Choosing Players II: Keeping Franchise Players Happy

Thunder Superstar, Kevin Durant

For the first article of this series, click HERE

In the NBA, every elite team seems to have at least one "superstar" that serves as the face of the franchise.  Names such as Carmelo Anthony of the Knicks, Dirk Nowitzki of the Mavericks, and Kevin Durant and Russel Westbrook of the Thunder are just a few that come to mind.  In fact, when looking back at the championship teams of the past few years. all seem to have one thing in common: a dominant player.  It was LeBron James for the Heat, Dirk for the Mavericks, Kobe Bryant for the Lakers, and Paul Pierce for the Celtics.  In the NBA today, perhaps the biggest discrepancy among NBA teams is the presence, or lack thereof, of these superstars.  It seems that the main decision a team must make, after weighing costs and cap space, is either compiling a "supporting cast" for one or more superstars or choosing instead to develop a well-rounded squad without a star player.
Looking at the New York Knicks: their appearances in Madison Square Garden, controversial front office decisions, and bi-polar season records could merit them as one of the most interesting teams in the league.  In 2010, the Knicks traded for Amar'e Stoudamire, looking to begin a new, and hopefully more successful, era of Knicks basketball.  In February 2011, they traded for Carmelo Anthony. After injuries to Stoudamire and Carmelo's "superstar" aura, it seemed that the Knicks could currently be considered "Carmelo's team."

Following the model of looking to build a successful team around a superstar player, it seems the Knicks began to make moves within the organization that built the team up around Anthony.  It also seems, though, that these moves favored Carmelo over others players on the team.  For example, in December 2011, the Knicks were involved in a trade that brought Tyson Chandler to New York. The Knicks saw Chandler as a defensive presence and another big man to have down low, clearly an asset to Carmelo.  But throughout the year, it does not appear that Amar'e Stoudamire has benefited much from his presence.  In fact, while Carmelo had no problem getting off around 25-30 shots a game with Chandler, Stoudamire's offense seemed to be negatively affected.  He averaged 17.5 points a game in 47 games last season, down nearly four points from his career average.

After a mediocre start to the 2011-2012 season, Knicks coach Mike D'antoni resigned midway through the season.  He and Carmelo Anthony were clashing at the time, and Carmelo was rather open in expressing his preference for Mike Woodson, the Knicks current coach.  Towards the end of that same season, Jeremy Lin and "Linsanity" rocked New York Knicks basketball.  I hope that we don't need a refresher on Linsanity, as Lin burst onto the scene helping the Knicks win several games and the whole world was made aware of the events.  Interestingly enough, the Knicks, who had initially planned to match any offer up to $1 billion for Lin in the 2012 off-season, made no move after the Rockets presented Lin with a deal.  Instead, they signed Raymond Felton, bringing him back to the Knicks after stints with Denver and Portland.  After these events transpired, talks surfaced that Carmelo did not necessarily want Lin back on the team.  Perhaps Carmelo felt threatened by Linsanity, and the Knicks front office, as in all three of the events listed above, was acting to keep their beloved superstar happy.

A team that serves as perhaps a contrast to the Knicks is the Orlando Magic.  Last season, the Magic faced some internal discord as superstar Dwight Howard expressed his displeasure with playing in Orlando.  He was definitely not a fan of head coach Stan Van Gundy, and he did not seem content with the direction of the team.  But rather than fire Van Gundy to keep Howard happy, or close out deals (such as one with Chris Paul) to make Howard more optimistic about the team and his teammates, the Magic let Howard leave.

Howard may have left Orlando regardless of what they did to try to keep him there, or perhaps they had made moves but Howard was still not interested in staying.  While the Knicks have taken many measures to seemingly keep Carmelo Anthony happy and keep the Knicks as "his team." the Magic did not do the same for Dwight Howard.  Unlike the Knicks, who seemed to make moves to keep Carmelo Anthony happy, the Magic traded Howard away to the Los Angeles Lakers. It appears the Magic are either waiting for another superstar to bring to the team, or are in fact content with a team composed of role players like Glen Davis, JJ Redick, and Aron Afflalo.

Teams with superstars on their rosters undoubtedly reap the benefits of these players' performance on the court and image off the court. Superstars consistently put up big numbers in games, and advertisements and promotions featuring these players can help the financial well-being of their respective teams.  However, as a superstar serves as one of the focal points of an organization, it seems that they can often sway some front office decisions.  It is ultimately up to the organization to decide just how far, if at all, they are willing to allow this influence to go.

Event Recap: Paul Salvatore, ILR '81, Law '84

On October 24, the ILR Sports Business Society hosted Paul Salvatore, ILR '81, Law '84.

Salvatore is the co-chair of the Labor and Employment practice at Proskauer Rose LLP, the first law firm to represent league management in all four major sports. Proskauer's sports practice started in the 1970s with the NBA. Today, however, the firm is best known for representing the NFL, MLB and NBA in reaching new collective bargaining agreements. The firm is currently working with the NHL on their collective bargaining efforts.


A major focus of the presentation was Proskauer's rich history in sports law, something represented in large part by the roles of its alumni. The current NBA commissioner, David Stern, is a Proskauer alum and began by jumping from the firm to become the league's general counsel. Gary Bettman '74, then a Proskauer partner, was hired by Stern to replace him as general counsel when Stern was promoted to league commissioner. Bettman has since become the NHL's commissioner.

Salvatore detailed the five subdivisions of the sports law practice at Proskauer: Labor and Employment, Corporate, Financing and Facilities, Media and New Media, and Litigation, which includes commercial, media, sponsorship, and antitrust. Antitrust is of particular importance to three of the four major leagues; only the MLB is exempt. The firm also works closely on sports M&A deals, having brokered the sales of the Houston Astros, San Diego Padres, Jacksonville Jaguars, Cleveland Browns and New Orleans Hornets. The media division of Proskauer has worked closely with the Pac-12 conference, arranging TV deals with ESPN, FOX and the Pac-12 network.

Proskauer has played a key role in expansions as well, leading NBA efforts in Charlotte, Miami, Minnesota, Orlando, Toronto, and Vancouver, not to mention NHL expansions to Nashville, Colorado, Atlanta and Minnesota. Naming rights are another specialty of the firm, including the deals behind the New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer, Philadelphia's Lincoln Financial Field and East Rutherford, NJ's MetLife Stadium.

According to Salvatore, Proskauer takes pride in "fighting tough and playing fair," something he feels contributes strongly to the firm's dominance in the sports law niche. He also reminded students of the importance of honing their personal skills and shared how the lessons he learned studying at the ILR School inspired him to pursue a career in the law of labor relations.

We were incredibly happy to host Paul Salvatore. Alumni are an integral part of the Society's success, and we hope Mr. Salvatore is willing to stop by again during his next trip to Ithaca!

NBA Offseason Roundup: Part III

Can Al Jefferson help the Jazz take the next step in 2013?

For the first installment of this series, click HERE. For the second installment, click HERE. 

In order to run a successful NBA team, it is crucial to consider the long-term effects of each transaction and to follow-through on a vision for the future. In my most recent blog post, I reviewed how two teams were able to dramatically change their roster by trading their superstar player. Now, I'd like to examine how three successful teams from last year used this offseason to build upon positive seasons. This is part three in a series of blog posts recapping the NBA offseason.

Jazz, Pacers, and Clippers Hope To Build Upon Playoff Appearances

In the last two free agency blog posts, I wrote about teams who are currently focused on rebuilding and are not necessarily ready to contend for the championship just yet. Now, I want to turn my attention to three franchises who are a little bit further along in the rebuilding process because they are coming off of seasons in which they made the playoffs. None of these teams made any significant personnel changes this past offseason, but they are hoping that some minor moves and internal improvements will allow them to advance further in the playoffs this year and in the near future.

Utah Jazz (36-30, 8th in Western Conference. Lost to San Antonio Spurs 4-0 in First Round)

Improvements: The Jazz's first full season without All-Star point guard Deron Williams was a successful one due in large part to the success of their youthful frontcourt. Big men Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap, Derrick Favors, and Enes Kanter all contributed to the Jazz finishing 3rd in the league in rebounding. Their major weakness coming into this season was perimeter shooting (27th in the league in 3PT% at 32%), so they acquired Randy Foye and Marvin Williams, both of whom shot 39% from the 3-point line last season.

Problems: San Antonio’s high-paced pick and roll offense was far too much for the Jazz to handle in the first round of the playoffs, as the Spurs won by an average of 16 points per game in the 4 game sweep. The Jazz defense was their weak point for all of last season (8th worst in the league in points allowed per game) and they didn’t do much this offseason to improve their defense. 

Looking Ahead: The Jazz's two leading scorers (Jefferson and Millsap) have expiring contracts and both of those guys play similar positions to the Jazz's two best young players (Favors and Kanter). Losing either Jefferson or Millsap would be a major setback for an improving Jazz team, so the front office must figure out a way to bring both players back or get some value in return if they lose either one of them. Utah has the depth and youth to build upon their trip to the playoffs last season.

Indiana Pacers (42-24, 3rd in Eastern Conference. Lost to Miami Heat 4-2 in Second Round)

Improvements: The Pacers gained a great deal of respect around the league when they forced a six game series against the eventual champion Miami Heat. Indiana was able to win 42 games last year because of balanced scoring and defense. Their signings of Ian Mahinmi and Gerald Green should build upon those strengths as Mahinmi is a strong defensive big man and Green looks like he could develop into an explosive scorer from the wing. Additionally, the Pacers were able to resign Roy Hibbert and George Hill, two of their key players, to four- and five-year deals respectively.

Problems: The NBA is a star-driven league, and it is very difficult to contend for a championship without a superstar. The Pacers only had one player named to the All-Star game (Roy Hibbert) and he may have been the most questionable selection out of all the players who made the game. Danny Granger led the team in scoring but his shooting percentage (41.6%, 97^th in the league) was not good. The Pacers did not appear to make any attempt to acquire a star player this past summer and unless one of their current players improves dramatically, their lack of a true superstar could be an issue going forward. 

Looking Ahead:Indiana has most of their key guys under contract for at least the next two seasons and they should continue to play hard-nosed defense under one of the league’s best young coaches in Frank Vogel. If the Pacers can’t advance past the second round in the next couple of seasons, they may need to consider acquiring a superstar talent to help them take the next step to becoming a true contender.

Los Angeles Clippers (40-26, 5th in Western Conference. Lost to San Antonio Spurs 4-0 in Second Round)

Improvements: The Clippers immediately became relevant once they acquired Chris Paul. Pairing Paul with Blake Griffin, who is perhaps the most explosive young power forward in the league, allowed the Clippers to vault into the playoffs and even win a seven-game first round series against the Memphis Grizzlies. One of the Clippers major problems last season was their reliance on Paul as their only offensive playmaker, especially after Chauncey Billups got injured. The Clippers addressed that problem by signing Jamal Crawford and Lamar Odom, both of whom are capable ball handlers and can create their own offense. Internally, the Clippers got Blake Griffin to agree to a maximum 5-year contract extension, guaranteeing that he’ll be wearing a Clipper uniform for at least the next 6 seasons.

Problems: The Clippers interior defense was soft last season, mainly because of DeAndre Jordan’s and Griffin’s inexperience. In the postseason, the Clippers were most effective on defense when Kenyon Martin and Reggie Evans were in the game and both guys are no longer on the team. The Clippers did not do much to address their lack of frontcourt depth and they could continue to struggle to guard the interior this season.

Looking Ahead: Getting Chris Paul to re-sign should really be their only significant priority, as his contract expires after this season. He is a talented enough player and leader to make sure this team (as presently constructed) contends for championships for several years to come and if he leaves, the Clippers could be on track to return to irrelevance. If they are able to re-sign Paul to what will be sure to be a maximum level contract, they will not have the flexibility to make any dramatic transactions in the upcoming years. However, with Paul, Griffin and the appropriate role players, they may just have a roster that is capable of competing for a title. 

From the Booth #3: Big Red Advanced Stats

This is the third post in a six post series featuring the Cornell At Bat broadcasting team. These posts will appear throughout the Fall semester. For part one of the series, click here. For part two, click here. 

Here at Cornell At Bat, we are devoted to delivering the Big Red fans with the  latest and most in-depth analysis of the baseball team. This year, analyzing statistics will be at the forefront of my duties with Cornell At Bat. Sabremetrics, or advanced stats, have taken the baseball world by storm over the past few years, especially after Michael Lewis’ book Moneyball and the film that followed it. However, advanced analysis  of NCAA baseball has little to no existence. I thought it would be interesting to preliminarily derive one of the most basic and popular sabre stats for the Big Red: WAR, or Wins Above Replacement.

WAR attempts to assess the overall value of a team’s players compared to the average player (the replacement). Batting WAR attempts to minimize the habit of simply looking at traditional and less valuable stats, such as AVG and RBIs, in an effort to get the most accurate assessment of a player’s talent and value. WAR is at the forefront of analyzing MLB players and their success. This has especially been seen with the debate of the American League MVP, where proponents of Mike Trout receiving the award claim that he has the highest WAR of any player in recent years. Determining WAR for an NCAA team is a lot harder however, for certain statistics that equate to a very precise WAR do not exist. My WAR for the Big Red is a very rough and basic form, as the stat really isn’t developed for anything besides MLB at the moment. Stats like park adjusted stats for average OBP and SLG don’t exist for the NCAA, and neither do other advanced stats that would make the calculations more precise.

My calculations for the Big Red WAR values were accomplished using an online calculator. For the calculator, I needed to input the critical stats for WAR of the average, replacement player (OBP and SLG). I used the averages from the whole Ivy League for the 2012 season for this facet. I then inputted individual stats from the Big Red team last year for all of the other categories, as well as the players’ positions (certain positions have higher values). For fielding and base running, they ask for a scale from best to worst, and I came to conclusions using fielding percentage and steals/ caught stealing percentages. I compared each player’s stats against each other to come up with the scale.

Although not completely precise, these WAR values will still accurately assess the players’ values. Also included is RAR (Runs Above Replacement), which is the sum of all the run components (Batting, Fielding, and Base Running). WAR is derived from RAR by dividing it by a runs per win constant, which is standardly set at 10/game for MLB (I couldn’t change this, but if I eventually calculate the Ivy League’s runs per win, I can redo the computations). Here are the WAR and RAR values for the 2011-2012 Big Red:

Returning members with over 20 games played, in order of most valuable to least:

 Brenton Peters: 1.6 WAR, RAR 15.8

 Chris Cruz: 1.5 WAR, RAR 15.2

 Ben Swinford: 0.6 WAR, RAR 6.1

 Tom D’Alessandro: 0. 6 WAR, RAR 6.0

 JD Whetsel: 0.1 WAR, RAR 1.0

 Kevin Tatum: -0.1 WAR, RAR -0.8

 Matt Hall: -0.2 WAR, RAR -2.0

Departing Starters, in order of most valuable to least:

Brian Billigen: 2.6 WAR, RAR 26.6

Brandon Lee: 1.2 WAR, RAR 12.2

Frank Hager: 1.0 WAR, RAR 10

Marshall Yanzick: 0 WAR, RAR 0.2

For more information about this post, please contact Alex Garcia at asg232@cornell.edu. 

For more information on Cornell At Bat or if you want to get involved, contact Alex Gimenez email at ajg322@cornell.edu. For previous Cornell At Bat adventures, look here, here, here, here, and here.  

"Like" Cornell At Bat on Facebook! 

NBA Offseason Roundup: Part II

Kevin Love: Minnesota's Savior

For the first installment of this series, click HERE. 

In order to run a successful NBA team, it is crucial to not only consider the long-term effects of each transaction but also to adhere to a long-term vision during the offseason. Recently, I analyzed the offseason transactions of a variety of teams who are in the process of reconstructing their rosters. Today, I'd like to review how two teams were able to start their rebuilding processes by trading their superstar players. This is part two in a series of blog posts recapping the NBA offseason.

Minnesota Timberwolves and New Orleans Hornets On the Way Up

Occasionally, NBA franchises must part ways with their superstar player if that player is not capable of leading the team to a championship with his current supporting cast. The Minnesota Timberwolves and New Orleans Hornets each experienced this dilemma with their respective all-stars.

Kevin Garnett entered the league in 1995, and he guided the Timberwolves to eight playoff appearances in the next nine seasons. After making the Western Conference Finals in 2004, the T’wolves failed to make the playoffs in each of KG’s next three seasos. Clearly, the T’wolves were not getting any better, so they were left with a decision to make regarding their 30 year old star power forward.

In the 2005 NBA draft, the New Orleans Hornets selected Chris Paul with the 4^th pick. Two seasons later, Paul led the Hornets to 56 wins and a memorable second round 7-game series against the defending champion San Antonio Spurs. That was the Hornets best season with Paul on the roster. In the summer of 2011, everybody was talking about the possibility of him leaving once his contract expired after that season, so the Hornets had a big decision to make regarding their superstar.

It is very rare for a team to get equal value in return when trading a superstar because of the impact that one great player can have on a team’s overall level of success. However, the T’wolves and Hornets were able to reconstruct their rosters after dealing their star player by avoiding “The dreaded middle” that we talked about in Free Agent Blog Post I.

Minnesota Timberwolves

The Timberwolves lost enough in their first season without KG to get the third pick in the next year’s draft. That pick turned into Kevin Love, who many people thought lacked the athleticism to become a great power forward. Early on, the criticism was justified, as Love’s teams failed to win 25 games in each of his first three seasons. The constant losing caused the T’wolves to have four top-6 picks in the 2009-2011 drafts. Those picks turned out to be Ricky Rubio, Jonny Flynn, Wesley Johnson, and Derrick Williams. The T’wolves missed on two of those picks (Flynn and Johnson), which undoubtedly stalled their rebuilding process. However, Rubio’s excellence in his debut season may have made up for those bad picks, as he demonstrated a court vision that only a few point guards in the league possess. His play was a major part of the Wolves early season success (21-20) and the Wolves struggled mightily after Rubio went down with a torn ACL, as they went 5-20 without him.

Kevin Love has emerged as one of the league’s top power forwards and he and Rubio form one of the best young guard/forward duos in the league. Unfortunately, Love is going to be out until around early December recovering from a broken wrist and Rubio could be out until mid January, as he recovers from his ACL injury. Bad injury luck aside, the Timberwolves are demonstrating how trading a franchise player and “bottoming out” can be a successful way to reconstruct a franchise.

New Orleans Hornets

The Hornets traded Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Clippers in the summer of 2011 for Eric Gordon, Al-Farouq Aminu and a future first round pick (Austin Rivers) in return for CP3. The main part of the trade was Gordon, who is a potential future all-star and the type of young player that all teams hope to receive when they have to trade their best player. Gordon picked a good season to get hurt because his absence from all but nine games last season caused the Hornets to wind up with the 4^thworst record in the league and thus, the 4^th best odds of winning the #1 overall pick in the draft. New Orleans went on to unexpectedly win the draft lottery, which guaranteed them the right to select Anthony Davis, who was clearly the top prospect of the 2012 draft class.

The Hornets exemplified the "bottoming out" strategy by trading their superstar, which all but ensured that they would receive a valuable draft pick. Of course, not all teams are lucky enough to land the #1 pick and not all #1 picks are as promising as Anthony Davis. Still, the Hornets gave themselves a chance at acquiring a franchise player by losing enough games to get a high pick in the draft.

The Hornets got more in return for their star player than the Wolves, but they were also extremely lucky to get the #1 pick in the year that Anthony Davis was set to enter the league. If Davis becomes the type of player that many expect him to become, the Hornets could be a perennial playoff team for many years. Their bright future is a result of their ability to  “bottom out” after trading their franchise player.

Conclusion

The nature of the NBA and the NBA’s draft system makes it so that it is better to be really bad than to be average. The Wolves and Hornets were both in a position where they were not contenders and if they wanted to radically change their roster, they would have to trade their superstars. Both teams lost a lot of games in the subsequent season(s) following their trades. The losing seasons allowed each team to improve up to this point and both teams should continue to improve over the next several seasons.