How'd They Do That?
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:08 am
No one in the league needs more help than me in terms of figuring out how to win a title. During my 2 season sandbox I granted myself permission to do whatever it took to learn this game.
Part of this is looking at what the contenders do, see if I can find some clues to tell which way to go or not. For the sake of transparency and curiosity to the reaction, I thought I'd share the findings.
This is by no means an exhaustive analysis. This is simply a look at some of the obvious factors to see which "knobs" matter, which ones don't.
The Teams
Parsing data, including subsetting of data, is a tough thing, and the real answer is that if you do it one way, you're wrong. That said, I'm presenting one case here, and I'll make note of obvious limitations (to me). This is not a refereed paper, so live with my statement of limitations.
Clearly, we need to look at the Hawks, Lakers. Enough said. I'll add the Kings, Raptors, Spurs, Supersonics, and Trailblazers due to their purple players, which is something the Hawks and Lakers have in common (blue with purple potential, and in this case the color is a nice simplification that serves a very useful purpose). These teams sit atop their conferences and the league if you look at records, so this is something to this factor.
Claim: You need a purple player.
To validate, I looked at past champs. The past 6 champs, and likely this year's champ, had purple player. Of the 5 before that, only 1 had a purple player (Hawks in the inaugural season, Magic Johnson, purple potential). The remaining teams 4 teams were the champs is seasons 2 and 3 (Hawks and Lakers), then the repeating Celtics.
The Celtics had at least 5 blue players each time they won. Looking from them forward, this pattern continues for the most part . . . at least 5 blue players . . . or at least one purple with at least two blue . . . with the 1998-1999 Warrior with Kemp's 38 PER (with Cebellos' 22 and good role players) being the exception. To be fair, the Lakers' most recent title had Garnett as currently blue with purple potential, but as the colors are a rough guideline here, I'm counting it and noting it; this is consistent with the new training rules, too.
Looking that teams this purple player net left out that sit atop the league, it left out the Warriors and Kemp's 37.9 PER this season as a blue player and the Jazz with Tim Duncan's 36.8 PER as a blue player.
Seeing how far we can push this, the Hornets have 50 wins, but they built over the season. Still they have a player with PER near 30, but their roster is not there, at least in terms of efficiency. The stats can be misleading here due to the high degree of turnover.
The story continues along this way as you proceed down the league.
Revised Claim: You likely need a dominant and efficient player.
With the well-known issues with colors, we can refine our crude hypothesis into one that holds up. While it's pretty intuitive that you need a star, you really need a guy who is putting up a 30 PER at least. The only exceptions to this are Lakers two title runs. In the first, they had a very good offense with two guys putting up PER's of over 26 with nice defense. In the second, the top PER's were in the low 20's, but the was very efficient on defense, which PER underrates.
In summary, to have a good chance of winning a title, get a guy who put up a PER of 30 and build around him. Outside of that, you need good players and great defense, which is way harder to just whip up a game plan for.
The Trends
If we stick to the purple player view, there are just a few in the league. The teams that have them are listed in this article. What's interesting, is that they are all at least 28 except for McGrady (22), Garnett (25), and Allen (26). The 28 year old Marshall is a free agent this offseason, and Glenn Robinson will enter free agency the following offseason as he approaches 30. The rest of them are under contract until age 30 or beyond.
Of the 9 players, only 3 are below age 28, and they are inaccessible for the most part except in trade. There is also not such a playerin the upcoming draft.
What we see is the effect of training restriction, and it is clear that they can have a major influence on the title hunt in the next several seasons if not in perpetuity.
If we look for players with at least 30 PER, the list is shorter. Purple or not, you have to have the dominant player, and even then you get derailed by another such team or by a great defense.
The Future
Following this to its natural conclusion, while clinging to particular players will be valid an important, other strategies will emerge to compete with the dominant one.
Cap data is not easily available to me, other than this season's, but it's clear that the salary required to deal with players at level is substantial (none are on rookie deals), so creating a supporting cast to complement this player will require substantial salary commitment in all likelihood. Of the 9 teams listed above, 6 are above the cap and 5 of those are the top 5 total salaries in the league and well into the tax.
So, to employ the old strategy will require either great cap management or a willingness to enter the tax. The only other strategy identified that works is to assemble a great defense. All of these require various combinations of skill, planning, and luck.
The real questions are
1) Is there another strategy or a way to better execute a known one?
2) Will the league change that much as the most skilled players fade and overall GM and coaching talent rises that new factors actually become more important and the game changes?
3) Will the league not change, and these fewer dominant players become even more important outweighing adroit management and coaching?
Part of this is looking at what the contenders do, see if I can find some clues to tell which way to go or not. For the sake of transparency and curiosity to the reaction, I thought I'd share the findings.
This is by no means an exhaustive analysis. This is simply a look at some of the obvious factors to see which "knobs" matter, which ones don't.
The Teams
Parsing data, including subsetting of data, is a tough thing, and the real answer is that if you do it one way, you're wrong. That said, I'm presenting one case here, and I'll make note of obvious limitations (to me). This is not a refereed paper, so live with my statement of limitations.
Clearly, we need to look at the Hawks, Lakers. Enough said. I'll add the Kings, Raptors, Spurs, Supersonics, and Trailblazers due to their purple players, which is something the Hawks and Lakers have in common (blue with purple potential, and in this case the color is a nice simplification that serves a very useful purpose). These teams sit atop their conferences and the league if you look at records, so this is something to this factor.
Claim: You need a purple player.
To validate, I looked at past champs. The past 6 champs, and likely this year's champ, had purple player. Of the 5 before that, only 1 had a purple player (Hawks in the inaugural season, Magic Johnson, purple potential). The remaining teams 4 teams were the champs is seasons 2 and 3 (Hawks and Lakers), then the repeating Celtics.
The Celtics had at least 5 blue players each time they won. Looking from them forward, this pattern continues for the most part . . . at least 5 blue players . . . or at least one purple with at least two blue . . . with the 1998-1999 Warrior with Kemp's 38 PER (with Cebellos' 22 and good role players) being the exception. To be fair, the Lakers' most recent title had Garnett as currently blue with purple potential, but as the colors are a rough guideline here, I'm counting it and noting it; this is consistent with the new training rules, too.
Looking that teams this purple player net left out that sit atop the league, it left out the Warriors and Kemp's 37.9 PER this season as a blue player and the Jazz with Tim Duncan's 36.8 PER as a blue player.
Seeing how far we can push this, the Hornets have 50 wins, but they built over the season. Still they have a player with PER near 30, but their roster is not there, at least in terms of efficiency. The stats can be misleading here due to the high degree of turnover.
The story continues along this way as you proceed down the league.
Revised Claim: You likely need a dominant and efficient player.
With the well-known issues with colors, we can refine our crude hypothesis into one that holds up. While it's pretty intuitive that you need a star, you really need a guy who is putting up a 30 PER at least. The only exceptions to this are Lakers two title runs. In the first, they had a very good offense with two guys putting up PER's of over 26 with nice defense. In the second, the top PER's were in the low 20's, but the was very efficient on defense, which PER underrates.
In summary, to have a good chance of winning a title, get a guy who put up a PER of 30 and build around him. Outside of that, you need good players and great defense, which is way harder to just whip up a game plan for.
The Trends
If we stick to the purple player view, there are just a few in the league. The teams that have them are listed in this article. What's interesting, is that they are all at least 28 except for McGrady (22), Garnett (25), and Allen (26). The 28 year old Marshall is a free agent this offseason, and Glenn Robinson will enter free agency the following offseason as he approaches 30. The rest of them are under contract until age 30 or beyond.
Of the 9 players, only 3 are below age 28, and they are inaccessible for the most part except in trade. There is also not such a playerin the upcoming draft.
What we see is the effect of training restriction, and it is clear that they can have a major influence on the title hunt in the next several seasons if not in perpetuity.
If we look for players with at least 30 PER, the list is shorter. Purple or not, you have to have the dominant player, and even then you get derailed by another such team or by a great defense.
The Future
Following this to its natural conclusion, while clinging to particular players will be valid an important, other strategies will emerge to compete with the dominant one.
Cap data is not easily available to me, other than this season's, but it's clear that the salary required to deal with players at level is substantial (none are on rookie deals), so creating a supporting cast to complement this player will require substantial salary commitment in all likelihood. Of the 9 teams listed above, 6 are above the cap and 5 of those are the top 5 total salaries in the league and well into the tax.
So, to employ the old strategy will require either great cap management or a willingness to enter the tax. The only other strategy identified that works is to assemble a great defense. All of these require various combinations of skill, planning, and luck.
The real questions are
1) Is there another strategy or a way to better execute a known one?
2) Will the league change that much as the most skilled players fade and overall GM and coaching talent rises that new factors actually become more important and the game changes?
3) Will the league not change, and these fewer dominant players become even more important outweighing adroit management and coaching?