Page 1 of 1
Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:50 am
by 3ch03s
Hello!
I'm new. Be nice
After reading Evanz post calling for the Warriors to enact a scorched-earth policy (
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2011/6 ... erm-future), I was wondering how you guys would measure/rank the relative success of each franchise going back, say, to the ABA merger? Championships tell us who was the best team that year (arguably, but let's leave it at that), but how would you measure the success of a franchise like Utah who consistently had 50+ win seasons?
I'm interested to know because the obvious follow-up question would be are the circumstances rigged or is it poor managerial decision-making or just plain luck as to why sum franchises are consistently mediocre?
Nice to meet you
Re: Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:24 am
by Crow
Looking at 1990 to 2011, 7 teams have win% over .550:
Team W-L%
SAS 0.666
LAL 0.63
UTA 0.616
PHO 0.609
POR 0.567
HOU 0.566
SEA/OKC .563
5 teams have 10+ 50+ win seasons:
DAL 11
LAK 13
PHO 13
POR 10
SAS 16
UTAH 12
Totaling titles should be easy and brings Chicago into the picture.
Conference final appearances mean more to me than 50+ wins. That could be totalled up too but I don't feel like doing it right now.
Re: Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:25 am
by mystic
I once wanted to know which GM are the best in the league. My methodology was: Win% in the RS, Playoff success with arbitrary numbers assigned to each state, individual award payroll and salary cap. I combined the RS numbers, playoffs and awards and adjusted it by the payroll vs. salary cap. Back in 2007 the list was:
Code: Select all
RangName Surname Team Win Loss D 1 2 CF Fi TiEoY GM-Poin PR SC adj-p
1.RC Buford San Antonio 281 107 3 1 2 0 0 2 15.034 274.75 230.616 12.618
2.Joe Dumars Detroit 341 209 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 12.300 356.43 308.616 10.650
3.Mitch Kupchak LA Lakers 332 220 2 2 1 0 1 2 12.069 453.70 308.616 8.209
4.Bryan Colangelo Toronto 32 28 1 1 0 0 0 0 8.133 53.59 53.135 8.063
5.Mike D'Antoni Phoenix 46 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 9.300 66.81 53.135 7.396
6.Rod Thorn New Jersey 293 259 4 1 2 0 2 0 1 9.002 455.60 308.616 6.098
7.Randy Pfund Miami 495 352 5 4 2 2 0 1 8.150 573.15 423.879 6.027
8.Geoff Petrie Sacramento 522 407 2 5 3 1 0 0 2 7.281 584.70 446.879 5.565
9.Danny Ferry Cleveland 85 57 0 1 1 0 0 0 5.880 113.33 102.635 5.325
10.Larry Bird Indiana 175 129 1 2 1 1 0 0 6.655 272.57 190.345 4.647
11.Donnie Nelson Dallas 280 107 1 2 1 1 1 0 8.703 433.19 230.616 4.633
12.Ernie Grunfeld Washington 145 159 1 2 1 0 0 0 4.813 211.75 190.345 4.326
13.Mark Warkentie Denver 28 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 5.333 66.37 53.135 4.270
14.Kevin O'Connor Utah 349 285 2 4 1 0 0 0 4.692 403.16 342.616 3.988
15.Billy King Philadelphia 360 324 1 2 3 0 1 0 5.629 557.50 372.616 3.762
16.Kevin McHale Minnesota 495 434 1 7 0 1 0 0 4.518 578.44 446.879 3.490
17.Jerry West Memphis 187 202 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 4.668 314.63 230.616 3.422
18.Elgin Baylor LA Clippers 585 1083 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 3.294 525.53 544.562 3.414
19.John Paxson Chicago 146 162 0 3 0 0 0 0 3.968 223.03 190.345 3.386
20.Rick Sund Seattle 233 236 1 1 1 0 0 0 3.708 310.63 273.116 3.260
21.Caroll Dawson Houston 445 403 0 5 0 1 0 0 4.074 542.83 423.879 3.181
22.Danny Ainge Boston 131 174 1 2 0 0 0 0 3.761 243.89 190.345 2.935
23.Larry Harris Milwaukee 133 174 0 2 0 0 0 0 3.235 237.48 190.345 2.593
24.Otis Smith Orlando 65 79 0 1 0 0 0 0 3.396 135.20 102.635 2.578
25.Jeff Bower New Orleans 66 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.324 96.88 102.635 2.462
26.Bernie Bickersta Charlotte 66 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.467 97.17 146.505 2.211
27.Chris Mullin Golden Stat 95 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.102 177.09 146.505 1.739
28.Steve Patterson Portland 25 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.083 73.56 53.135 1.505
29.Billy Knight Atlanta 95 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.508 196.07 190.345 1.464
30.Isiah Thomas New York 123 184 0 1 0 0 0 0 2.537 457.76 190.345 1.055
I think the sucess of a franchise depends also on the market and the money they can spend. Some teams just can't spend as much as other, thus we can't expect them to perform better. On the other hand we should expect a team like the Knicks to be successful unless the FO is rather incapable of either evaluating talent or is managing the money poorly.
But I guess sometimes luck is involved, if we look at Dumars for example. He had the luck that players like Ben Wallace and Chauncey Billups exceeded expecations. The signing of Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva did not look like smart invested money even at the time it happened.
Re: Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:23 am
by 3ch03s
Hello
Thanks for replying.
Your analysis is obviously much deeper than mine but I thought I'd share what I'd tabulated over the past couple of hours. I know these won't display correctly
but the following is a list of times teams finished with regular season records in the Top through bottom quartiles from 1990-91 to 2010-11...
Code: Select all
ATL BOS CHA CHI CLE DAL DEN DET GSW HOU IND LAC LAL MEM MIA MIL MIN NJN NOH NYK OKC ORL PHI PHO POR SAC SAS TOR UTA WAS
Top 25% 2 4 0 9 6 9 2 7 1 7 6 0 12 1 6 1 3 2 1 4 8 6 1 12 7 5 17 0 12 0
2nd 25% 8 6 1 2 6 2 6 5 4 6 3 2 6 3 7 3 4 4 10 5 4 4 5 3 9 2 3 3 6 5
3rd 25% 3 7 2 4 4 2 6 5 6 6 12 6 3 1 5 10 2 6 7 5 6 9 7 5 2 6 0 5 2 5
Bottom 25% 8 4 4 6 5 8 7 4 10 2 0 13 0 11 3 7 12 9 3 7 3 2 8 1 3 8 1 8 1 11
Seasons Played 21 21 7 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 16 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 16 21 21
Then those numbers as a percentage of seasons played...
Code: Select all
ATL BOS CHA CHI CLE DAL DEN DET GSW HOU IND LAC LAL MEM MIA MIL MIN NJN NOH NYK OKC ORL PHI PHO POR SAC SAS TOR UTA WAS
Top 25% 10% 19% 0% 43% 29% 43% 10% 33% 5% 33% 29% 0% 57% 6% 29% 5% 14% 10% 5% 19% 38% 29% 5% 57% 33% 24% 81% 0% 57% 0%
2nd 25% 38% 29% 14% 10% 29% 10% 29% 24% 19% 29% 14% 10% 29% 19% 33% 14% 19% 19% 48% 24% 19% 19% 24% 14% 43% 10% 14% 19% 29% 24%
3rd 25% 14% 33% 29% 19% 19% 10% 29% 24% 29% 29% 57% 29% 14% 6% 24% 48% 10% 29% 33% 24% 29% 43% 33% 24% 10% 29% 0% 31% 10% 24%
Bottom 25% 38% 19% 57% 29% 24% 38% 33% 19% 48% 10% 0% 62% 0% 69% 14% 33% 57% 43% 14% 33% 14% 10% 38% 5% 14% 38% 5% 50% 5% 52%
For what it's worth, I think the following things are interesting...
1. San Antonio is way way out in front, followed by the Lakers, Jazz and Suns (and then everyone else is way back).
2. Charlotte and Memphis/Vancouver and Toronto's records would suggest that it takes time to get to a reasonable standard (although Washington and the Clippers have been terrible regardless).
3. I wonder, if anything, what Dallas, Chicago's polarised records say about managerial decisions or the influence of money.
Again, thanks for replying
EDIT: Totally forgot to reference my source material:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/wins.html
Re: Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:00 pm
by Mike G
Here, I've reformatted your table. Separately listing East Conf and Western teams.
Code: Select all
quartile ATL BOS CHA CHI CLE DET IND MIA MIL NJN NYK ORL PHI TOR WAS
Top .25 .10 .19 .00 .43 .29 .33 .29 .29 .05 .10 .19 .29 .05 .00 .00
2nd .25 .38 .29 .14 .10 .29 .24 .14 .33 .14 .19 .24 .19 .24 .19 .24
3rd .25 .14 .33 .29 .19 .19 .24 .57 .24 .48 .29 .24 .43 .33 .31 .24
Btm .25 .38 .19 .57 .29 .24 .19 .00 .14 .33 .43 .33 .10 .38 .50 .52
quartile DAL DEN GSW HOU LAC LAL MEM MIN NOH OKC PHO POR SAC SAS UTA
Top .25 .43 .10 .05 .33 .00 .57 .06 .14 .05 .38 .57 .33 .24 .81 .57
2nd .25 .10 .29 .19 .29 .10 .29 .19 .19 .48 .19 .14 .43 .10 .14 .29
3rd .25 .10 .29 .29 .29 .29 .14 .06 .10 .33 .29 .24 .10 .29 .00 .10
Btm .25 .38 .33 .48 .10 .62 .00 .69 .57 .14 .14 .05 .14 .38 .05 .05
If we multiply these fractions by 3 for a top 1/4 year, 2 for a 2nd, and 1 for a 3rd, we get these rankings:
Code: Select all
1.77 MIA 2.71 SAS
1.72 IND 2.43 LAL
1.71 DET 2.39 UTA
1.68 CHI 2.23 PHO
1.68 ORL 1.95 POR
1.64 CLE 1.86 HOU
1.48 BOS 1.81 OKC (Sea)
1.29 NYK 1.59 DAL
1.20 ATL 1.44 NOH (Cha)
0.97 NJN 1.21 SAC
0.96 PHI 1.17 DEN
0.91 MIL 0.90 MIN
0.72 WAS 0.82 GSW
0.69 TOR 0.62 MEM (Van)
0.57 CHA 0.49 LAC
18.99 East 23.62 West
The sum of all is just over 42 -- in 21 seasons -- suggesting that if all teams had been in the league for all years, teams might be 'expected' to have this many Finals appearances?
Of course, 1991 is rather an arbitrary starting point -- the start of the Robinson era in SA, Stockton-Malone in Utah, Reggie in Indiana...
Re: Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:29 pm
by xkonk
I think it would be useful to take into account that a franchise should always either be rebuilding or winning; you don't want to be in the "Atlanta zone" where you aren't good enough to win but you're too good to get good draft picks. Indiana would be another good example; since 03-04 they've never hosted a playoff series or finished below 10th in the East. That makes it really hard for a franchise to improve. Bottoming out may not be fun for the fans, but a good GM/owner should know that it's necessary once in a while unless you have a top-4 team.
Re: Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:55 pm
by mystic
xkonk wrote:I think it would be useful to take into account that a franchise should always either be rebuilding or winning; you don't want to be in the "Atlanta zone" where you aren't good enough to win but you're too good to get good draft picks. Indiana would be another good example; since 03-04 they've never hosted a playoff series or finished below 10th in the East. That makes it really hard for a franchise to improve. Bottoming out may not be fun for the fans, but a good GM/owner should know that it's necessary once in a while unless you have a top-4 team.
It is not as easy as you think it is. The franchises have to pay their costs and giving up on a season will cost a franchise fans and in the end money. Especially when the owners don't have that much capital in order to pay for all the expenses, if the franchise is losing a big chunck of money due to tanking. Indiana, the example you give here, has to pay a part of their TV money to the old ABA owners, they have to find a way to rebuild on the fly while still trying to be competitive in each season.
You also have to keep in mind that only once every two year 1 franchise player is in the draft. Now you have to be lucky enough to get such franchise player. The Bulls got Derrick Rose while only having 1.7% chance to win the lottery. The Bulls could have easily ended up with Brook Lopez or Jason Thompson in that draft.
When a team goes for that draft lottery luck, it will be bad in most cases for multiple seasons. Now, would you as an owner really want to pay that kind of money out of your pocket?
Re: Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:56 pm
by Mike G
yeah, Atlanta is stuck with overpayment to some players.
Indiana didn't have that issue and attracted one AllStar (West) who hasn't even remotely recovered his former game. Still, they're doing OK.
Blowing up a team is a terrible idea. I still haven't seen a case where this was worthwhile: short term, medium, or long term.
Re: Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:43 pm
by xkonk
I'm not saying that teams bottom out on purpose, but it's hard to argue that bad teams don't draft good rookies and improve. It worked for Cleveland with LeBron, Miami with Wade, OKC is pretty much completely draft-built, the Hornets made the playoffs with Chris Paul and not a lot else, Orlando has been successful with Dwight, etc. And if you happen to get a bust, you'll get another shot at the draft the next year. I could be forgetting an example, but about the only recent team to jump from the basement to the top entirely through free agency was the Celtics. It has as much to do with talent evaluation and the salary scale as anything else. Granted that getting a top pick and then having that pick turn out involves some luck, but at least it's a relatively cheap investment.
Mystic - I'm not saying there aren't other factors for success, or that different people (the owner, the GM, the fans) might have different definitions of success. As far as it goes, it seemed like the original question mostly had to do with team quality, and I was only pointing out that quality sometimes comes from being bad. Although I guess it's a fair question; would a team be better off financially (or otherwise) if it were a championship contender every two or three years and in the basement in the middle versus winning 30-40 games every year?