> He is still very young.


Hooray ! The fountain of youth !

Salvation is Larry's - forever young he shall be !



> Richardson and Jamerson, are good players but unfortenetely poor ballhandlers.



Aaagh. I get it . Butter fingers JRich and Twan spilling all those laser like passes from Lozza 



> And Arenas can play.


This is the point - he was beat out by a 2nd round pick that cost them $512K . Why would you give me a qualifying offer at $3.25M ? 



> And Hughes would have pushed GSW to lux tax land.


Incorrect. I refer to you to Hoophype.com and the Warriors payroll that have 11 guys at $46.3. They could have given him a qualifying offer at $3.25M and signed a minmum level scrub for $500K and had a $50M payroll for 13 guys and been L Tax comfy

Not picking him up had nothing to do with the L Tax



> Bottom line - Signing Hughes is no embarrasment.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> in truth we could debate this all we want, but no one will really know for sure until the season is well on the way!


Yes and No 

The fact is we know NOW that the Wiz overpaid for Hughes 

Hughes may grow into that contract and be worthy - at the moment he is not 

The Wiz were impetuous and could have signed him cheaper saving somewhere between $1.5M to $2M in cap room per season for the next 3 years

Being cap friendly and a free agent player in this time - this is significant 

Regardless of whether Hughes grows into his contract and earns it is immaterial - the fact is the Wiz missed a chance to sign a currently marginal/below average player to a cheaper contract

It is also questionable as to whether they really needed him at all 

Maybe by acquiring him MJ was employing the trick that he believes Krause employs which is bringing in players with "potential and upside" to delay fans expectations???

Lozza's always got upside


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> The valuation methodoloy only really applies to free agency where you have ( in theory ) more than one bidder for a players services as what you are constrained by in trade


If it's fair to use the extrapolated Jammer/ESPN index to evaluate FA, why can't it be used to evaluate trades after the fact.



> As to potential - that is subjective , unable to be proven ... Potential , age and other such warm and fuzzy things don't mean jack in determining worth right now


LMAO. This certainly determines where players are drafted. It wasn't Kwame's numbers in HS that got him to be the #1 pick last year.

Bill James with his Baseball Abstract has done some marvelous work projecting future statistics. Take a look. The number one indicator of improved future performance is youth. He does not differentiate if someone played in college, the minors, or the majors. And yes, even 18 months matters.

*Below are the important areas ignored by your methodology *

*1) Player attributes not measurable by statistics *

Examples: defense, boxing out, etc.

*2) Player potential*

Examples: age, experience, athletic ability

*3) Contract years *

Example: Hughes is signed for 3 years & Billips for 6 years. A bust with another 5 years on the contract is a painful propisition.

*4.) Sample Size*

You most objective analysis of Hughes worth used a sample size of 2 - Vaughn and Billups. Not enough to make most statistians comfortable.

*5.) Envirnoment*

Leaving a screwed up envirnoment can help. Look at Parish and Marshall's career after leaving GSW.

*Given all of these flaws, it is ridiculous to say that overpaying by 50% from your model's output is ridiculous*


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

My 2 cents on the subject. Even if Hughes becomes a good NBA player which is a maybe, he does have talent and he is young. He is not a point guard. No way, he is a 2. His only succesful NBA period was at Golden State right after the trade and his shooting percentage was horrid.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> You call [the Wiz paying] 50% to 65% over the market slightly [overpaying]?


At most, assuming that your model works, it’s an extra $1.5M to $2M against the cap for this year, 2003 and 2004. Assuming, he is really worth at least the $3M, this is not a lot of change IMHO.


> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> Aaagh. I get it . Butter fingers JRich and Twan spilling all those laser like passes from Lozza


Nitpicking the small stuff again, huh? The point was that converting a 2 to a PG would be easier with a share the wealth offense and good ball handlers at the 2 and the 3. GSW had neither and had additional confusion by the head coaching change in mid-year. Comparitively, Wash could be a lot better fit.


> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> This is the point - he was beat out by a 2nd round pick that cost them $512K. Why would you give me a qualifying offer at $3.25M?


This is some switching of gears. Arenas’ value on the open market this off-season as an UFA would have been a heck of a lot higher than $512K, right? Your own methodology would "prove" this.


> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Incorrect. I refer to you to Hoophype.com and the Warriors payroll that have 11 guys at $46.3. They could have given him a qualifying offer at $3.25M and signed a minmum level scrub for $500K and had a $50M payroll for 13 guys and been L Tax comfy
> 
> Not picking him up had nothing to do with the L Tax


I've seen articles speculating that the Luz tax could kick in as low as $50M. If this is not the case, please direct me to a better source.

Also, Hoophype does not include Steve Logan whom is in GSW plans. Even without this signing, GSW would be so close to $50M that could make future trades very difficult as GSW could never take back additional salary.


> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> Pleasure ? Warriors ? 20 wins ?


Sorry, I thought most remaining Bulls fans had a sense of humor given the last few seasons.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If it's fair to use the extrapolated Jammer/ESPN index to evaluate FA, why can't it be used to evaluate trades after the fact.


I don't think you understand the context that we are debating here which is current market worth of a player 

A trade involves two parties and is a swapping of inputs where face value has already been determined by virtue of the contracts that govern their financial arrangements 

In free agency you open a player up to the entire market that can have the opportunity to bid for their services and where on a direct comparative basis you can compare him fairly, equally and unemotionally 

If you can't understand how radically different this is I really can't explain it any better - its about as a simple concept as I can state it.





> LMAO. This certainly determines where players are drafted. It wasn't Kwame's numbers in HS that got him to be the #1 pick last year.
> 
> Bill James with his Baseball Abstract has done some marvelous work projecting future statistics. Take a look. The number one indicater of improved future profformance is youth. He does not differenciated if someone played in colleage, the minors, or the majors. And yes, even 18 months matters.


Don't disagree with any of this .

You overlook one small point.

After 4 years Larry Hughes is not a new boy . Potential governs draft picks - sure but not a 4 year vet. In this context age is immaterial and someone should get judged and paid prudently on what they actually do - not what they may be - they have already had the luxury of buying that time to try and prove whether they were worthy of the initial investment which was the rookie contract.



> *Below are the important areas ignored by your methodology *
> 
> *1) Player attributes not measurable by statistics *


I have already conceded this. I will not keep conceding it if this is the only spurious "don't like" factor you and BCH can come up with 

As I have said any valuation system is not perfect - yet it provides the value ranges to ascertain accepted commercial value, on which , decisions are made with regard to an asset

For the fact that we can substantially measure what a player does and that we might miss 10% to 20% of what they do it is as good as system that there is available to get a handle on ranking and worth

Like I said to BCH - don't shoot the appraiser because you do not like the result when it is not commensurate with the emotional premium you put on the asset

You should never get emotional about stock





> *2 Player potential*
> 
> Examples: age, experience, athletic ability


Age after rookie contarct is immaterial 

Experience - 4 years 

Athletic ability - See Cory Benjamin

See what I mean you are using kool aid infused inputs that are not commercially rational 



> *3) Contract years *
> Example: Hughes is signed for 3 years & Billips for 6 years. A bust with another 5 years on the contract is a painful propisition.


Bollocks.

Sure - in the idea of it . As was said earlier in the thread who thought Juwan Howard could have been traded ? Ron Mercer last year .

Players are always tradeable . Nothing is impossible

Keep focus to the issue at hand which is how much you pay them NOW based on the best series of inputs available that tell you what their market worth is NOW

And if you do this and sign them right than the 3 years or 5 years they have left on their contract is not nearly as painful because you exercised fiscal prudence based on market fact in the initial instance.



> *4.) Sample Size*
> 
> You most objective analysis of Hughes worth used a sample size of 2 - Vaughn and Billups. Not enough to make most statistians comfortable.


This is common accepted methodology in a back up "check" methodology that I used behind a primary methodology that used market evidence of 11 free agents from this summer and 1 player still under contract ( Arenas ) who was used because of the fact he was the player that took his job from him 

So my initial sample pool was 11 - is that big enough for you ?

My back up or check was more refined and took free agents from the same position - one at the low end of the range and one at the high end of the range - quite normal practice

And it still returned a consistent value range . 

What more do you want ?



> *5.) Envirnoment*
> Leaving a screwed up envirnoment can help. Look at Parish and Marshall's career after leaving GSW.


I guess all the Bulls haters then would have to acknowledge that all of our players are then miles better than what they are on the Bulls and it only for the fact that they play on the Bulls why their stock is in the toilet.

Makes you wonder about Larry's replacements in Arenas and JRich though why this same curse does not apply to them 

Maybe it has something to do with the player after all.



> *Given all of these flaws, it is ridiculous to say that overpaying by 50% from your model's output is ridiculous*


The only flaw is the one I have already conceded

The rest is just the kool aid talking that has no basis for measurement to the rational mind


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Succesfully converting a 2 to a 1 almost never happens. Being a point guard is something you are or aren't.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

You're cracking me up Johnny

:laugh:




> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> At most, assuming that your model works, it’s an extra $1.5M to $2M against the cap for this year, 2003 and 2004. Assuming, he is really worth at least the $3M, this is not a lot of change IMHO.


If you are prepared to make the assumption that at most he may only be worth $3M and that he is at a minimum 50% overpaid - remind me to put you on my mailing list to sell some stuff to you one day :laugh:

In a tight market for players services that the new CBA has ushered in - $1.5M to $2M to outbid someone else for someone that can really help - can make all the difference

It is too casual in the extreme just to blow $1.5M to $2M as irrelevant - particularly when you have positioned yourself to have cap room so you can go after free agents.



> Nitpicking the small stuff again, huh? The point was that converting a 2 to a PG would be easier with a share the wealth offense and good ball handlers at the 2 and the 3. GSW had neither and had additional confusion by the head coaching change in mid-year. Comparitively, Wash could be a lot better fit.


Ahh the old dog ate my homework excuse combined with the ternal optimism of a change of scenery huh ?

:laugh:



> This is some switching of gears. Arenas’ value on the open market this off-season as an UFA would have been a heck of a lot higher than $512K, right? Your own methodology would "prove" this.


That's right . But he's not on the market . He is only going to cost the Waz $512K and he's more productive to boot

Pretty simple economics to me



> I've seen articles speculating that the Luz tax could kick in as low as $50M. If this is not the case, please direct me to a better source.


Nope. This is what I have heard and read as well

If they chose to pick up the qualifying offer to Lozza and ink him they would have had the minimum 12 man roster at $49.5M and still signed a 13th man at $500K - perhaps 2nd round draft pick Steve Logan at $500K. If they were that worried about the L Tax at $50M they could just blow Steve Logan off and stay under or they could trade expiring contracts Chris Mills who will have currency come trade deadline

They have other tradeable assets that by using the 15% CBA rule they could get well under this limit of they really wanted.

Bottom line is the Waz had a bunch of options to get under the L Tax if they reinked Loz - it just was not about this . They just didnt want him.




> Also, Hoophype does not include Steve Logan whom is in GSW plans. Even without this signing, GSW would be so close to $50M that could make future trades very difficult as GSW could never take back additional salary.


See comments above.

But I had to make special comment here - you say they didnt sign Larry because a $500K 2nd round pick was in their plans and therefore there were L Tax implications

:laugh:

This is the most damning qualitative indictment of Loz's market worth - with L Tax concerns ( non founded ) the Waz preferred a $500K 2nd round pick over Loz. That's hilarious!



> Sorry, I thought most remaining Bulls fans had a sense of humor given the last few seasons.


Of course we do that was why I had to laugh when you said you had the pleasure of watching a number of games of a 20 win ballclub last year. That was too much !:laugh:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

You seriously need to rethink your statistical model. You are using a linear formula to assign a value to a player. By extrapolating players to a certain mpg stat when they have not achieved that plateau is wrong. Why not just extrapolate everyone to 48minutes? The answer is becasue that is not an accurate statistical representation. You are not only doing that, but then applying an arbitrary formula to approximate monetary worth. Why are steals worth .5 a point? In the original Jammer Index they were worth 1 point. By arbitrarliy assigning a value to the worth of something you cannot put a value on, you are being arbitrary. So arbitrarily assigning worth to numbers you are extrapolating in a way that cannot be done fairly, you are coming up with bogus numbers. Garbage in, Garbage out. Your model cannot differentiate between position, and if you want to contend each position is at the same demand then I guess there really is no point to this discourse as that is something I find incontrovertible.

Second, length of contract absolutely plays a role in the value of a player. NBA money is guaranteed money. By making a $15M dollar investment in a player for 3 years, a team limits its liability than by signing the same player for 6 years at $35M. Your comment that the Wizards were impetuous and could have signed him cheaper is ludicrous. When he was offered the same money other places, his _fair market value_ is at that point set beyond any statistical representation you want to use. And sorry players are not always realistically tradeable. But then you don't appear to be willing to deal with reality, but rather your skewed world built on a shaky model.

Please explain to me again why you chose to use last years stats rather than say the past 4 seasons or their career? And sorry your assumption that a GM is going to look at the lst year of production alone when considering the value of a player is wrong. The GM has to ask himself what type of situation that player was in, how old is that player and whther he is on the upswing or downswing of his career? Your asset valuation may work for a piece of real estate but it hardly works for a dynamic, and evolving human being. There is absolutely no reason to believe at the age of 23 that Larry Hughes is in any sort of decline and is on the upswing of his career, while there is every reason to believe a player like Marshall at the age of 29 has peaked. Face the fact that if you take into account Hughes first year at point for GS or his career numbers, he evaluates differently in your model.

In coming up with your numbers you arbitrarily take the value of $4.5M and decide who is worth that based on the arbitrary formula and then grade down from there in determining FMV. Sorry, but I don't buy into it. You defend this warped model and then concede there are factors you cannot account for but maintain the validity of what you have compiled.

And don't worry, I am used to people so secure in the compact little formuals they use to view the world around them that they have nothing else to fall back on when challenged with something they cannot put a number to. There is no need to go full bore after someone just because he is pointing out things you cannot account for. Johnston797 has pointed out 5 things you still have no answered to my satisfaction, and apparently his. Just because you say age doesn't matter 3 times and tap your ruby slippers, doesn't make it true.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> FJ,
> 
> You seriously need to rethink your statistical model. You are using a linear formula to assign a value to a player. By extrapolating players to a certain mpg stat when they have not achieved that plateau is wrong. Why not just extrapolate everyone to 48minutes? The answer is becasue that is not an accurate statistical representation. You are not only doing that, but then applying an arbitrary formula to approximate monetary worth. Why are steals worth .5 a point? In the original Jammer Index they were worth 1 point. By arbitrarliy assigning a value to the worth of something you cannot put a value on, you are being arbitrary. So arbitrarily assigning worth to numbers you are extrapolating in a way that cannot be done fairly, you are coming up with bogus numbers. Garbage in, Garbage out. Your model cannot differentiate between position, and if you want to contend each position is at the same demand then *I guess there really is no point to this discourse as that is something I find incontrovertible.*


I guess you are right ( where I have bolded ) as I have adequately laid out my case using an extrapolation of a productivity indexes of one of the major sports information and broadcast agencies on the planet 

If ESPN haven't got a clue what hope have I 

I guess the honorable thing to do is to bow down and acknowledge your superior point of view when in fact you have offered nothing of substance to back up your claims on this debate

You just keep regurgitating ill founded and unsubstantiated points immersed with an " I don't buy it" "I don't get it" type of reply that does nothing toward keeping the spirit of the debate fresh or interesting. But this is an old crutch of yours which you lean on when you get done like a dinner.

The "I don't buy it " and "I don't get it" and "I'm not satisfied" lines that you promulgate when you are spinning your wheels rather than just being gracious about things and staying true to the spirit of the debate - are your opinions. That's fine. And contrary to what you make think I respect them - just as I respect everyone that has an opinion 

But there are some I respect more than others that actually offer something substantive and plausible to back their opinion up instead of persisiting with a GroundHog Day routine that is based on nothing - but their opinion .

I have noted your opinion and that's cool. At the end of the day it is only your opinion though that you are either too lazy or unable to offer something in an attempt to substantiate so rather you fall back into obnoxious mode because you got nothing in your kit to play with.



> Second, length of contract absolutely plays a role in the value of a player. NBA money is guaranteed money. By making a $15M dollar investment in a player for 3 years, a team limits its liability than by signing the same player for 6 years at $35M. Your comment that the Wizards were impetuous and could have signed him cheaper is ludicrous. When he was offered the same money other places, his _fair market value_ is at that point set beyond any statistical representation you want to use. And sorry players are not always realistically tradeable. But then you don't appear to be willing to deal with reality, but rather your skewed world built on a shaky model.


I have already covered this for others that may be interested in reading this thread . Its all there . No need to respond here and contribute to BCH's smoke and mirrors show



> Please explain to me again why you chose to use last years stats rather than say the past 4 seasons or their career?


This is also easily referenced with no need to regurgitate something that is already part of the record 



> And sorry your assumption that a GM is going to look at the lst year of production alone when considering the value of a player is wrong.


I never said that. You need better comprehension skills. It was the last year of production not the 1st - as it was the last year of production that would provide the more accurate barometer as to where their level of play and their consequent worth is at at a particular point in time 



> There is absolutely no reason to believe at the age of 23 that Larry Hughes is in any sort of decline and is on the upswing of his career


I guess you could say the same about Dalibor Bagaric .. or maybe even Courtney Alexander that the Wiz dispensed with in a mighty big hurry.




> Face the fact that if you take into account Hughes first year at point for GS or his career numbers, he evaluates differently in your model.


I don't know - you can run the numbers and advise if you like - personally I think it is a joke using data that is aged by 2.5 years



> Just because you say age doesn't matter 3 times and tap your ruby slippers, doesn't make it true.


Same rule applies for you too.

I had just challenged you both as to how you can incorporate such a subjective factor steeped with irrational emotional premiums attached thereto - and expect that this will make a difference to something that has been judged using actual data and a rational determinant of an approximation of worth 

And again - if you don't like the model - fine .Take it up with ESPN and/or Jammer

And the original ESPN model only apportioned half a point to steals and blocks. I personally believe they both should be a point each for what its worth.


And really if you are going to persist with this line of Larry had other offers for the full exception crap please detail it with proof or refrain from wild speculation .. or at the very least qualify it just as your opinion .... because really it is only merely this.

I will not keep regurgitating things I have already outlined and are here for public record on this thread

If you can manage to contribute anything fresh or worthwhile that may shed fresh insight into this that may stimulate further discussion I would be more than happy to discuss it with you

If not .. it's a bit stale really 

Thank you


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

Answer this one question for me and explain your answer. Are extrapolating per 48 minute stats meaningful? If you answer yes, then I can move on saying that you truly are stuck in your numerical representation. If you answer no, then you can't honestly explect me to accept that you extrapolate Arenas stats and then use it in an _arbitrary_ linear formula. You have not answered these questions. You defend the Jammer index by stating ESPN uses it? It is more commonly known as the TENDEX and the limitations of them are all the same. You are arbitrarily assigning multiples, a through j, to defined stats. 

_a_Pts + _b_Rebs + _c_Assts + _d_Stls + _e_Blks - _f_(FGA-FGM) - _g_(FTA-FTM) - _i_TO - _j_PF

Massage the multiples and you message the output. You cannot justify why you use one multiple rather than any other. It is _arbitrary_. Your input is garbage, thus your output is garbage.

You keep saying you have covered things but all you have done is stand pat on your orginal assumptions and lash out at those that have offered a differing opinion. 

You chose your numbers, I have provided you with the career values for Hughes and Billups. Do with it what you will. But once again it is going to be you deciding what the playing field is without any _relevant_ reasons for making your assumtpions.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> FJ,
> Johnston797 has pointed out 5 things you still have no answered to my satisfaction, and apparently his. Just because you say age doesn't matter 3 times and tap your ruby slippers, doesn't make it true.


Quite right

I don’t have the time or patience to pull up all of the illogical arguments, but here are a few of the screamers related to the 5 short comings I pointed out in the model.



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> Potential governs draft picks - sure but not a 4 year vet


Let's see - you used Corey Beninjamin, a late 1st round draft pick, as your main example for this point. 

My counterpoint - Jalen Rose averaged 9 ppg in his 4th year and Doyell Marshall shot 36% in his 4th year. So I guess at least these 2 other players drafted in a similar spot to Hughes had untapped potential well beyond their weak stats in their 4th year in the league. And they both were older than Hughes when entering their 5th year in the league.



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> Keep focus to the issue at hand which is how much you pay them NOW


LMAO. By your model, the Wiz would have been perfectly fine in paying Hughes $18M over 6 years but continue to state that paying $14M over 3 years is crazy. To further illustrate this point, you would apparently applaud a team paying $18M over 6 years for a similar valued player but frown if a team signed that same player to a 1 year deal at $4.5M. Come now, of course the number of years on the contract matters.



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> I guess all the Bulls haters then would have to acknowledge that all of our players are then miles better than what they are on the Bulls and it only for the fact that they play on the Bulls why their stock is in the toilet.


Let’s see. How many young Bulls players picked high in the draft have become free agents of late? Zero by my count. Therefore, I can’t see how this is relevant to the matter at hand, and this was your only argument that Environmental Factors would not factor into GM’s decision on what to pay a player.



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> So my initial sample pool was 11 - is that big enough for you?


No, especially when it was not a random sample of 11. You included Strickland whom is unsigned and Vaughn but did not include Blount. Why? Perhaps these 11 fit the best with your theory. 



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>
> Bottom line is the Waz had a bunch of options to get under the L Tax if they reinked [Hughes] - it just was not about this . They just didnt want him.


Lastly, you really seem to be struggling with this one so I will lay it out nice and slow. If GSW signs Hughes, they are at $49M plus. So assuming they want to stay under $50M and a nice trade offer comes along later, the GSW could not take back much extra salary – either the standard 15% extra allowed or more if a trade exception is used by the other team. So, of course, GSW is giving up trade flexibility due to the lux tax if they sign Hughes. Therefore, the lux tax could very well have been a factor in the GSW thinking.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

FJ,

I have not begun to even try to read every word of every article. Your business mind outdoes my philosophic brain. Your understanding of statistics and scientific analysis of players provides reasonable information that is valuable to our understanding of basketball economics.

A lot of what is being said is only attempts to measure your margin of error, which you are doing your best to minimize. But using economic theories and models and trying to apply them to basketball player salaries vs. their expected returns contains similar flaws as are seen in market finance.

For instance, stock valuations often come in looking at their P/E ratios (in basketball, it would be price to performance, measured by some standard of important stats), outlook, environment, market competitors, structure, intellectual property owned, management, and overall operating efficiency.

But there are always the unknown factors. These are what the others are referring to.

I'd say that your theory holds water in what you are trying to prove. Larry Hughes was not worth the money. Period.

I think that most people are trying to tell you that, no, we can't know that based on what you've given. Statistics are not everything, etc etc.

But my logic goes more like this: there are LOTS of overpaid players in the NBA. As far as the free agent signings for this year go, many players would be considered "bargains" that you have compared Hughes to. Larry Hughes is the most overpaid player of the summer, true, although Donyell Marshall and Chauncey Billups are up there as well. Potential doesn't get factored in, of course, and according to your financial scheme, a team shouldn't really pay a player for what he hasn't proven, a.k.a. "potential". No doubt this was also part of the rationale of the CBA for the rookie pay scale, etc.

But just like stocks in the Internet boom, one might say we are in a recession in NBA terms. The luxury tax looms, the salary cap is tighter, and basically, money supply across the NBA is down. The prospects of a bigger and much more promising market next summer also makes NBA owners (the investors) hesitant to pay out anything big this year...

Just as in the recession, previously overpaid and overvalued players are now available for cheap. Lucent stock trades at under $2.00; quality PG's like Strickland can be found for less than $3M. 

I guess my final conclusion is that Larry Hughes isn't so much totally overpaid, although he certainly has to lean a lot on the intangible "potential" this season or else he won't be worth his money. But I think it's more accurate to say that Hughes was overpaid in terms of what was being sold on the market, not so much his personal statistics and playing abilities.

In short, Hughes wasn't a horribile deal, he just wasn't a bargain.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

I'll be back at you in a while BCH as I have to go out but I will take a minute to respond to Johnny as he is easily taken care of 




> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Quite right
> ...


Yet you have the time and patience to partcipate on a thread in the place and like BCH you offer no empirical model based on factual output.

Sounds as though you are ill equipped to have the discussion as BCH is - the only difference is is that BCH jams the channels and runs static better than you :laugh:





> Let's see - you used Corey Beninjamin, a late 1st round draft pick, as your main example for this point.


I was not using Cory Benjamin in the way you think I was.

You mentioned way back when that athleticism and upside pertaining thereto was entirely relevant to determine worth ( as to who you realistically measure and grade this I am buggered if I know - maybe you and BCH can get together and advise ?? ) 

My simple point was that CB had all the athleticism and upside pertaining thereto under the sun. Where is he now ? There are zillions like him 

I guess if athleticism was at the top of tree than multiple Olympic gold medal wining decathlete Daley Thompason would have been a ball tearer of an NBA player 



> My counterpoint - Jalen Rose averaged 9 ppg in his 4th year and Doyell Marshall shot 36% in his 4th year. So I guess at least these 2 other players drafted in a similar spot to Hughes had untapped potential well beyond their weak stats in their 4th year in the league. And they both were older than Hughes when entering their 5th year in the league.



Not accepted and out of context seeing as though you are off the charts in comprehending the initial point that you thought you were being clever in responding to - responding to something in an entirely different context 

But if you want to bring up a completely irrelevant draft history of #8 picks that al played different positions in varying degrees of draft class quality , answer me this :

How's Bo Kimble, Mark Macon, Todd"Lucky" Day , Vin Baker, Kerry Kittles ( I will give it up for Kerry ) Brian Grant and Shawn Respert doing ??

:laugh:




> LMAO. By your model, the Wiz would have been perfectly fine in paying Hughes $18M over 6 years but continue to state that paying $14M over 3 years is crazy.


Yes that's right 

Because that is his worth in a per diem basis at this point in time . Tenure has got nothing to do with it as you can say what you like but inputs are always moveable . There has been ample evidence of immovable contracts moved or bought out over the last couple of years. Do I really need to give you a history lesson as well ? 

Its all about denial of opportunity - the opportunity cost of the short to medium term which you can realistically control . I am sorry if you don't comprehend this

And by your logic you are basically saying that he is under market but you have him under market for a longer period of time if he all that as you contest

Isnt this a good thing ?

See George Lynch, David Wesley and other such value for money contracts.

Real clumsy point you tried to make but tripped over yourself in trying to make it Johnny .





> Let’s see. How many young Bulls players picked high in the draft have become free agents of late? Zero by my count. Therefore, I can’t see how this is relevant to the matter at hand, and this was your only argument that Environmental Factors would not factor into GM’s decision on what to pay a player.


Umm it was called sarcasm.

But really how many times do players from championship teams or contending teams get written to sweetheart contracts when they sign on elsewhere. The illusion becomes reality . Similarly , a player putting up numbers on a crap club never gets any love and has a negative value associated thereto . Look at how quickly Elton went from being dissed to being kissed.





> No, especially when it was not a random sample of 11. You included Strickland whom is unsigned and Vaughn but did not include Blount. Why? Perhaps these 11 fit the best with your theory.


Well it was a random sample of 11. Yes I could have included Corie I suppose - but then Corie would have dragged the overall mean average down . This is a bit dim of you really.




> Lastly, you really seem to be struggling with this one so I will lay it out nice and slow. If GSW signs Hughes, they are at $49M plus. So assuming they want to stay under $50M and a nice trade offer comes along later, the GSW could not take back much extra salary – either the standard 15% extra allowed or more if a trade exception is used by the other team. So, of course, GSW is giving up trade flexibility due to the lux tax if they sign Hughes. Therefore, the lux tax could very well have been a factor in the GSW thinking.


I think I have proven on this board that I understand L Tax as good as anyone particpating here and probably better than most. That is not idle boast - go back and check the threads dedicated to such

So put your peashooter away

You really should drop this L Tax motivation because it makes you look pretty silly - Im actually embarrassed _for_ you


----------



## blkwdw13 (Jun 12, 2002)

There is another thread in the NBA forum that discusses potential and it basically says that players peak at the ages from 23-27, so if he is going do anything he has to do it now. Everybody else gives highschoolers 4 years to show something and good overall improvement, he's at 4 years what has he shown already, not much. So he is over paid, and for you guys to he isn't overpaid the Eddie Robison isn't over paid either yet; Robinson showed he was worth more in the past and he can also still grow into his contract.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Im actually embarrassed _for_ you


If anyone should be embarrassed, it ain't me, bro. Given your proclivity for nitpicking minor points and pulling things out of context in your long winded prose, I'll keep this short.

1 - You indicate that it would be good to sign a player like Larry Hughes to a deal for 6 years starting at $3M a year ($18+M total deal) but crazy to give him a 1 year deal at $4.5M.

2 - You indicate that your sample of 11 was random but you admit to including certain players and excluding others at your whim.

If this is your idea of fiscal responsibility and good statistics, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If we are so far apart on these objective topics, I am not surprised we can reach no conclusion on more subjective topics such as potential, environment and lux tax strategy. 

Later.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> FJ,
> 
> I have not begun to even try to read every word of every article.


I recommend the read if you so desire as whilst BCH and Johnny are entitled to their opinions - and whilst they have offered nothing by way of measurable proof into the debate , their "old men up on the balcony on the Muppet show routine" has provided me with good fodder to define what has been defined.

I say that with no disrespect to BCH or Johnny - if they had not have challenged me I would not have offered up what I contributed. So I thank them for that .

BCH's main contention ( or so it seemed to me ) was the total arbitrary selection of inputs which led to a "massage the inputs and the you massage the message" point of view.

Well this is not an issue to take up with me - I have fully used all official and available data available as sanctioned by the NBA itself in the official recording of player statistics

If he or anyone else thinks that steals, blocks and rebounds are insufficent markers of player's productivity on defense then he is entitled to that opinion. 

If he or Johnny or anyone else would like to see the model incorporate boxing out , setting picks , and denial of ballflow to an opponent to under say 3 seconds on the shot clock thus pressuring the offense - may I respectfully suggest that they lobby the NBA and request that such official record be kept of a player's output in these functions.

Whilst I personally don't underrate their importance, the NBA has seen fit not to keep official records or measure such statistics - so their issues with the "arbitrary" choosing of statistics to determine player productivity - and ultimately worth as per my extrapolated model need to be addressed at a level much higher up the food chain with the likes of FIBA , the World Basketball Federation, the NBA - or even media corporates such as TNT or ESPN.

Governing bodies and media corporates do not see fit to measure such things currently * and thus the information that I used in the model is based on available measurable objective information - I did not choose any of this information "arbitrarily" to massage any particular message - the chips just fell where they may based on official measurable information *

Again if BCH or Johnny or anyone else feel that the information that governing bodies or media broadcast corporates record and measure is inadequate - they should feel free to contribute an alternate measuring system that takes account of the factors thet feel are lacking and petition the appropriate authorities to have them recorded as official data.

Until such time as that happens the official market information we have is what we have and as such provides a base of legitimacy in making rational determinations of current market productivity and consequent worth pertaining thereto.

Over to you BCH and Johnny if you can actually measure the things you want measured and put them forward in a readjusted model of productivity and worth .

I look forward to the results you may contribute and put forward ( if you can ) 




> A lot of what is being said is only attempts to measure your margin of error, which you are doing your best to minimize. But using economic theories and models and trying to apply them to basketball player salaries vs. *their expected returns* contains similar flaws as are seen in market finance.


No Showtyme

Not their expected returns - their _ actual _ measurble returns and then measuring actual data as to who paid for what based on that productivity



> For instance, stock valuations often come in looking at their P/E ratios (in basketball, it would be price to performance, measured by some standard of important stats), outlook, environment, market competitors, structure, intellectual property owned, management, and overall operating efficiency.
> 
> But there are always the unknown factors. These are what the others are referring to.


Right.

And a PE ratio applied to a basketballer that has been in for 4 years and has declining productivity with bidders for his services offering half of what he got paid would tell me market competitors were slight and upside was dim after 4 years of not breaking through - how long do you want to give for upside and expanding market demand ?Consequently these "qualitative " factors attached to theoretic PE justify what may seem like the harsh "quantitative markers for Larry - but the numbers do not lie.

On today's market he is worth $2.75M - maybe $3M with a sluggish PE :laugh:



> I'd say that your theory holds water in what you are trying to prove. Larry Hughes was not worth the money. Period.


Damn straight




> But my logic goes more like this: there are LOTS of overpaid players in the NBA.


Yeah but we are onlty talking about what GM's can control now in what they choose to pay for someone



> As far as the free agent signings for this year go, many players would be considered "bargains" that you have compared Hughes to. Larry Hughes is the most overpaid player of the summer, true, although Donyell Marshall and Chauncey Billups are up there as well.


Actually , according to the model it shows that Chauncey was signed 10% under market and Donyell was signed at 25% under market.



> Potential doesn't get factored in, of course, and according to your financial scheme, a team shouldn't really pay a player for what he hasn't proven, a.k.a. "potential". No doubt this was also part of the rationale of the CBA for the rookie pay scale, etc.


Potential gets factored into draft picks that have not shown anything.

Larry and the FA crew of 2002 have already had this blind investment made in them - its know what you are really worth 



> But just like stocks in the Internet boom, one might say we are in a recession in NBA terms. The luxury tax looms, the salary cap is tighter, and basically, money supply across the NBA is down. The prospects of a bigger and much more promising market next summer also makes NBA owners (the investors) hesitant to pay out anything big this year...
> 
> Just as in the recession, previously overpaid and overvalued players are now available for cheap. Lucent stock trades at under $2.00; quality PG's like Strickland can be found for less than $3M.


Right. I agee. And Larry just got paid like Larry. com and it is easily proven with rational methodology

And I think MJ really screwed the pooch on this one



> I guess my final conclusion is that Larry Hughes isn't so much totally overpaid, although he certainly has to lean a lot on the intangible "potential" this season or else he won't be worth his money. But I think it's more accurate to say that Hughes was overpaid in terms of what was being sold on the market, not so much his personal statistics and playing abilities.
> 
> In short, Hughes wasn't a horribile deal, he just wasn't a bargain.


Well his immeasurable never diminishing "upside" tells us he is all that but really when you measure him he is actually on the south side of the average barometer ( meaning currently below average ) yet got paid to a level that was not commensurate with his current standing when there were no serious bidders for the price he was chasing

And for the fact the Wiz could have rode it out as most of the other teams have prudently done in free agency , they missed the chance to pay him less. Much less.

It therefore equals a poor move by MJ in his stewardship of the Wiz

Th objective rational basketball follower knows this too.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

They are measured by the people that watch the games. The statistics you use are measured and recorded by the NBA but not the multiplier. For example you still don't explain why steals and blocked shots are worth half of what an assist is worth or why an assist is worth the same as a FG. This is the arbitrary nature of this exercise. I am not debating that you are using what is available. I am debating how you use what is available and the conclusions you attempt to draw from it. Objectivity is something you cannot apply to how these stats correlate to a player and his worth. Go back to the formula I wrote out and explain why you chose the values of _a_ through _j_ to represent what they are. This is somewhat rhetorical because no matter how you answer it, with whatever justification you use, it will still be arbitrary on your part, thus including into your model the very subjectivity you are trying to deny.

I also asked a simple question for you to explain what your thought of extrapolating to per 48 min stats, which you still have not answered. This qustion has relevance because you decide to do it with Arenas. By extrapolating you are saying this is a valid means to determine the productivity of a player over a distinct period of time. Your defense is that this is a way to normalize the data in a way that is fair. So on top of using an arbitrary _formula_, you are arriving at stats through a method that does not accurately measure a players production over a period of time. Just because you _can_ do it, does not mean it is correct. 

You say the NBA has not seen fit to keep a record of it, attempting to lay the blame at the feet of the NBA, rather than admiting that it is something you cannot put a statistic on. Your attempt to objectivily measure a players worth has not only failed but you refuse to allow any subjective appraisal by a GM to be used in the evaluation process. Once you allow for this subjective appraisal, your model turns into the merely interesting curiosity that it is. How does your formula account for someone like Odom who is sitting 1 strike away from a suspension. Is his worth equal to the same exact player not sitting 1 strike away? Is his worth equal to a player with the same statistics at 7 years older? According to what you have presented so far, you have answered an emphatic yes to that.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I will be happy to answer you and debate with you further on this when you put the shoulder to the wheel and contribute something more worthy of being debated

I do not see any good reason in allowing you to think that you are keeping me on the hop when you do not have effort or the spirit of the debate in mind - rather continuing your particpation on spurious issues that continue to get swatted away.

As a moderator , you should have the integrity of content of a board in mind ; rather than letting your ego get in the way which is serving to ba5tardise a thread into a pi55ing contest.

Try creating something of your own to measure in an alternative (if you have one or care to develop one ) or use your counsel to "arbitrarily add" a point to each block or assist instead of half a point - or use your own grading system and report back to me with the results - I look forward to them if you have the inclination to do so - the action of which would give me a greater comfort level as to your goodwill to have a proper discussion and would then make it worthy of my time to respond to you in accordance with what it deserves.

If ESPN have been arbitrary in how they score their points on such a productivity index - I again direct you to take it up with them 

I am only using a commonly used formua. 

If you don't like a commonly accepted formula that leads to a methodology - again find or create an alternative ( with your rational for inputs ) with a grading system ( with full justification as to values attached thereto ) and then provide a comparative analysis so that we can maturely and rationally compare notes

Until you do that there's not much more to talk about really . I have provided a model which gives an overwhelming indication that Larry Hughes has been overpaid by your GM - you have not provided anything to scientifically prove otherwise - just your opinions ( unsubstantiated but respected nonetheless as they are your personal opinions ) 

I have used rational fact and market evidence on data the governing bodies of a game see fit to record - I can only use that and trust such bodies implicitly that the recording of such functions represent the overwhelming marker of a player's productivity and how they get defined. 

I am not laying blame at their feet as you suggest - I am merely saying I accept a determination that has been made on what is seen fit to record pertaining to a player's output.

You do not 

If you have a problem with this you are wasting your time trying to rag me because I don't make such determinations in what is deemed worthy of record and I have no such inclination to change or add other items of public record pertaining to a player's output

It appears as though it is problematic for you however and as per my earlier post/reply to Showtyme wherein I indirectly addressed you and Johnny ( and others who may feel the same way you do ) feel free to petition FIBA, The WBF , the NBA , TNT , ESPN, AOL , ABC , or the CIA for that matter .

I don't care - its not my problem - its yours to solve to your satisfaction if you wish.

Good luck in your efforts if you are sincere in trying ..and if not thank you for the discussion we have had anyway 

Sincerely

FJ


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

You choose to duck the issue and fall back to if ESPN uses it then it is good enough. I really could care less if ESPN uses the TENDEX, it does not disprove the limitations of the formula and since your whole statistical model depends on it, the limitations of your statistical model. Until you can account for any of the issues I have brought up to show any sort of objectivity the debate is indeed over, becasue you are faced with something you have no answer for.

My argument is you cannot pigeon hole players with a statistical analysis. I have held that position from the beginning. I do not need to provide any sort of _new or different_ model to correct your mistakes because I do not believe it can be done objectively.

Trust me when I say ego has nothing to do with this. I have debated the same topic with others that attempt to use the same meaningless TENDEX to value a player. They all fall into the same pit you are stuck in, with no answers to save them.

Also for the third time you duck any sort of rational argument about your thoughts on extrapolated stats and why they should be valid other than your _because I can, therefore it must be right_ argument.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

FJ,

I admire your effort to bring some kind of statistical grounding, but the fact of the matter is that stats, even comparably useful ones like the Jammer index are *NOT* foolproof indicators of a players' worth. Further, building a wholly different model would only serve to let the two of you argue over which is "better" when, in truth, neither fully capture reality.

Models are simplifications of reality.

You're obviously intelligent enough to recognize this fact, much less suggest that no "objective rational basketball follower" could disagree with the assertion that your model generates, which frankly, borders on insulting.

To put it another way, I'm trained well enough in logic and statistics to know that most of these fancy manipulations can be thrown out and you can rely on common sense, because common sense tells me that most fancy manipulations usually start with a goal in mind.

Hence, you arrive at conclusions like "one guy is dramatically overpaid and guy is underpaid" even thoughou if you had the two guys in a blind you would see pretty much the same career stats.


```
Teams,        Seasons,   MPG,       FG%,    3P%,         FT%,       STL,        TO,         FOUL,     REB,         AST,        PPG:
5	5	27.5	0.4	0.357	0.869	1	1.8	2.2	2.4	4.2	11.3
3	4	28.3	0.403	0.200	0.741	1.4	2.3	2.3	4.2	3.2	13.3
```


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I repeat for the 3rd and final time ..

I am ready for you and can keep going

I am just rebuffing the tune ( for the time being ) that you want me to dance to at the moment

I'm happy to dance if you can show me your fair dinkum

At the moment the only thing you are offering me and you keep repeating over and over that you have a problem with the system

I think that has already been established. Many times

Your continual mantra like bleating in this regard is not adding any value to the discussion and again I ask you to provide me with what I have asked you of previously and I will be happy to accommodate you 

Please have regard for the integrity of content on a site of which you have responsibility for 

Thank you ( once again- for the 3rd time )


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Oh the ego!!!*

Let me run through a few items.

One, from a subjective view, I have been neutral to negative on the Hughes signing especially if he is to get the bulk of his minutes at PG. Some posts from the Wiz board have been deleted which would back this. Nevertheless, it has been rather amusing to watch you bash me for being a Hughes support. 

Two, I don't have any problems with the FIBA, The WBF, the NBA , TNT , ESPN, AOL, ABC , or the CIA for that matter.

Three, I am a supporter of the Jammer/ESPN index. It's probably the best objective way to value a player's contribution over the course of a season. 

Four, Anyone supporting the ESPN index would say that it is not a perfect gauge and does a much better job of measuring O than D. Let call this the ESPN index flaw. This flaw, IMHO, is significantly bigger than the issue of determining whether the proper coefficient for components (e.g. steals) should be 1 or 2.

Five, Any single value derived from the ESPN index over a period of time is just a snapshot albeit a good one. It does not tell you if a player is getting better, worse, was hurt, etc.

Six, Subjective evaluation counts. Otherwise, why would columnists evaluate free agent signings? They could just fire up the old Fat Jerry abacas.

Six, Your original analysis, while flawed especially in the sampling area, was clever and well worth reading. However, instead of using this as one tool in the old belt, somehow you have deemed this methodology to be the end-all-be-all. In fact, during our little debate, you have NOT acknowledged ONE SINGLE FLAW or weakness in YOUR METHODOLGY except for the inherent ESPN index flaw (mentioned in Four above). 

Seven, I have pointed out several additional flaws at length previously – inability to differentiate between length of contracts, inability to adjust for potential untapped potential, inability to adjust for environmental issues. Certainly, other issues have or could be raised such as injury, 3-strike policy, and the fact that this is not a true market (e.g. the artificial ceiling of $4.5M)

Eight, had you acknowledged any of these possible shortcoming or others, then a discussion might have evolved as to how to build the better mousetrap which you have asked BCH or I to build on several occasions. Of course, such adjustments would likely add a more subjective component to the methodology that would lessen the effectiveness of this tool to bash old MJ for signing Larry.

I think that about covers it.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

Is Hughes overpaid according to the "Jammer" index? Yes he is. What I really want to know is this: aside from the top 5 players in the league, what player is not overpaid according to this model? Is this model truly able to determine whom is better between, lets say, Andre Miller and Jason Kidd (who struggles mightily with his fg%)? And in agreement with BCH, how did you determine how much points, steals, and assists are worth? Were they truly arbitrarily assigned?

Seems somewhat flawed to me, but of course statistics always deal with some level of error.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> I repeat for the 3rd and final time ..
> 
> I am ready for you and can keep going
> ...


:laugh:

Please try and answer what I have written instead making of pointless and argumentative statements about the integrity of this site. If you can not, then just move on. Those that have chosen to participate in this thread are asking you the same questions, and you keep using the same dodges. 

If you feel threatened because I am calling it like I see it, then I apologize. My intention is not to rile you up, but to point out the flaws in the statistical model you have presented to evaluate player worth.

If you ever could defend the input data you used, we can then point out the flaws in your _Averaged apportionment_ and _Direct comparative analysis _ values.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

You don't rile me up 

Some of the time you make worthwhile observations and more often that not I enjoy conversing with you 

I'm waiting for you when you are ready 

If you can't or won't make it in what is being asked of you to get what you want from me maybe it is time for you to move on


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

*Re: Oh the ego!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Let me run through a few items.
> 
> One, from a subjective view, I have been neutral to negative on the Hughes signing especially if he is to get the bulk of his minutes at PG. Some posts from the Wiz board have been deleted which would back this. Nevertheless, it has been rather amusing to watch you bash me for being a Hughes support.
> ...


That does about cover it.


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

LOL I'm just waiting for someone to go "_No, you first - I asked you first_".


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I love reading threads like this! props to both sides of the debate to all involved.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

* BCH *

In fact if memory serves you had resolved to move on on page 2 of this thread but here you are still here beating your drum

I have provided substance behind opinion - which it your right to disagree with - and this has been amplified sufficiently 

you have provided nothing more than your opinion

My point is simple : I wish to have a mature and meaningful discussion with you on this but from my perspective you are failing to invest in the goodwill that I am trying to extend to you 

For that reason I do not want to be drawn into a huge efforts that I am not sure are appreciated ( notwithstanding my full preparedness to be disagreed with - with well researched and reasoned views ) 

That's all I am asking from you 

If you can't or won't do it just admit you can't or won't and let's just be both be men about it and move on 

* For all others - especially Johnny *

I had actually been enjoying the particpation on this thread even if I did disagree with Johnny's subjectiveness and pointed out where he has misunderstood and was not answering in context.

Sorry if you got pi55ed Johnny - I still like you and have a lot of time for you and I am disappointed you feel that there were seeds of a good discussion going in this thread which you feel were lost 

I don't know _ Baby Baby where did our love go _ :laugh:

I detect from Johnny and Mike DC that they have their noses out of joint and for that guys I offer you my unreserved apologies - that was never my intent - even though I personally disagree with Mike DC that I have been personally insulting . I would have thought that for those that have actually taken the time to read and properly consider this thread and view the record of it ,I have been courteous ( maybe with a good natured barb about kool aid references ) and have acknowledged the shortcomings on any scientific model of asset valuation . I did not hold on for dear life that it was written in stone and so it shall be. I made the point that in any commercial endeavour notwithstanding the impurities of any asset valaution model there is nontheless a common commercial bound to give regard to such valuation conducted by a 3rd party ( a valuer ) as a barometer from which value range can be gleaned and decisions can be made pertaining to that asset. 

I have made such acknowledgements - I have no idea where this assertion comes from that I am hanging on for dear life to it

I established a value range for Larry using two different methodologies on the same sample bed of information that was 3rd party in its origin and was based on the most recent available data - and came up with a range of $2.3M to $3.24M 

I thought it was fair if this was the low and high point of the range to take the midpoint at $2.75M - I then conceded a 10% sensitivity rate upwards in Larry's favour

I'm sorry if some of you don't like what you see or disagree vehemently with the concept of using available official data and a productivity index that is a reasonably commonly accepted model in determining productivity 

Don't keep making your redundant points . 

Give an alternative and create/ contribute something fresh

That's all I'm asking

And if you are unable to do so state your subjective disagreement (which is your opinion ) and put it to bed

Simple huh guys

I'm cool and hope y'all are too

Peace


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> I had actually been enjoying the particpation on this thread even if I did disagree with Johnny's subjectiveness...
> And if you are unable to do so[,] state your subjective disagreement (which is your opinion ) and put it to bed


If you feel that past postings on this thread don't clearly state my position, then we will just have to leave it at that.

Personally, I am quite comfortable about jumping off at this point and waiting for the next good debate. Hopefully, there will be more closure in the next thread.

As far as your advice of "Don't keep making your redundant points", what is it that they say about Doctors and their own medicine?

I'm out (unless the Mods want us to all join hands and sing campfire songs.)


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Nah Johnny - your points were well noted by me

I was not levying the making of redundant points at you - mainly at BCH who just kept repeating himself - maybe I was guilty of that too but if I was I felt as though seeing as though I had instigated the line of the debate I had to keep the focus of it true to the very specific points that were being made - and brushed off with subjectivity . The truth is is the truth with what is available to be known - someone might have an alternate truth which may be able to be supported with a different set of justifications - without them they are not truths -just opinions.

BTW if we are ready to do the happy clappy my personal fave is Kum by Yah . What's yours ? :laugh:


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

BCH-

You have stated one more than one occasion that Hughes had offers for the full mid-level exception from teams other than the Wizards.

Please don't take this wrong as it is not my intention to call you a liar in any way- but where exactly did you get your info? I have searched RealGM's article archives for Philly, Minnesota, and Miami, and I also did a search of the web using the keywords "larry hughes minnesota timberwolves" etc.

The only thing I have found about Hughes is that Philly was interested in re-acquiring him- but that was in a trade where Coleman was sent to GS for Hughes (re-signed for the qualifying offer) and cap filler.

I could not find one statement in the 10+ articles I read even remotely suggesting that any team was interested in offering Hughes the full mid-level exception, let alone a statement that he had actually been offered the full exception by anyone.

It is obvious that a few teams were interested in Hughes- could you please provide the source(s) that make you state that Hughes was offered the full exception by any team in the league?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Senor Pigna Grande ( special Retro shout out ) 

Chris Mills would have been the filler - and this would have been a perfect fit - salary wise with Larry's qualifying offer at $3.24M

The net result to GSW would have been an increase of $140K to the payroll

Team option was held on Alvin Jones by the Sixers and he could have been included for the ride - which would have increased the GSW salary to approx $50.3M - $50.8M including Steve Logan 

They could have ( and still may be able to ) structured Logan's contract as non guaranteed - and there may be similar provision in Alvin Jones's ( I don't know ) If there was therein lies the capacity to shed under $50M if L Tax points toward the lower end of the estimate range

Anyway .. with having a young shotblocker like Alvin on board it would have freed up Adonal Foyle who the Knicks have previously been high on - and who would give them a legit centre.

Or.... the burden of taking on Coleman could have washed out the draft pick the GSW got roped into with Jiri Welsh /Philly

My point is that there were some moves that could have been made with Philly ( assuming they were hot for Larry ) that do make sense and could have been actioned

Perhaps this points to a reluctance of Philly to deal because they had issues with the price that Larry would come at ( $3.24M ) This is a theory only I admit ..but a plausible one to me 

Also worthy to note is that by holding Coleman and dealing him by deadline ( if they have this opportunity ) they can theoretically save $1.5M in returning salaries under the CBA . If they trade for Hughes and Mills and similarly deal Mills they can only shed $1M in what they can take back under what they give out. Coleman gives them an extra $500K to shed - may not seem like much but when you are Philly and will have say the minmium 12 man roster at $53M and you have the capacity to trim it to $51.5M instead of $52M when the L Tax is in a $50M to $52M range.. what are you going to do ?

The prudent move is to hang on to Coleman - and hope a deal can be swung whereby you can shed $1.5M in salary by deadline rather than taking back average talent that you are skeptical about the value of in the first place and which only allows you to shed $1M.

Minnesota, Orlando and Miami , in reality , if they were interested in Larry at all ( which I doubt ) were certainly not going to wear a cost of him at $9M for next season ( double the exception taking into account the dollar for dollar penalty for being over the Luxury Tax limit

In Orlando's case it would have been in the vicinity of an extra $22.5M next season to sign Larry ( taking them over the cap and the opportunity cost factor of mooted escrow rebates and dollar for dollar penalties.

I think all this Larry for the MLE nonsense with other suitors is just a bit of hot air and the reason why it has not been able to be substantiated is because it is false


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

What I have asked you is in good faith. I also have problems with the methodologies you employed to arrive at Hughes worth as well but if you can not resolve the inputs why should I even bring them up? Trust me, your arbitrariness does not end with determining your inputs. I have acknowledged the amount of effort you put into what you did. I am not sure what other accolades you are seeking.

You still don't get it. No one is making a redundant point, they are asking redundant questions which you continuously ignore with statements like, "reasonably commonly accepted ", You offered up the model. The burden is on you to defend it, not for others to come up with a better more workable model for you, though I can understand why you feel they should. If you feel that people telling you what exactly the faults are with your efforts is not a large ebough contribution, then do what I recommended from the start and just move on. Others read the thread, and they should be aware of the limitations of what you have presented, which laughingly enough, you still haven't acknowledged. 

As for proving others were willing to sign Hughes at the MLE, what is the point? It can all be disregarded as hearsay, because none of it will be a first hand source discussing their inability to sign Hughes.


----------



## WizardsKev (Jun 4, 2002)

I recently wrote a column at RealGM -- http://www.realgm.com/src_goaltending.php?articleid=21 -- using a similar player rating system to measure a player's value last season (PTS + REB + AST + STL + BLK - missed FG - missed FT - TO - PF). Then I compared the player's production to the average team's production, multiplied by the average team payroll, and added a bonus or penalty based on winning percentage.

Using per game averages, according to my formula, Hughes was worth $5,047,438 last season. Using that as the starting point would yield a three-year $16.6 million contract. Applying it as an average salary over the length of the deal provides a three-year deal worth $15.1 million.

For comparison, using this formula and per game averages, Arenas was worth around $4.7 million, Billups $7.1 million, and Donyell Marshall around $8.6 million.

I also used the formula to examine a player's total contribution -- using gross numbers rather than per game averages. In that system, Hughes was worth $4,491,303 last season according to this formula. Using that as a staring point would generate a three-year deal worth $14.8 million. As an average salary, it would've been three years and just under $13.5 million.

Using gross numbers, Arenas would've been worth about $2.7 million last season (because of his very limited playing time early), Billups $7.1 million, and Marshall $6.1 million.

Kevin Pelton, a statistician who writes for Hoopsworld, also approached the issue of what a free agent is worth. He came up with a figure of $5.22 million for Hughes. http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_801.shtml

Based on Pelton's work -- and my own -- I'm comfortable that the Wizards paid a fair price for Larry Hughes.


----------



## WizardsKev (Jun 4, 2002)

*Responding to earlier FG% posts*

Much earlier on this thread, a few folks seemed to be knocking Hughes based primarily on his FG%. While I agree that he's not a particularly good shooter, I thought it would be interesting to see who else had similar FG%. Here are a few names of players shooting within .01 of Hughes (43.3% - 41.3% range).

Michael Olowokandi
Quentin Richardson
Eddie Jones
Jason Terry
Shane Battier
Danny Fortson
Vince Carter
Antonio Davis
Jason Richardson
Trenton Hassell
Zyrdunas Ilgauskas
Terrell Brandon
Ron Artest
Chauncey Billups
Hedo Turkoglu
Lamar Odom
Tony Parker
Darrell Armstrong
Steve Francis
Baron Davis
Michael Jordan

There are some pretty good players on that list, which underscores the unreliability in using a single statistical category to evaluate a player.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Good stuff*

WizKev,

Thanks for the contribution. This thread had gotten pretty stale otherwise.

I found the other Kevin's work extremely interesting especially in regards to his adjustment for the "three ‘attributes’ to the calculations -- age, experience, ..., and height". Clearly, this would increase Hughes value due to his young age. I am curious what the experience adjustment generated. For example, is Hughes penalized for being a 4 yr vet or rewarded for it in this model. I suspect that he would be rewarded as pros are usually still improving after 4 years in the league (except for Elton Brand )

Switching gears entirely and supporting BCH, I would like to throw out that the best indicator of market value is the contract that each free agent signs. 

In a perfect market with all information transparent, the market value for a unique good is one dollar more than the second highest bidder is willing to pay. Of course, the NBA FA process is not a perfect market and the best agents occasionally land a deal that where the winner was bidding against themselves which I suppose led to this entire excercise.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

WizardsKev

Its always good to see you in the Bulls forum. Come back more often.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> Senor Pigna Grande ( special Retro shout out )


For the record, FJ, *I* was Senor Pinga Grande on the old Sportstalk boards, if that's what your were referring to...

But if you were just calling Retro a big dick never mind


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> As for proving others were willing to sign Hughes at the MLE, what is the point? It can all be disregarded as hearsay, because none of it will be a first hand source discussing their inability to sign Hughes.


No, I won't disregard it... I don't expect to see a quote from a GM saying "we wanted to give Hughes the full MLE".

All I'm asking for is even one unsubstantiated rumor that anyone was even considering giving Hughes the full MLE. 

You have stated on more than one occasion that other teams were interested in giving Hughes the full MLE- what makes you think that? I'm assuming you read it somewhere as opposed to just making it up, correct?


----------



## WizardsKev (Jun 4, 2002)

Bullsnews: I heard radio reports in DC discussing how Miami and Philly had made full MLE offers to Hughes. I thought I'd read it in the Washington Post, but the article says that Hughes pared his list down to Washington, Miami and Philly and doesn't mention whether the other teams made offers. That story, combined with the radio reports, led me to believe that he had the list down to three teams because those were the best offers, but it's possible that Hughes was interested primarily in those three teams and went to Washington because the Wizards made the best offer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A28429-2002Jul18&notFound=true


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I re-read the Washington Post report on the Hughes signing and the language used was that Hughes choose the Wizards over, Miami, Philadelphia, etc. WizardsKev could be right that he may have chosen DC over the others because of the money. Becasue of the way it was written, I was thought it was an equal choice and Hughes selected DC because they expressed the most persistent interest in him. I could certainly be wrong about that, but it is not like anyone has written in the media about how Hughes screwed the Wizards or how the Wizards were competing with themselves on the value.

The best I could do was this short article mentioning it might take the full MLE to sign Hughes in Philly.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/sixers/news/1236635.htm

While looking for any mention I ran across several articles explaining why Hughes' option was not picked up. The prevailing reasons expressed were beucase of the Luxury Tax and because Hughes was a restricted FA and GS would not have been able to match the offers Hughes' was going to get.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> FJ,
> 
> What I have asked you is in good faith. I also have problems with the methodologies you employed to arrive at Hughes worth as well but if you can not resolve the inputs why should I even bring them up? Trust me, your arbitrariness does not end with determining your inputs. I have acknowledged the amount of effort you put into what you did. I am not sure what other accolades you are seeking.
> ...


BCH , no need to get churlish because you are frustrated that I won't play your little game - mayI suggest you find yourself a hobby for some relief. It is inappropriate for you to get smart ar5ed and infer that I _ am seeking accolades _ from you or others and once you approach / cross this line you further diminish not only yourself but the integrity of this site. 

Whilst you may post here for cheap thrills and attempting to press people's buttons - I don' t post for any other motivation other than wishing to talk basketball with mature knowledeable people. You have that capacity 

If you care to go back and read carefully I did make my concessions under the ambit that any attempted system/model of asset val is not perfect and is inherently going to fall short on measuring subjective matter that is not realistically measurable

So for you to say that I have made no such acknowledgements is a false - its here in black and white. I would appreciate it if you made your comments factual rather than allege such things that I have said/not said - which are just not true

Your entire post was a redundant point on what you have been producing in stale fashion without contributing anything of worth for two pages- 

Try not to get obsessive about it BCH because someone is rejecting the pace that you are trying to dictate

You need to be above this and move on

BTW props to WizKev for injecting some alternatives for discussion into the debate on different models 

Wiz Kev , as BCH did not/could not/would not do this I would be happy to consider such model you have presented and discuss it with you in a comparative sense - hopefully for a productive conversation - thanks


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> 
> 
> For the record, FJ, *I* was Senor Pinga Grande on the old Sportstalk boards, if that's what your were referring to...
> ...


No Senor 

I was referring to your old name from ST


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> As for proving others were willing to sign Hughes at the MLE, what is the point? It can all be disregarded as hearsay, because none of it will be a first hand source discussing their inability to sign Hughes.


Uhhh I believe it was you who actually brought up the point that he had equal opportunity for earnings elsewhere - it seems you have watered down this initial attestation in your most recent responses to Wiz Kev


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I hate to get started again after the lovely songs around the campfire



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> If you care to go back and read carefully I did make my concessions under the ambit that any attempted system/model of asset val is not perfect and is inherently going to fall short on measuring subjective matter that is not realistically measurable


I noted 2 concessions re: model throughout all of your many posts.

1 - Models for complicated real-life events have some error.
2 - The ESPN index has an inherent flaw (e.g. good defensive players may not be fully valued.)

If I were you, I would not pat myself so hard on the back about these consessions. You have conceeded NOTHING specifically about your own model. 

I find this a bit surprising that you would want to ring this bell again especially as Kevin Pelton's model accounts for at least one of the issues raised that you so dismissed so brusquely – AGE. Age because it is the best proxy for both potential in young players and decline in older players. Sound familiar?

Frankly, I appreciated that both Kevins’ were quite humble and open in discussing the potential flaws in their models and how much importance to place on the resultant number. Example from Mr. Pelton, ‘These are very rough estimates at best, and by no means do I necessarily believe what the formula says a given player is worth.’ 

Seems a bit different from the 2x4 that you have been waving around and smacking MJ, BCH, et all.

 I still love you, though...


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

WizKev

I would like your opinion on this MLE/Larry Hughes issue

Miami have 10 players at $53.3M . They need another two players to make a minimum NBA roster.

Despite Pat Riley's puppet strings being severely manipulated previously by Micky Arison who was vehement in his rhetoric that they were not going to pay the Luxury tax - it appears as though Miami's position has changed and accepted its unavolidability. 

That being the background to the case would you realistically expect Miami to sign Larry for $4.5M and effectively pay $9M for him ? Or how about $3M for $6M

Similarly with Philly . Before Greg Buckner's signing at $2.4M , they had the opportunity to have a 12 man roster at $51M. They then signed Buckner signifying their willingness to flirt with the luxurt tax ( if they can't move Coleman and shave $1.5M which might save them -see earlier post of mine on this possibility above ) which put them at $53.4.

If they signed Larry instead of Buckner for $4.5M or even for $3M they would effectively be paying $9M and $6M for him next season respectively - and possibly in Philly's case if they can get under the limit by moving Coleman and sheeding nonn guaranteed contracts in 2nd rounders etc - they would forfeit the lucrative escrow refunds that I have also alluded to 

Just the sheer weight of economic rationalisation into the effective cost of making a play for Larry for either of these ball clubs make any suggestion of them offering anything over "Greg Buckner" money - a sheer folly

Part of the problem in relying on "reports" on radio or in the press is that journo's don't actually understand the Luxury tax ramifications of rumours they report . Their are newspaper / ESPN columnists that I have conversed with on this issue ( who I won't name for privacy reasons ) that have privately made such concessions to me and others that I know who also have talked to them 

So again . do you really think Miami and Philly were prepared to drop their draws for Larry to this level ? 

I put it to you that they may have had mild interest and made contact but of course he was going to take the Wiz's offer which was always going to be considerably more in these circumstances than such identified suitors - meaning Wiz overpaid more than they had to 

But , if as you have said, you are comfortable with what the Wiz paid him ,then good for you


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I hate to get started again after the lovely songs around the campfire
> 
> 
> ...


Not so hasty m'friend

I have already said I intend to study their models and make comment to try and compare/discuss

I have dismissed nothing 

Thanks for the love though dawg


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> I have dismissed nothing


On an earlier page, I posted several items that your model did not account for. Flaws. Example:



> Originally posted by <b>Johnston797</b>!
> 
> 2 - Player potential
> 
> Examples: age, experience, athletic ability


You responded.



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Age after rookie contarct is immaterial
> 
> Experience - 4 years
> ...


I think it is safe to call this a brusque dismissal. During your study, take a look at how Mr. Pelton treats this issue and be sure to report back.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

People were available way cheap this year and with all due respect to WizardsKev who is a very intelligent basketball guy, this is the year of bargains. Whether or not other teams made midlevel exception offers to Hughes who is young and physically gifted, he has failed to be a good point guard in anyway shape or form and Goldenstate played much better ball with Arenas at the point as opposed to Hughes. While I am not at all eanamored with Hughes, I can understand taking a gamble on him to be a 2. As a point guard for that money in this market, no way at all. Time will tell, but MJ seems to still be running things and running things poorly (big shock) which is a clear violation of the supposed rules.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

For the 3rd time - I intend to

I meant I had not dismissed anything of theirs yet because I had not looked at it and it might take me a few days as I am starting to get busy at work and making money when the deal is there to do takes precedence over this 

 

I would not say I "dismissed" your stuff - just diagreed with it in principle because there was no attempt to measure anything 

If they have I will look at it and rest assured I will report back and give props with what I agree with and point out what I don't 

Kewl ?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Just the sheer weight of economic rationalisation into the effective cost of making a play for Larry for either of these ball clubs make any suggestion of them offering anything over "Greg Buckner" money - a sheer folly


OK, let's assume that 76ers prefered Hughes to Buckner and offered him the same exact contract.

Question: Does that make MJ a fool for offering $4.5M?

Anwser: IMHO, Of course not!!!!!

Why: 

Buckner got a 6 year dear for $18M. After this year, they still owe Buckner $15.6M dollars over the next 5 years.

Hughes got a 3 year deal for $15. After this year, the Wiz only owe $9M over 2 years.

If the Wiz had only used 1/2 of their exception on Hughes, could they have used the rest of the money to get a great player. No. And the roster is pretty crowded already. So spending the extra money doesn't hurt too much this year.

And after this year, they have 50% less money commited to that player in the future.

Perhaps a steady guy like Buckner is worth a 6 year commitment. Personally, I think it's most likely that Hughes will be a borderline AllStar or out of the NBA in 4 years. I want the kid as motivated as possible. A short contract will help maximize his motivation.

Lastly, if PG just doesn't work for Larry, having Hughes around gives them some extra insurance as Rip becomes a RFA next year and old 23 finally hangs them up.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> BCH , no need to get churlish because you are frustrated that I won't play your little game - mayI suggest you find yourself a hobby for some relief. It is inappropriate for you to get smart ar5ed and infer that I _ am seeking accolades _ from you or others and once you approach / cross this line you further diminish not only yourself but the integrity of this site.
> ...


FJ,

You have hardly conceded anything other than your inputs were based on a user named Jammer and that ESPN uses a similar system. 

You also _forgot_ to answer the numerous other questions posed to you about other liberties you took with your model.

Spin it how you want, I know I have sufficiently disproved the validity of what you intended your model to show. Also, I appologize if you were not trying for some accolades. I was confused by what you had said, " I do not want to be drawn into a huge efforts that I am not sure are appreciated". I thought the fact people were willing to point out the flaws in your system was appreciation enough of your efforts if not your results.

And if memory serves me, I was prepared to move on with the subjective portion of this disagreement until you proposed your flawed system of valuation.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, let's assume that 76ers prefered Hughes to Buckner and offered him the same exact contract.
> ...


Old 32?

Did Magic sign on for the vets minimum and I just don't know about it yet


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> Old 32?
> ...


I thought he meant Rip Hamilton.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> FJ,
> ...


Noted once more for the record that you disagree with the system and inputs

Is this going anywhere or do you have something useful to say ?

If not , then I process this _ at my discretion _ in how it has been received by me as continual baiting and harrassment and you will leave no option for me to report this to a moderator of this board to talk to you about this .

Please cease this 

And you knew full well that my "appreciation" comments were based on you trying to run me round in circles when I answered you to _my _ satisfaction ( whilst it may not have been commensurate with your expectations in satisfaction thereof ) - and I simply did not wish to keep digging up information which was measurable to form my point of view if I felt you were not extending goodwill into the discussion - and this was _ my _ feelings that you were not . You say you were that is _ your _ opinion - but I am telling you how _ I _ felt about your partcipation - so the whole concept of appreciation was not about accolades from you or others - merely me questioning your goodwill in the debate . You knew this and were being clever when you framed that rather thin _ personal_ barb back at me 

I would like an apology and I would ask you to stop harassing me in this manner

I can't be any clearer on this 

If you won't address me in what I have asked from _ you _ do you see me harrassing you directly for it ? No . So extend me the same courtesy please and do not harrass me

You may respond to me in the way that I have asked initially but after I have told you what I would prefer the continual discourse on the issue should be - do not continue to harrass me . You are failing in your duties as poster and moderator of this board but your continual dog barking after a parked car routine

Feel free to address me on other issues but please respect my rules on the basis I am prepared to discuss the issues with you that you wish to discuss. Anything outside of this request of mine is being received as harrassment by me

Thank you so much ( hopefully )


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> I thought he meant Rip Hamilton.


Rip's retiring mighty young aint he ?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Old 32?
> 
> Did Magic sign on for the vets minimum and I just don't know about it yet


My bad. Old 23. MJ of course.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

FJ,

Please be aware that I am in no way harassing or making any barbs toward you. I am simply asking questions about a statistical model you posted for consideration. You were the one saying I did not appreciate your efforts when I had already commended you on said effort. I also addressed the issue of goodwill. It is in black and white for you to read.

Questions you still have not answered that apply to your statistical model are why you chose the inputs you did, and an explanation of your viewpoint on the validity of extrapolated statistics over a period of time when that player had not achieved the number of minutes associated with the statistic.

Please understand that you do not set the rules on this board. Also understand that your transparent attempts to insinuate I have somehow failed as a moderator of this site has been noted each and every time you have remakred upon it, the past 4 or 6 posts. I will respect your wishes however and end my particiapation in this thread as it pertain to our discussion with it noted that though you say you are prepared to answer any and all questions, you choose not to.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

FJ,

I have a suggestion... 

Let's stop posting on this thread. If you do take a look at the 2 models that Kevin posted and want to post, start a new thread.

This one has too much baggage.

Peace,
Johnny


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> FJ,
> 
> Please be aware that I am in no way harassing or making any barbs toward you. I am simply asking questions about a statistical model you posted for consideration. You were the one saying I did not appreciate your efforts when I had already commended you on said effort. I also addressed the issue of goodwill. It is in black and white for you to read.
> ...


Well it took 4 or 5 posts for me to try and point out to you 

You do not believe you are harassing me and therefore are failing as a moderator and a poster - that's your opinion

I think you are because I am feeling harassed. You don't own the way I feel and you can't finesse around it and say your not. 

I will grant you it may not be your intent but the fact is ( in the way it is being received by me ) is that you are and your insistence in posting on this issue affirms it .

Surely it is presumptious of one to say " hey that's not what your feeling " 

Please cease.

And yes I humbly acknowledge that I do not set the rules on this board but I think I can control how I wish someone to converse with me when I say : " I will answer you when you do this" which is what I did 

Anything short of this and this merry go round you can't get off is harrassment in the way I feel about it 

Please stop and if I understand from where your last post ended on this issue you have agreed to do that ( finally ) 

Thank you


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> No Senor
> ...


Wow, I'm surprised you even remember that name. I hardly posted at all on ST, and I don't remember ever mentioning having used that name since ST died.

As for Hughes, I think it's pretty clear he wasn't getting the full MLE anywhere else but Washington, so in that sense MJ overpaid for him. But it's no different than Krause paying more to ERob than he would have gotten anyplace else.

But since we've heard several Wiz fans tell us on several occasions how overpaid ERob is, I think it's only fair that Hughes remains overpaid until he proves otherwise as a matter of good will...


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I have a memory like a steel trap Senor 

And yes I had already conceded on page 1 0r 2 that ERob was overpaid when that ole chestnut was produced

I agreed.

But I also pointed out that we were'nt talking about ERob or Krause

The economic implications that Hughes's alleged suitors were faced make any suggestion of his availability to the MLE through those supposed channels a mockery


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

As I also recall Senor , 

You were hounding BCH for proof on an issue on a thread a couple of weeks ago ( or it may have been KC ) and BCH steadfastly refused to particpate in the way that either you or KC had asked him to ( in the providing of a link on an issue ) 

I do believe BCH played the harrassment card

Seems as though our friend BCH likes his cake and wants to eat it too.

Double standards do very little for someone's credibility - no wonder serious and sincere posters doubt motivations of such people that exhibit double standards and are not shirking issues at all - rather, asking him to show goodwill in being able to contribute meaningfully with what is asked of him before someone wants to spend time and effort on him ( in responding to him in the way that he wishes to - which only serves for more spurious claims ) 

:angel:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

BullsNews,

Hughes is hardly a 7ppg producer. ERobbery is ludicrously overpaid. No one has proven that Hughes is even remotely overpaid yet. And just as there is no proof Hughes was offered the MLE anywhere else, there is equally no proof he wasn't.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

BullsNews

Maybe no one has proven Hughes is remotely overpaid in accordance with BCH's opinion is probably a better way of putting it 

And whilst it cannot be proven what or what not Larry was offered , commercial pragmatism allows a rational view to form that Miami or Philly were not prepared to pay $9M for Larry next season


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

BullsNews, 

It certainly can't be proven by statistical model. That has been shown.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

BullsNews 

See earlier comment about BCH failing to qualify such a blanket attestation as merely an opinion of his - which of course he is entitled to 

As to his other attestation as to the opinion of Hughes being overpaid there is a sufficient quorum on this thread to point this north instead of south 

BCH seems to lose objectivity and respect in the opinions of others that throw weight behind teh view that he is overpaid

Never mind


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

BullsNews,

If you read this thread in its entirety you will see 3 statistical models presented using the same data with three different answers to what one individual player is worth. 

Very specific questions were asked about methodology and reasoning and none of the authors have been able to answer. 

Go figure.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

BullsNews


Answers have been given - just not to BCH's satisfaction .

Just thought I'd clarify as this represents another failure on his part to speak only for himself instead of for a greater majority as he purports in his expression


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Am I the only who is bothered that MJ is definitely pulling the strings where as a player this is clearly forbidden.This is even worse then his getting 3 steps as Bull. And if anyone doubts it, I am on record as calling him a horrible GM. Hughes as a point guard is a just plain dumb.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> Am I the only who is bothered that MJ is definitely pulling the strings where as a player this is clearly forbidden.This is even worse then his getting 3 steps as Bull. And if anyone doubts it, I am on record as calling him a horrible GM. Hughes as a point guard is a just plain dumb.


Actually MJ was never the GM of the Wizards. He was the President of Basketball Operations before he came back to the Wizards. MJ giving input is not forbidden. Some players are consulted on personel moves. MJ has no ability whatsoever to force any type of player transaction as it is.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> BullsNews,
> 
> Hughes is hardly a 7ppg producer. ERobbery is ludicrously overpaid. No one has proven that Hughes is even remotely overpaid yet.


ERob was coming off of an impressive playoff performance, and Hughes is coming off of losing his starting job for the worst team in the league. Yet each were given contracts based on their potential. Krause paid ERob more than any other team could, and *MJ paid Hughes more than any other team would have*. I think even WizKev would agree with my last statement.



But then...



> And just as there is no proof Hughes was offered the MLE anywhere else, there is equally no proof he wasn't.


No proof he wasn't?

Let's see, I looked at all of Miami and Philly's articles on RealGM, and I did web searches as well, and I saw nothing about either team even considering giving Hughes the full MLE. Funny, when the Bulls are even considering a free agent, I read a lot about it in the Chicago papers. Maybe the papers don't mention Larry getting the full MLE- even when they were discussing their teams' interest in Hughes- because it was never even a possibility

So I'd say there's plenty of "circumstantial" evidence that Hughes wasn't offered the full MLE anywhere else. Let's put it this way- if offering Hughes the full MLE were a crime and I were a detective investigating the case, I'd drop my investigation for lack of evidence (pun intended).

But that's not even the point.

YOU, BCH, have stated on several occasions that Hughes was offered the full MLE elsewhere, and presented it as fact- yet there is no proof of it, as you admit...

So why is it that you can present something repeatedly *and state it as a fact* when there is no proof that it happened?

If you are going to invent facts, or at least refuse to provide *any* outside collaberation to your "facts", then I don't see the point of this discussion.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

im locking this for now so nothing else can be added to it. Will sift through it all tomorrow or if one of the mods reads this then they can sift through it as well. A moderator needs to be here for this to continue on...truebluefan


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i have reopened the thread. The reason why it was closed was i was getting no response from one of the posters through pm. And i felt the thread was getting out of hand and too personal. There was great debate going on and then some petty things as well that needed addressed. 

I got a reply from one of the posters and will send a pm to another. Anyway, keep it on the topic. 

We might be talked out anyway because as i remember yesterday morning two posters were willing to drop this line of arguement. Lets see what happens. 

truebluefan


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> Am I the only who is bothered that MJ is definitely pulling the strings where as a player this is clearly forbidden.


Forbidden by who?

The commisoner's office has signed off on how Jordan set aside his ownership %. I would have to assume that the league has been informed about Jordan and his involvement with management decisions.

If it's fine with David Stern and the majority owners of the Wiz, it's fine with me. I trust that Stern is looking after the integrity of the league and the Wiz owners are looking after the long term interests of the team.

What are your specific concerns?


----------



## WizardsKev (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> WizKev
> 
> I would like your opinion on this MLE/Larry Hughes issue
> ...


What you suggest here is reasonable. It could be that Miami and Philly hoped to get Hughes on the cheap and that when the Wizards offered the MLE, the others dropped out of the bidding. I don't think that Philly would've paid him the full MLE because of the luxury tax. Miami is a different matter, however. They expressed a willingness to pay the luxury tax and may have been willing to pay it for Hughes.

I agree entirely that many journalists don't understand luxury tax, salary cap or CBA provisions. For example, I often read media reports discussing how much cap room some teams will have next offseason. None mention the fact that the cap room will be encumbered by sizeable "holds" that could force a team like the Wizards to choose between signing a free agent (if possible) and re-signing Richard Hamilton. These cap "holds" were a major factor in the Andre Miller trade, but it hasn't been mentioned anywhere -- except in an article I wrote for RealGM. (Where's the smilie of me blowing my own horn?  )

This part is nothing but my own speculation, but I think it's possible that Minnesota might've gone full MLE for Hughes had he not signed with Washington. McHale made that offer to Ricky Davis who has done far less professionally than Larry Hughes in the same number of years.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> And just as there is no proof Hughes was offered the MLE anywhere else, there is equally no proof he wasn't.


This is proof your argument has hit rock bottom.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> This is proof your argument has hit rock bottom.


Not really. I am establishing that though it may be unlikely, it is not out of the question. If the argument is made that I am unable to make a conclusion based on the fact it was not reported, I can conversely use the same argument to state the oppostite. They are both equally valid in terms of validity.

What we do know is that Hughes signed for the MLE. That is inherent proof that he was "worth" it, by the mere assertion of because that is what he is going to get paid.


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> What we do know is that Hughes signed for the MLE. That is inherent proof that *he was "worth" it, by the mere assertion of because that is what he is going to get paid*.


Come again???


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The only way you truly know what a player is worth, is by what he is paid. He was a free agent, and it is a supply and demand market. The only thin we can know with any degree of certainty is that he received the full MLE from the Wizards. Anything beyond that is speculation. Every team gets the MLE every year. So unless a team used it already, they would have it to spend.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>WizardsKev</b>!
> 
> 
> What you suggest here is reasonable. It could be that Miami and Philly hoped to get Hughes on the cheap and that when the Wizards offered the MLE, the others dropped out of the bidding. I don't think that Philly would've paid him the full MLE because of the luxury tax. Miami is a different matter, however. They expressed a willingness to pay the luxury tax and may have been willing to pay it for Hughes.
> ...


Good post. Hughes probably would have sparked interest from other teams, and if Washington hadn't acted as quickly, Hughes might have received that offer from Miami or as you speculate, Minnesota. It might end up being a dumb move by MJ anyway; the fact that he gets the award for the lucky team that got to overpay Hughes doesn't make it a good deal. But that, IMO, is also speculation. 

As FJ was demanding earlier, there is no PROOF of anything. A lot of what happens in NBA deals lacks proof. Plus, just because a reporter says it someplace, doesn't mean it was ever true, so the so-called "proof" isn't very reliable either. The lack of proof is not indemnifying to the opposing theory.

Today, looking at stats and FJ's formula, we expect it to be a bad deal. But I think a lot of fans, GM's, and teams around the league expect something different from the extremely athletic St. Louis standout. 

(As a Philly fan, I almost wished he stayed with the Sixers... Hughes/Iverson backcourt really could have messed some teams up.)

By the way, I think Corliss Williamson signed a decent contract with the Pistons two seasons ago, and I don't think it was cuz of his 9 ppg and 4 boards with the Raptors that got him that contract... I think it was probably his 17/5.5 he got with Sac four years earlier... and I think that most people might have doubted whether Williamson was worth that much money. I think he turned out okay.


----------



## WizardsKev (Jun 4, 2002)

BCH: I don't think that argument is going to carry much weight here. I agree with what you're saying in the larger philosophical context -- an object, service or talent is worth exactly whatever someone is willing to pay for it and not a penny less. I've viewed this thread as a discussion of what the market _should have_ paid a player with Hughes' skills, abilities, age, experience, and demonstrated talent.

The systems developed by Pelton and myself indicate that Hughes is worth about what he got. FJ's system says the Wizards grossly overpaid. I favor my own system (big surprise) in part because it provides what I consider to be reasonable estimations of the relative value of every player in the league.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

WizardsKev,

I understand the distinction. My main point though in taking this a little further is that you are unable to determine if a player is over or under paid until they perform under that contract. 

Player worth is circumstantial in nature as well. How much value would a player like Billups have for a team like the Kings? I would say considerably less than the full MLE and probably none at all. The Kings have Bibby, Jackson, Hedo, and Christie at the 1/2 positions and they are in luxury tax land. 

This is why I think the phiosophical context of player worth is relevant to a large degree.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I believe some of the earlier posts in this thread were arguing that the Wizards overpaid for Hughes because of this year's free agent market conditions i.e. free agents are not getting the same kinds of contracts they have in years past. It was a definite buyers market this summer. Therefore, the Wizards, having made their move quite early in the summer before things shook out, may have overpaid for Hughes. Note that this is not the same as saying Hughes is overpaid-- I agree, that remains to be seen depending on how Hughes performs as you have argued. But, given this year's market, they may very well have gotten him for less than they did.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

By making their move they secured the guy they wanted at a price they were willing to spend. Taking a wait and see approach could mean ending up with nothing, and if one of the 3 guys you want is still available to you, there is no reason not to sign him, especially when interest in him is more substantial than for someone like Rafer Alston.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

That's fine. But it doesn't mean they're above criticism (in hindsight) if it turns out the market wasn't as strong as they may have thought. In these days of tight salary caps and luxury taxes, don't try to imply that management doesn't care a great deal about exactly how much they spend on each and every player.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I tend to agree with BCH's philosophical point...you're worth what someone is willing to pay you. This, of course is subject to the assumption that the person making the hiring decision is familiar with the market dynamics and is rational.

I have no quarrel with the Wiz's decision to sign Hughes at the MLE. There's a risk that Hughes may not be worth it, but he's a player with possible upside. Time will tell.

I would use the same logic on Eddie Robinson. Some say that he's overpaid, even outrageously overpaid. There's no question that he was a bad value for the Bulls last season due to injury. However, the contract he received was made by an individual familiar with the market dynamics and who is rational. One injury-plagued season doesn't make it a bad contract. Time will tell.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Not really. I am establishing that though it may be unlikely, it is not out of the question. If the argument is made that I am unable to make a conclusion based on the fact it was not reported, I can conversely use the same argument to state the oppostite. They are both equally valid in terms of validity.


So now it "may be unlikely" that Hughes was offered the full MLE? Then why have you repeatedly *stated it as fact*?

All I'm looking for out of you is an admission that you have no idea whether or not Hughes was actually offered the full MLE elsewhere- you can "make a conclusion" that he was, but you can't state it *as a fact*, like you did on more than one occasion.



> What we do know is that Hughes signed for the MLE. That is inherent proof that he was "worth" it, by the mere assertion of because that is what he is going to get paid.


OK then, now you need to admit that ERob was "worth" the contract he got, because that is what he is going to get paid.

You can't have it both ways, sir.


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Hughes for 4.5M a year is not an embarassment. *A couple of other teams targetted him at the same number*. He has shown something in the NBA, whether you like what he has done or not, his stats have _real_ promise. *Signing ERob for $42M over 6 years was an embarassment*.


In case ya forgot


----------



## shroombal (Jul 17, 2002)

Hey Hughes isn't dat bad... And I think he deserves a 4.5 million dollar exception...

Hughes is a decent rebounder and passer. He can score too. He did score 22ppg one season. Also #8 in steals per 48 minutes.

its a good signing!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> The only way you truly know what a player is worth, is by what he is paid. He was a free agent, and it is a supply and demand market. The only thin we can know with any degree of certainty is that he received the full MLE from the Wizards. Anything beyond that is speculation. Every team gets the MLE every year. So unless a team used it already, they would have it to spend.


so let me get this straight a player is worth what he get because someone was wiling to pay it ....

do you realize you contradict yourself everytime you say someone is overpaid ?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>higginj44</b>!
> 
> 
> In case ya forgot


Well, ERob has already started playing on his contract and I have said once a player starts to play on his contract then you can gauge his worth as it relates to that specific contract. At this time next year, feel free to blast the Hughes signing if he produces like ERob. A case for this is laettner. Much to my chagrin, when I heard Laettner was signed on his current contract I thought to myself, that really is a decent deal because we need a big guy like him. After this past season, I regret that move.

As for the statement about a couple of other teams targetting him at the same number, I may not have read it in print, but I definitely heard it reported that way on the local radio. WizardsKev has indicated he heard the same.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> so let me get this straight a player is worth what he get because someone was wiling to pay it ....
> ...


This is what I said, "you are unable to determine if a player is over or under paid until they perform under that contract."

His worth on the open market is determined by the contract he signs. Relating that to being over or underpaid is determined by how he performs on that contract.

Player value is not a static value.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

Not to get off of my original topic, but that was just freakin' hilarious, happygrinch!! :laugh:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> This is what I said, "you are unable to determine if a player is over or under paid until they perform under that contract."
> ...



if you did say that (if)

but the post that i responded to said in quote 

" the only way you know what a player is worth is by what he is paid. He was a free agent and it was a supply and demand market"

that doesn't sound anything like what you just said in fact it looks like you took a statement that were pretty sure on did an about face and expected me to buy it as if i had a short term memory problem because you realized it didn't make you look good.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, ERob has already started playing on his contract and I have said once a player starts to play on his contract then you can gauge his worth as it relates to that specific contract. At this time next year, feel free to blast the Hughes signing if he produces like ERob. A case for this is laettner. Much to my chagrin, when I heard Laettner was signed on his current contract I thought to myself, that really is a decent deal because we need a big guy like him. After this past season, I regret that move.
> ...


I'm disappointed.

I thought I saw a patient and realistic "you have to let things play out" philosophy here. Instead, I see an arbitrary "one season" (regardless of injuries) measuring tool. This is convenient if you want to bash Robinson and defend Hughes, but loses its value as a principle. It also begs the question, "why wait a season?" Why not half a season? Why not a few games? Eventually, the principle dies and you're back to pure speculation.

If Hughes gets hurt and has a sub-par season, I won't slam his MLE signing. Stuff happens. Conclusions need to be drawn relative to the commitment made. Both Robinson and Hughes could turn out to be good values with respect to the contracts they received.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Transplant,

ERob has plenty of time left on his contract to fulfill it. He just did not do it last season becasue of injury. Just as Grant Hill did not fulfill his due to injury.

Happygrinch,

I am sorry you feel I did an about face. There are two distinct themes here. Larry Hughes signing now, versus his worth over a period of time. His actual worth at this exact point in time is what he gets signed for. To determine if he is underpaid or overpaid on that contract is determined by his play on that contract.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

transplant that is the way i feel too. Many people told us last season we overpaid for Robinson. that was even before he played 1 minute of basketball. Did we overpay, based on what he did last season? Yes! But i hope that he doesn't remain hurt for the 6 years of his contract! 

As for hughes. Lets see what he does on the court. The same for Marshall. Same for Robinson.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> As for the statement about a couple of other teams targetting him at the same number, I may not have read it in print, but I definitely heard it reported that way on the local radio. WizardsKev has indicated he heard the same.


Well, it wasn't reported in Miami or Minnesota or Philly, so did you ever think that maybe the DC radio was *wrong*?

I don't know about you, but when I hear a news item on sports radio, I tend to not believe it if I don't read it in the local papers as well (or local TV, or national TV, or ANYWHERE else)

Well, I'm done with this... it's getting old, and BCH is never going to change (no disrespect meant).

What everyone will agree on (sans a few Wiz fans, perhaps) is that Donyell Marshall was worth more than Hughes, and that in the "who is the better GM, Krause or MJ?" debate, Krause wins this summer.

Let's just hope that MJ decides to quit delaying the inevitable and actually retires for good this summer... then we can see the Wiz go back to being the .318 team they were without him last season and lose 55 games, and we can see the Bulls win more games than the Wiz, and then everyone can make fun of *them* instead of us... :rbanana:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

What happens when the Wizards win more games again, with or without MJ? 

Why must it be a contest just between these two teams? I don't think anyone here is wishing ill will toward any other team.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> transplant that is the way i feel too. Many people told us last season we overpaid for Robinson. that was even before he played 1 minute of basketball. Did we overpay, based on what he did last season? Yes! But i hope that he doesn't remain hurt for the 6 years of his contract!
> 
> As for hughes. Lets see what he does on the court. The same for Marshall. Same for Robinson.


Forget for the moment how good ERob is or could be. The Bulls liked him and wanted him. If they hadn't offered him what they did, he'd still be in Charlotte. The Bulls only offered $600,000 more than Charlotte on the intial year of the deal. The only reason Charlotte couldn't go higher was that they couldn't/wouldn't dump enough salary to compete with the Bulls.

http://www.nba.com/hornets/news/bass_010721.html

Using the "you're worth what someone will pay you" principle, the Bulls only went $600,000 more than Charlotte was prepared to pay for ERob. In the world of NBA salaries, $600,000 ain't over-the-top money.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

interesting, Transplant! TY


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> What happens when the Wizards win more games again, with or without MJ?
> 
> Why must it be a contest just between these two teams? I don't think anyone here is wishing ill will toward any other team.


You're not serious, are you?

There are basically 2 kinds of Bulls fans on these boards- the pro-Krause and the anti-Krause. The Krause issue is the most heatedly debated topic amongst fellow Bulls fans, and 99% of the anti-Krause crowd wishes MJ were the Bulls GM.

So at least in the minds of many Bulls fans, there is most definitely a competition to see if Krause or MJ is better at building a team.

If Krause wins another ring as GM and MJ never does, then the pro-Krause will forever be saying "I told you so", and the anti-Krause will forever be saying "I was behind the Fat Guy all along" (and vice-versa).


----------



## shroombal (Jul 17, 2002)

Why are the comparing MJ to Krause???? And I bet the wiz will actually do better this year...

Wut were the recent free agent acquisitions the Bulls have made...

Oh yes... Brad Miller(gone), Erob(sucks), Ron Mercer(gone), Corie blount(sucks), Donyell Marshall(yet to play).

All dat cap room... like 18 million... wasted!

and how bout ur recent draft picks...

Elton Brand(gone), ron artest(gone), and instead u have 2 hs players who haven't showed they can be dominant. And Jay Will this year.

U guyz are rebuilding??? Are you sure???? U guyz traded wuteva talent u had in Brand, Artest, miller, and Mercer. Insted u got Travis Best(GONE), Brian Skinner(gone, traded for Oakley who is also gone), Tyson Chandler, and Jalen rose. You keep on stockpiling talent, but u get rid of sum in the process.

while the wiz had a plan... they got rid of the guyz wit terrible contracts. And MJ hasn't made a stupid move where we got rid of Ben Wallace, Webber, or Rasheed. So you can't say MJ is a bad gm or prez of bball operations or wateva. He's only been here for like 1 and half years. If it hadn't been for MJ, there would be no Chicago Bulls. he gives u 6 championships, and u want to bash him on the head.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Do we have an official "Can of Worms" award for newer posters that embark on this topic?


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>shroombal</b>!
> Why are the comparing MJ to Krause???? And I bet the wiz will actually do better this year...
> 
> Wut were the recent free agent acquisitions the Bulls have made...
> ...


You think almost as good as you spell. Curry, Chandler, Williams and Rose are the foundation for our future. Fizer, Crawford, ERob and Hassell are talent that very well may come through, or are tradeable for other talent. Marshall is quality NBA starter.

You build brick by brick and we have some highly talented young players. Who cares what Washington does, there future is questionable at best.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Songcycle</b>!
> 
> 
> You think almost as good as you spell.....
> ...


you might want to doublecheck that yourself 

I disagree with the idea that the "world" has to be divided up into some simplistic love/hate good/bad view. I like the Bulls and didn't stop likeing them because MJ is a Wizard, nor did I stop liking MJ.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Do we have an official "Can of Worms" award for newer posters that embark on this topic?


:laugh: BCH, you're beautiful.

shroombal, you're entitled to your opinion...whatever the heck it is.

This thread had gotten too serious anyway.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I believe some of the earlier posts in this thread were arguing that the Wizards overpaid for Hughes because of this year's free agent market conditions i.e. free agents are not getting the same kinds of contracts they have in years past. It was a definite buyers market this summer. Therefore, the Wizards, having made their move quite early in the summer before things shook out, may have overpaid for Hughes. Note that this is not the same as saying Hughes is overpaid-- I agree, that remains to be seen depending on how Hughes performs as you have argued. But, given this year's market, they may very well have gotten him for less than they did.


Thank you Sweet Jesus 

Kneepad's voice of sanity reasonates from the cyber heavens

Someone finally gets it 

*Wiz Kev * - I am going away for the weekend and I won't be able to get back to you in detail for a few days - but , I found your system very interesting and well put together with several plausible points/assumptions

The key difference thus far is what Kneepad ( and hopefully other understand to ) is that my model incorporated recent sales data in a random sample of 12 off the top of my head . I did not specifically pick these signings as a means of "massaging the model to massage the model " as some insultingly suggested - I would have liked to think that I have already provided my sincerity and bona fides when interesting debate ensues.

Therefore I think ( in the initial instance ) that whilst yours is an impressive piece of work - it fails to account for the state of the current market and as I kept reiterating in the earlier part of the debate - who exactly was paying for what 

I concede I did not have subjective immeasurable non tactile data incorporated which some felt made the model lacking

Mine was an economically rational model based on official measurable data of output combined with a sample of this summer's player sales information 

For those that understand asset valuation and its principles and how they apply in any commercial endeavour ( and the NBA qualifies as such I believe ) it is aligned as such in how it was offered up 

Excellent example * Showtyme * about Corliss and the capacity to "grow" into a contract - maybe Larry will - maybe Larry won't. Let's see. 

But as others allege with a contrary view to yours , * Kev *Larry was perhaps acquired at a more inflated price than what he could have been obtained for - relative to other production/sales

As truebluefan said ; you should come by more often - its good to see you around and talk


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

*Off Topic*

OT 

Major props to truebluefaan for reopening the thread - which has garnered interest with a lot of worthwhile posts - around 30 or so since he reopened

Excellent job TB - your the best we've got


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> I tend to agree with BCH's philosophical point...you're worth what someone is willing to pay you. This, of course is subject to the assumption that the person making the hiring decision is familiar with the market dynamics and is rational.



Fair enough. 

Is what someone is willing to pay you the best indicator of value ?

That's all I'm trying to challenge people's mindsets on

Usually when worth is being determined of an asset in a market in a given instant due regard is had to comparable sale analysis of other like product in that market at that time

So just because someone is prepared more than what the market otherwise may have given does not mean that the asset is worth what that someone was prepared to pay

The asset is only _ worth _ that price to _ that someone _ that was prepared to pay the price

Does not mean that that is necessarily market price

That's why assets get valued in accordance and on the basis I have already amply outlined in this thread and why there is propensity in this process for an asset valuation to come in above or below market price which is determined in the known comparative market data

And if you accept this rationalist view instead of the subjective immeasuarbles and the crystal ball wait and see whether they are worth it or not approach , you would easily form a view that he was overpaid _ for what was going around this summer _

Maybe he will grow into it and be worthy of it with actual production instead of expected upside


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, let's assume that 76ers prefered Hughes to Buckner and offered him the same exact contract.
> ...


I'll tell you what - it would have made Philly look pretty lame 

Considering that it definately would have consigned them to L Tax hell and they would have effectively paid Larry $37M for 3 years

Not exactly Apples and Oranges is it ?


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Kev

Your concessions re Philly are noted

I believe Miami were a lot more hardcase in their willingness to give it up - considering Philly already had a minmum roster and Miami were 10 players for the same money at $53.3 needing two more

I don't know what they have paid Travis Best but I bet Trav's won't be earning what he did last year ( around $3.2M )

effectively this dollar for dollar penalty is getting passed on to the player with teams over the cap looking to sign free agents thus resulting in reduced earnings


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FJ, you know I love ya as a man can (properly) love another man.

Despite all the laudable effort on your part and others, I don't believe you can quantify a player's prospective value to a given team. I'm not saying that such formulas aren't interesting, but they can't be determining.

The main examples in this argument seem to be ERob and Hughes. Both are "upside" players. When you bet on upside, you're taking a risk. Formulas can't quite cover this, and because of this, you can't be right today...you'll have to wait to be right (or wrong). I understand that we all want immediate gratification, but I don't see this argument as providing it.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Of course you can be right today just as you can be wrong tomorrow when you were right the day before


This is my point - there is evidence _ quantifiable _ evidence available now to form a view which is what I have done

I have never advocated it is all determining - merely an interesting barometer to gauge an approximation of worth in a market in any given instant

And we were'nt talking about ERob even though I agree , currently, we overpaid for him _ thus far _

ERob got dragged into it to deflect attention and run static from the plausible premise ( not gospel - a premise ) that Larry got overpaid this summer and some posters not wanting to face up to the possibility


----------



## shroombal (Jul 17, 2002)

Larry Hughes is cool, and did not get overpaid...

I think the Wiz are better than the Bulls, even though i love the bulls. Cuz the Wiz have better vets, and a deeper bench. The Wiz do have Laettner, Jordan, Hubert Davis, Chris Whitney, Jahidi White, all good vets coming off the bench. Along wit their young guyz like dixon, jefferies, rip, kwame, etan, and haywood.

Good Balance!

PLUS HUGHES!!!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

thanks FJ


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

wwSo in the end, it comes down to this:

Is there some solid objective component to "value" that is measurable? How much weight does the objective component hold against the subjective one?

I would say that the reason this contract was signed was not simply because of bad GMing on Jordan's part, although cheaper is always better and that possibility should have been explored a little more in depth. But I think the reason this contract was signed for the MLE was because Hughes is a more rare case of where the objective value is outweighed by the subjective evaluation...

I think that with Billups, Marshall, Buckner, Erick Strickland, etc., most of the teams know exactly what they are getting. The objective measure of stats will hold a lot of water, because those players got a good number of games to consistently earn those stats, and they are generally in AGREEMENT with the subjective evaluation of their talent, so the salaries are within a reasonable range of that objective measure. I'd say that for players with consistent history, FJ's formula will be nearly flawless.

But with Hughes, there is that factor that some called "potential" or "upside", but is really just the "unknown" factor. Hughes has had different players coming out and doing different things, with Fortson hurt one year, the arrival of J-Rich the next, running Hughes with 30+ mpg like he was the Golden State messiah one year, then was given totally inconsistent minutes at a different position the next. Inconsistant stats might have more to do with those inconsistent playing times. FJ, if you want to quantify that, you'd need a variance factor, tracking Hughes' game by game minutes and accounting for inconsistent coaching. 

And that might be one of the other criticisms of minor significance: the player's value on the free agent market is assigned to the player himself, but the player's statistics are influenced by the team and coaching he received. This is NOT necessarily an intangible; the number of games won by a team is a statistic kept by the NBA, and one that should be considered in the formula for a given player on that team.

Anyway, back to the main point. FJ, you hold that with Hughes, you know what you are getting and that's why when we assign a value to him and compare it to the money he's getting paid, there's a huge discrepancy and thus MJ's GMing is askew. But I contend that although that is true of most players, with Hughes, the belief around the league is not as solid on what you might be getting with Hughes.

Just like stock evaluations, which are not limited to the intrinsic qualities of the company's stock but also are influenced by the market's confidence level, Larry Hughes is the epitome of "intriguing prospect". Billups isn't intriguing; they just hope he doesn't get worse than last year, then they'd be happy. Marshall isn't intriguing; he showed what kind of damage he can do, and the Bulls are going to ask him to do it. etc., etc. But Hughes's career so far has left a team very unsure about what kind of player they have just bought.

That subjective measure, if measurable, would make the formula exhaustive from my standpoint. Of course, anything subjective is immeasurable, in some sense, or at least, not without some degree of error.

The skinny of it:

People think Larry Hughes can and will be an outstanding player for their teams, not just MJ. We're not sure why, and it doesn't make objective sense when we look at the pure stats, but it's true and he's getting paid for his potential payoff.

Is it too much? We don't really know yet. But I think it will turn out okay, just like it did with Corliss, who didn't "grow"into his contract so much as he returned to his peak level of performance, once given a chance. Hughes has the opportunity to do the same.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

In response to:

_OK, let's assume that 76ers prefered Hughes to Buckner and offered him the same exact contract.
_



> <b>FJ_of _Rockaway responded </b>!
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what - it would have made Philly look pretty lame
> ...



FJ, Did you read the original post prior to responding?

I doubt it, but if you did perhaps with your great intellect you could explain how Sixers are futher in lux tax hell if they had signed Hughes instead of Buckner for the same years and dollars.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Johnny ,

I hope you don't mind but I will post your PM here and respond

_

FJ,

Take a look below.

I am more than ready to let this thread die or I would have just added a new response. 

All I ask is you READ my posts before replying to them.

Thanks!


====================================

Originally posted by johnston797!

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

OK, let's assume that 76ers prefered Hughes to Buckner and offered him the same exact contract.

Question: Does that make MJ a fool for offering $4.5M?

Anwser: IMHO, Of course not!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------ 
FJ response

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

I'll tell you what - it would have made Philly look pretty lame 

Considering that it definately would have consigned them to L Tax hell and they would have effectively paid Larry $37M for 3 years

Not exactly Apples and Oranges is it ? _

Were you saying that Philly offered the same amount as money as MJ offered Larry - or Philly offering Larry Greg Buckner money 

I read it ( initially ) as Philly offering Larry MJ money - to which I pointed out they would have been lame to do it for the reasons I outlined 

To address the alternate if Philly offered Larry , Greg Buckner money , does that make MJ a fool for offering $4.5M - my answer is yes 

You may say Buckner is signed for longer and the total of his contract is for more - but as I have already said in this thread ( we did cover this issue ) MJ could have signed him cheaper if the nearest bids were around $2.5M to $3M 

My point was notwithstanding what the Wiz actually paid him - he could have been signed for 3 years $10M - $11M - if that was all the nearest competing offers were - * on the face value of the 1st year of the contract that drives the immediate value factor I have been talking about *

You seem to be addressing total value over time ( which is fine )but that has never been at the heart of what I am talking about which is value NOW which IMO is the kick starter to drive total contract value over time 

Furthermore , in the circumstances of the latter interpretation I would say that Philly also got the better end of the deal - notwithstanding that they had an extra $3M over TIME ( on an extra 3 years ) because my view would have me thinking that in a possible rising salary market over a 6 year period and tying a player up on current values over TIME - you reap the rewards of having the benefit of such player's services at cheap cost over time which has more of a propensity to make them attractive as trade bait .

The availability of trade was also key in my belief that such points you were making ( $15M over 3 or $18M over 6 )were kind of irrelevant .

I thought I had already covered this in this thread?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Johnny ,
> 
> I hope you don't mind but I will post your PM here and respond


A true gentleman. 

BTW, it's now very clear that you did misread the original post. Thanks for confirming.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Fools like me may have a tendency to misread when the initial question ( and the preamble before it ) is unclear and ambigious 

EG : 

_ if they offered him the same contract _

Same as MJ offered or same as what they ( Philly ) offered Buckner

As I covered both scenarios in my reply - and your subsequent question as to my position on the issue has been clarified and answered ( I trust ) then this should clear the issue - particularly as I had already answered it before in this thread

And you say I misread/don't read


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Fools like me may have a tendency to misread when the initial question ( and the preamble before it ) is unclear and ambigious
> 
> EG :
> ...


Well, back to Reading 201, a person finding a particular sentence ambigious should actively read the context in which the sentence was written.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

No - irrespective of how many remedial reading courses you feel I should take - such courses do not teach people how to read minds in what another writer means when he/she engages in ambiguity and switches contexts midstream to boot without properly communicating such

Ambiguity is ambiguity in such circumstances

Thank you for clarifying what you were trying to say anyway - even though the 2nd scenario was what I had already answered you on earlier in the thread

And you admonish me as to my comprehension skills:no:


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

anything useful to be said here? else, the thread will get closed... the reading skills of fj or anyone else are not the discussion subject of the thread -Showtyme


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Ambiguity is ambiguity in such circumstances


Hmmmm....

You say tomato, I say tomato.

[no one shall get the last laugh except for Showtyme  ]


----------

