Contract Year Productivity

With a coach who has a system their productivity would go up some by default. What is amazing about Jefferson and Perk’s rebounding numbers is how often they’re completely out of position because they
re running at the perimeter shooter when the ball goes up half the time.

MAJOR problem with this analysis, though you do mention other factors that must be considered…One of the principle variables that bucks the “contract year” trend is players coming off of rookie deals.

1st renewal contract players typically outperform there 3rd and 4th year stats…MLE contracts and 2nd renewal show the steapest decrease in statistical production. MLE are the most disapointing by a wide margin for a number of reason, but 2nd renewal contract players sometimes see an increase in effeciency. 2nd renewal players are often picking their teams and setting themselves up for playoff runs which improves the emphasis on continuity over pure pay-day…

Don’t expect Jefferson or West’s numbers to decrease much…even with an added offensive presence these two will be closer to their past few months numbers than their overall stats…

Great piece, Cman. I’m a huge fan of this type of analysis. Sure there are always caveats, but it’s always good to get an overview before dissecting the problem.

It would be interesting (although possibly quite labor-intensive) to focus on the Celtics. Look back over the last 5 or 10 years and see what happened to production for Celtics players in their contract year vs. the year after.

Best example of this is Mark Blount.
Lets hope Danny learned from that experience.

Until the NBA gets rid of the guaranteed contracts, this will always be a problem.
Nothing hurts teams more than a guy taking the money and going on holiday for 4 years.

Tim Thomas is another example of a contract yr. player.

It’ll be interesting to see what the market is for Gomes. I can see him landing a 3-yr. deal somewhere for 3-4 mil per year. Anyone who wants to pay him more can have him — he’s a great 7th man.

Interesting analysis. However, a more important question that bloggers will have fun with is….Which players are keepers and which should not be resigned.

this analysis is disgraceful, and certainly doesn’t belong on the front page of this site. You’re outright admitting you have an awful sample size and that there’s really no statistical difference between the two, then for some reason you decide to translate it into percentages, which are the last tool of those who wish to make a gap seem larger. The idea is sound, and worth a research effort, but come on, this is total garbage.

Notice that the averages drop in both categories after the contract is signed. The differences are not statistically significant, but for the sake of argument, the numbers imply that, on average, a player plays about 10% â€Å"better” in contract years.

I mean, come on, reread that. Not only is the difference not statistically significant, you’re also defining a player’s worth by points and rebounds, of all things. It’s incredibly prone to statistical noise, doesn’t control for any potential variables, and you’re lumping together players of all ages and positions. It’s completely meaningless, and then you draw a conclusion from it?

In response to teddy’s critique, I think cman did an adequate job stating the limitations of his ‘research’. I think the seriousness of the research and analysis pretty well matches the seriousness of the ‘journal’ in which it is written. Nice job, cman — I didn’t find it any more meaningless or disgraceful than anything else I see here. And somehow, I actually mean that as a compliment.

I beg to differ, teddykgb. Cman is quite upfront about both the sample size and the limitations of his analysis. It is quite possible that his results are not significant due to the small sample size of the single year of analyses (rather than the fact that there is no effect). However, it is an interesting topic of inquiry, and opens the door to further analysis (by Cman or others who are interested by the initial foray into the idea).

Thanks Eric, that’s exactly what I was wondering: Do you mean youngster’s that are signing their first non-rookie contract? That’s the operative consideration here…

Cfan,
“Until the NBA gets rid of its guaranteed contracts…” ? …
I hope the union never gets as weak and pathetic as the NFLPA so that they sell that one down the river. Just what we need…all that extra money and power in the hands of the owners and David Stern…those who most deserve it for all their effort.

Perhaps after we get rid of guaranteed contracts we could get the NCAA to require their players to stay for four years to ensure that the impoverished association can make a little something off their so-called student athletes for whom they do so much…

Seriously, I understand the desire to better the quality of play but there are some basic issues of equity which transcend all of that…

“As much as we like the young players on the team, salary cap realities mean that the owners will not be able to keep all of them around.”

Perkins 5 years, $22 million = 4.4 million per
Al Jeff 6 years $66 million = 11 million per
West 5 years $22 million = 4.4 million per
Gomes 4 years $14 million = 3.5 million per
TA ? could be 5 years $20-25 million or down to 0
Telfair minimum

That all adds up to (including TA at $5 million per) only 25 million per year. Plus Paul’s $20 million per. Minus Theo and Wally’s $24 million per.

I don’t see the cap crunch issue.

The NFL type contract is exactly what the NBA needs! Then they don’t pay a bunch of stiffs who have an out of the ordinary season without an escape clause. (Vin Baker Anyone?!) If they went to that system then there wouldn’t be this huge inability for teams to reverse fortunes. Look at the Bears. Just a few years ago they are at the bottom. Last year in the superbowl. We are stuck in mediocrity because we have to pay huge money to mediocre free agents and then when they don’t pan out then you’re screwed! (Pervis Ellison anyone?!) (Danny Fortson anyone?!) If a player had to earn his money or lose his contract then the team would be protected. If he shot someone up in a nightclub he could get cut with no questions asked. If he was a drunk bum he could get cut instead of paying 5.2 million this year still… Do you think Bird would have had any trouble with a non-guaranteed contract. Insurance can be bought to protect the player. The NFL can’t just cut an injured player so the player is also protected. They can re-negotiate a contract if the player doesn’t live up to his end, and also if he outperforms. It would separate the players from the average guys. Reward those who earn it. Don’t reward potential. That is why we are in the situation we are. Good GM’s are wrong most of the time. (ow would you like to have made the decision signing Adonal Foyle to a monster contract?!) Danny has drafted well for being in the middle most of the time. Not a great job in free agency. With the NFL system in place we could lower the contracts of those who didn’t earn it (Blount anyone?!) or cut them entirely. Then fill the holes with the money saved. Probably lower the average salary as well meaning likely a slower rise in ticket prices.

There has always been anecdotal evidence that players perform better in contract years. Beyond that, I don’t think that this very crude analysis adds anything.

One ex. of a contract player Mark Blount.

A little information is often more dangerous than none. That’s why it’s equally if not more important to look at player character, and the Celts seem to have some young guys with strong qualities in that regard. If you look at stats obviously you have to look at a whole lot more stats that correlate with team success and productivity on a per minute basis, not just per game averages.