Which C's players are the best bargains?

[greece66]

A nice chart from Reddit breaks down how much each player gives us for every dollar he gets paid.
Chart created by reddit user shnts07

https://www.reddit.com/r/bostonceltics/comments/38b9a8/dollars_to_dimes_which_of_the_celtics_are_the/

[TheTruthFot18]

I like it. Jelly Sullynk  Hopefully the KO (and Sully) bashers take note.

I think IT's numbers are off the most, everyone else seems acceptable. For is his salary he has to have one of the highest outputs.

[BitterJim]

I get what they were trying to do, but contribution is never gonna scale directly with salary, so comparing production per dollar isn't really all that meaningful (ex: Lebron isn't gonna do 20x as much as a vet min player, but he definitely deserves to be paid 20x as much)

I'd like to see a comparison of production compared to players with similar salaries (ex. if you get paid $7.5 million/year, where you rank compared to other players in the $7-8 million/year range would be a lot more meaningful)

This is just really biased toward the bottom end of the spectrum

[hwangjini_1]

I get what they were trying to do, but contribution is never gonna scale directly with salary, so comparing production per dollar isn't really all that meaningful (ex: Lebron isn't gonna do 20x as much as a vet min player, but he definitely deserves to be paid 20x as much)

I'd like to see a comparison of production compared to players with similar salaries (ex. if you get paid $7.5 million/year, where you rank compared to other players in the $7-8 million/year range would be a lot more meaningful)

This is just really biased toward the bottom end of the spectrum

as folks who do stats will often tell you, any and all choices are biased in that they are designed to value some variable more than another variable. (for example: "towels waived per game" COULD be a stat, but most of us are biased against it and dont include it in our analyses...unfortunately.  )

so it is not a question of "bias" per se. it is a question of clearly stating what you value and why. this is why folks argue over the assumptions behind an analysis so much. it is the most important part.

then the challenge is to adhere to correctly to the methods chosen to measure the variable chosen. what ever outcome/results you achieve will/should reflect your own bias in what is important enough to measure.

ALL RESULTS will provide a bias towards the selected variable. obvious, right?

on the findings above, would a measurement system that biased it towards the UPPER end of the spectrum suit you better? maybe, and that could be valid GIVEN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. there is not single, pure, pristine, universal, and "correct" measurement of nba players' value since the definition of that is subjective and open to interpretation.

all of this is crudely put, but hopefully makes a straightforward point.

[greece66]

@BitterJim
Actually I made the exact same point at the Reddit thread.
Imo it only makes sense if we are to compare players with similar contracts: eg Sully, Kelly and Smart.

[PhoSita]

Tyler Zeller.

Rookie contract.  To replace his production, you'd have to spend at least $10-12 million a year (e.g. roughly what Robin Lopez will get in free agency this summer).

None of the other guys approaches that disparity.  And yes, this is entirely about the center position being weak, inflating the price of competent centers.


Sullinger and Olynyk each make $1.5-2 million.  To replace their production / overall impact I think you'd have to spend $7-8 million each.

For comparison, Taj Gibson and Markieff Morris have each gotten $8 million per year on the open market, while Marcus Morris received $5 million per year.

[Hemingway]

This list doesn't really pass the eye test. From watching the games, I'd say the list should go like this:

1. IT. He is paid peanuts and did so much for us.
2. Smart. Yes his value is still somewhat based on potential but he is low paid and his D is great.
3. Zeller. He is on a cheap contract and big men are usually overpaid. The great thing he brings is his hands. He is about the best in the league in catching a pass thats a little low and getting it very vry quickly into a shot thats gonna go in.
4. AB. Great D and he plays within himself. He's not going to lose you games with poor decisions. He has very quietly become quite the vet.
5. Turner. I don't love him but he is so cheap and can handle the ball. It's not that he won us 10 games but we probably would have lost 10 more if he wasn't here after Rondo was traded.

The only other guys worth mentioning are Bass, KO and Sully. KO and Sully are to inconsistent/ injured. Bass is alright because his D is good and his shot is good but no one would trade anything for him so that tells you something.

[PhoSita]

This list doesn't really pass the eye test. From watching the games, I'd say the list should go like this:

1. IT. He is paid peanuts and did so much for us.
2. Smart. Yes his value is still somewhat based on potential but he is low paid and his D is great.

IT makes $7.2 million.  Lou Williams, for comparison, makes around $5 million, while Ty Lawson makes $11.5 million.  So I think the most you can say IT "saves" the Celtics is $3 or 4 million.

Smart's got potential, and his defense is nice, but how much would it really cost to replace his production at the moment?  I can't imagine it would take much.  George Hill makes $8 million a year while Tony Allen makes $5 million a year.  Defensive specialists don't make a ton of money.

[LGC88]

Great post and great answers.
That is why analytics is a big debate with extreme judgment lately.
Very few know how to read it because it's not that easy to have an objective and realistic mind and detach yourself from your own emotions.
I'm sure the fans here that keep wanting to throw Sully KO all together + picks for a top 10 pick this year will laugh at this chart, or if they don't, they won't change their mind. They are in love with a certain player and think he will be the face of the Celtics for 10 years or at least be one of a big 3 coming.
Danny ainge think of value (player value & contract value).
Potential is something often forgotten too, and has its own value. For example in 2 years for now, Sully or KO have more potential to improve than let's say AB. Not saying they will be better than AB (that's not the point here). But as a trading chip, KO & Sully has a lot of value (contract + potential). Smart has even more because of its potential value (but that one is obvious for everybody)
That's the same potential value that some fans put on player in the top10, but excessively... No one knows if all the top 10 players CAN play in NBA and if they do, will they pass the cap of the average bench player.

[BitterJim]

I get what they were trying to do, but contribution is never gonna scale directly with salary, so comparing production per dollar isn't really all that meaningful (ex: Lebron isn't gonna do 20x as much as a vet min player, but he definitely deserves to be paid 20x as much)

I'd like to see a comparison of production compared to players with similar salaries (ex. if you get paid $7.5 million/year, where you rank compared to other players in the $7-8 million/year range would be a lot more meaningful)

This is just really biased toward the bottom end of the spectrum

as folks who do stats will often tell you, any and all choices are biased in that they are designed to value some variable more than another variable. (for example: "towels waived per game" COULD be a stat, but most of us are biased against it and dont include it in our analyses...unfortunately.  )

so it is not a question of "bias" per se. it is a question of clearly stating what you value and why. this is why folks argue over the assumptions behind an analysis so much. it is the most important part.

then the challenge is to adhere to correctly to the methods chosen to measure the variable chosen. what ever outcome/results you achieve will/should reflect your own bias in what is important enough to measure.

ALL RESULTS will provide a bias towards the selected variable. obvious, right?

on the findings above, would a measurement system that biased it towards the UPPER end of the spectrum suit you better? maybe, and that could be valid GIVEN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. there is not single, pure, pristine, universal, and "correct" measurement of nba players' value since the definition of that is subjective and open to interpretation.

all of this is crudely put, but hopefully makes a straightforward point.

I'm not saying that the person that created the stat is biased (though he very well may be), simply that the stat, by making an assumption about salaries being directly proportional to production, (statistically) biases the results toward people who are paid less

Essentially, it's ignoring that a player that is twice as valuable doesn't need to give twice the production, since you can only have five people on the court and every little edge helps

It makes me wonder if maybe another model would work better (like using the square root of the salary, etc.)

Actually, now I want to find all the Win shares info for all NBA players, compare it to salary, find a model that fits it, and use THAT to evaluate our players (possibly excluding rookie deals since they are pretty much all good deals)

I don't know when I'll have time to do it, but if anyone else wants to, feel free, just let me know what you come up with

Edit: I just started working on it, should be interesting