Cost Per Point, 2020-21 (11 games in)

[42N8Bounce]

Dame gets paid about $31.6M this year. That's a lot of money. Is he producing at a level to warrant that amount of cash?

The Blazers used their big free agent money this off season on Derrick Jones Jr. How's he measuring up?

Rodney Hood got a nice pay increase this year. Granted, he's coming off an injury, but how's he doing earning that money?



With that said, Rodney Hood is currently the Blazers most over paid player, followed closely by Nassir Little. Those guys are in a category all by themselves. Interesting that one is playing on a rookie contract, and the other on a new signed deal.

The best deal for the Blazers? Carmelo Anthony and Gary Trent Jr. Both of those guys are well out producing their pay category.

Dame and CJ, even with those huge contracts, are in the middle of the pack - they're earning their paychecks.

Now I recognize the value of a player is not simply points. But that certainly is a leading indicator and a large part of production.

Who do you think will move up on this chart throughout the year, and who will move down? Any surprises at this point?

I hope you enjoy this data!

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Hood seems likely to be cut at the end of the year unless he has a drastic improvement, or is in a trade. Somewhat expected coming off an Achilles tear.

I'd say this is all very expected ranges. Melo and Kanter better provide great cost per point because their defense sucks. Opposite for Jones and Covington; although Covington needs to improve his offense or he isn't worth the 2 picks we gave up in addition to his contract costs as a one way player.

Trent is on rookie scale but will be due a huge raise. Little and Elleby production on the court is irrelevant as they are in development. Collins is the least value on the team, we should probably give him the qualifying offer at year end but I'll be furious if Neil does another Meyers type of overpaid contract.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Nurk is a disappointment, he shouldnt be outscored by Kanter. Simons may be a slight positive.

Trent is really the only possible free agent I'm interested in the team spending much to keep, I just don't see this team as a darkhorse contender as some of us hoped could be possible this offseason. We need another piece, either in a trade or by keeping some salary flexibility. If Neil resigns Jones/Collins/Kanter/Hood with big deals in the offseason it will end up like 2016 where we are locked into a pretender roster again, but for the rest of Dame's prime.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Dame gets paid about $31.6M this year. That's a lot of money. Is he producing at a level to warrant that amount of cash?

The Blazers used their big free agent money this off season on Derrick Jones Jr. How's he measuring up?

Rodney Hood got a nice pay increase this year. Granted, he's coming off an injury, but how's he doing earning that money?

View attachment 36085

With that said, Rodney Hood is currently the Blazers most over paid player, followed closely by Nassir Little. Those guys are in a category all by themselves. Interesting that one is playing on a rookie contract, and the other on a new signed deal.

The best deal for the Blazers? Carmelo Anthony and Gary Trent Jr. Both of those guys are well out producing their pay category.

Dame and CJ, even with those huge contracts, are in the middle of the pack - they're earing their paychecks.

Now I recognize the value of a player is not simply points. But that certainly is a leading indicator and a large part of production.

Who do you think will move up on this chart throughout the year, and who will move down? Any surprises at this point?

I hope you enjoy this data!

Fun thread! A couple of notes:
1) Should really be called "Financial Cost per Point"
2) By this metric, the highest cpp would be Zach at infinite $pp.
3) Would be interesting to use plus/minus, or (player +/- minus team +/-) per player dollar. I think that would be even more interesting.
4) Incorporating minutes would also be interesting: perhaps ($ x minutes/game)/(points x 36).

I know this "nerding out" turns some off, but without it some might garner absurd conclusions like Elleby > Lillard!

 

[wizenheimer]

I'm a real bargain...so far, the Blazers are paying me $0.00/point

 

[SheedSoNasty]

Definitely an interesting data point I hadn’t thought of before. Thanks for sharing!

 

[42N8Bounce]

Fun thread! A couple of notes:
1) Should really be called "Financial Cost per Point"
2) By this metric, the highest cpp would be Zach at infinite $pp.
3) Would be interesting to use plus/minus, or (player +/- minus team +/-) per player dollar. I think that would be even more interesting.
4) Incorporating minutes would also be interesting: perhaps ($ x minutes/game)/(points x 36).

I know this "nerding out" turns some off, but without it some might garner absurd conclusions like Elleby > Lillard!

Great points.

Yeah, I thought about incorporating minutes into the equation, but that really throws off the data. We’re still playing guys even when they’re sitting on the bench. A player shouldn’t be ‘rewarded’ in this metric for the coach benching them.

Yes, Elleby should definitely not be considered better than Dame. But keep in mind what this is trying to measure - how well are they performing versus they contract. If a player gets payed peanuts, and produces peanuts, it’s hard to be disappointed with that. A major source of a lot of people’s frustration with CJ isn’t that he’s a ‘bad’ player (yes, I know to some that is debatable), it’s that he has a huge contract and isn’t living up to it. Well, this metric actually shows that this year CJ is performing better than Dame as compared to ‘expectations’ (financial contract).

There are also a ton of intangibles that aren’t captured with this metric. Especially with defense. But heck, it’s still fun to look at.

 

[kjironman1]

Low hanging fruit I’ll give you that from the get go but I would be willing to sit in the corner and Jack up threes for much less.
I also hear defense is not really a requirement when playing for the Blazers. So at my age it shouldn’t be a problem right. I make about 6 out of 10 at the gym so I should be a star on this team.

 

[e_blazer]

I'm a real bargain...so far, the Blazers are paying me $0.00/point

My math skills are way out of date, but isn’t 0 dollars/0 points an imaginary number? Whether that’s correct or not, it seems especially appropriate in this case.

 

[wizenheimer]

My math skills are way out of date, but isn’t 0 dollars/0 points an imaginary number? Whether that’s correct or not, it seems especially appropriate in this case.

here...you can add this to the things you don't need and don't want to know:



in other words, zero is the most flexible number even though it is nothing....never underestimate nothing

 

[e_blazer]

here...you can add this to the things you don't need and don't want to know:

View attachment 36088

in other words, zero is the most flexible number even though it is nothing....never underestimate nothing

Thanks, but I was referring to division by zero. Not sure that's an imaginary number, but I'm sure that @Wizard Mentor 's thoughts of being on an NBA team or having a shot at scoring any points are imaginary.

 

[Minstrel]

Thanks, but I was referring to division by zero. Not sure that's an imaginary number, but I'm sure that @Wizard Mentor 's thoughts of being on an NBA team or having a shot at scoring any points are imaginary.

Division by zero is technically undefined, though some like to conceive of it as infinity.

What's most fun is taking limits of mathematical expressions that involve a divisor, where both terms (top and bottom) are heading towards zero if the variable is evaluated from 0 to infinity. Then it's just a question of which term is headed to 0 the fastest. It's a race!

 

[stampedehero]

Dame gets paid about $31.6M this year. That's a lot of money. Is he producing at a level to warrant that amount of cash?

The Blazers used their big free agent money this off season on Derrick Jones Jr. How's he measuring up?

Rodney Hood got a nice pay increase this year. Granted, he's coming off an injury, but how's he doing earning that money?

View attachment 36085

With that said, Rodney Hood is currently the Blazers most over paid player, followed closely by Nassir Little. Those guys are in a category all by themselves. Interesting that one is playing on a rookie contract, and the other on a new signed deal.

The best deal for the Blazers? Carmelo Anthony and Gary Trent Jr. Both of those guys are well out producing their pay category.

Dame and CJ, even with those huge contracts, are in the middle of the pack - they're earning their paychecks.

Now I recognize the value of a player is not simply points. But that certainly is a leading indicator and a large part of production.

Who do you think will move up on this chart throughout the year, and who will move down? Any surprises at this point?

I hope you enjoy this data!

However, there is the deficit player called Zack Collins. 0-Points.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

My math skills are way out of date, but isn’t 0 dollars/0 points an imaginary number? Whether that’s correct or not, it seems especially appropriate in this case.

no 0/0 can be any number, need more info to establish a value.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I'm a real bargain...so far, the Blazers are paying me $0.00/point

I think I can speak for the forum, and mention that you're worth every penny

 

[THE HCP]

THIS IS AWESOME!!!!

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Low hanging fruit I’ll give you that from the get go but I would be willing to sit in the corner and Jack up threes for much less.
I also hear defense is not really a requirement when playing for the Blazers. So at my age it shouldn’t be a problem right. I make about 6 out of 10 at the gym so I should be a star on this team.

Defense is one reason I suggested a metric based on +/-

 

[kjironman1]

Defense is one reason I suggested a metric based on +/-

Dammit Man!
I was gonna be a Blazer!

Or at least play for Stotts.

 

[handiman]

What's most fun is taking limits of mathematical expressions that involve a divisor, where both terms (top and bottom) are heading towards zero if the variable is evaluated from 0 to infinity. Then it's just a question of which term is headed to 0 the fastest. It's a race!

Kind of like this thread?

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Dammit Man!
I was gonna be a Blazer!

Or at least play for Stotts.

Join the team and I'll create a metric that will make you look good!

 

[42N8Bounce]

Taking into account some of the feedback here, here's a look at how the players stack up using Win-Share as a cost metric. Win-share has an offensive and defensive component, so perhaps it's a bit better metric -



Carmelo looks like he's the best bargain looking at it from a WS perspective. Trent again closely following.

Little claims the 'most overpriced' crown using the WS metric. Hood a bit behind him with that other negative WS number. (And if you're trying to think thru which is worse with those negative WS numbers, a 0 WS number would tend towards infinity cost/WS, and as the WS goes lower negative, the cost per WS goes down negative. Therefore a smaller negative cost/WS is worse than a larger negative cost/WS. Yes, that hurt my brain too.)

What jumped out to me using the Cost/WS metric was how poor Covington rates.

 

[kjironman1]

Join the team and I'll create a metric that will make you look good!

You might be up late working on that one.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Taking into account some of the feedback here, here's a look at how the players stack up using Win-Share as a cost metric. Win-share has an offensive and defensive component, so perhaps it's a bit better metric -

View attachment 36093

Carmelo looks like he's the best bargain looking at it from a WS perspective. Trent again closely following.

Little claims the 'most overpriced' crown using the WS metric. Hood a bit behind him with that other negative WS number. (And if you're trying to think thru which is worse with those negative WS numbers, a 0 WS number would tend towards infinity cost/WS, and as the WS goes lower negative, the cost per WS goes down negative. Therefore a smaller negative cost/WS is worse than a larger negative cost/WS. Yes, that hurt my brain too.)

What jumped out to me using the Cost/WS metric was how poor Covington rates.

Separating starters from bench players, and CJ seems to be the best value. I'd guess he'd be near the bottom last season.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

You might be up late working on that one.

Just play at least 1 minute, and don't turn the ball over in that minute, and we're golden

 

[handiman]

Win-share vs Salary would be an interesting game-by-game (or month-to-month, for significantly less data entry) trend. Can you put that into a spreadsheet and plot it season-long for each player? I don't think that would be too many lines to decipher, unless trades are made that push the yearly roster up around 20 players.

 

[e_blazer]

no 0/0 can be any number, need more info to establish a value.

I think of division by zero in story problem terms: Divide six bananas into zero equal pieces. Obviously, that makes no sense...unless you have a Star Trek-type teleportation system, in which case you can just beam those banana molecules into space and effectively achieve zero pieces.

I guess there are good reasons why I’m not a mathematician.

 

[Minstrel]

I think of division by zero in story problem terms: Divide six bananas into zero equal pieces. Obviously, that makes no sense...unless you have a Star Trek-type teleportation system, in which case you can just beam those banana molecules into space and effectively achieve zero pieces.

I guess there are good reasons why I’m not a mathematician.

Well, take heart. You may not be a mathematician, but you're a total dork, which is close enough.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I think of division by zero in story problem terms: Divide six bananas into zero equal pieces. Obviously, that makes no sense...unless you have a Star Trek-type teleportation system, in which case you can just beam those banana molecules into space and effectively achieve zero pieces.

I guess there are good reasons why I’m not a mathematician.

lim x->0 2x/x = 2
lim x->0 2000x/x = 2000

both are 0/0, yet have different answers.

 

[e_blazer]

lim x->0 2x/x = 2
lim x->0 2000x/x = 2000

both are 0/0, yet have different answers.

All I can see are bananas.

 

[e_blazer]

Well, take heart. You may not be a mathematician, but you're a total dork, which is close enough.

Thanks. Takes one... and all that.