Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 5355664, member: 966"] You used a word—“worth”—that you declared to be a simple matter. Then you ignored all the reasons why it isn’t, and then you accidentally acknowledged in your ‘refutation’ that it is a matter for any one person or entity to decide…. As I said, it’s an ambiguity. I didn’t even get into the matter of worth being contextual to TIME, figuring I didn’t want to overload the post, but here it is since you’re determined not to consider anything with complexity. When you sign someone to a contract, it’s with the expectation that that player can perform at a level to warrant that price. You analyze to determine a value. Let’s say that’s his worth to YOU in that specific context. Then the season begins. He plays, and either doesn’t perform well or gets injured and plays only half the games. At the end of that season, you determine he wasn’t worth that year’s salary. So, there are two different ‘worth’s’—one of expectation and one in retrospection. Again, not as simple as you want to portray it. The link: wow. I specifically put forth the topic of Jimmy Butler’s salary and you said he deserves it because he’s worth it. The link specifically discusses how NBA teams determine Win Shares, and how that pertains to salaries in the NBA. If you don’t think that’s relevant to exactly this specific argument, I don’t know what to tell you. It has ”literally” everything to do with the discussion.* Mumbo jumbo? Which parts did you also not understand? And lastly, yet another part you didn’t understand although it was spelled out pretty explicitly… I said in a MAGIC SCENARIO, conceptually, where no player had ever earned as much, the salaries were ‘capped’ at 20 million. Specifically said so that this walkout scenario isn’t a part of the concept—what matters is the player’s real world alternative in that scenario. Determining worth—I suggested the players wouod still play for under 20$million, because it’s still a lot of money and they have no better alternatives. Don’t know to put this more simply for you to grok. You ignore so much and that’s how you arrive at a conclusion that it’s a ‘simple matter.’ Here’s another real world situation. Free Agent Juan Soto. Every team analyzed what he’d be ‘worth’ to them. About 5-6 teams determined they wanted to pursue him at the level they expected the bidding to reach. The contenders stopped once they exceeded their determination of worth. One didn’t. Steve Cohen determined, before the bidding commenced, that he would not be outbid. “Worth” to him was not about actual Win Shares, statistics, or any other metric. He wanted the player and could most easily afford the player, at whatever price it became. So, what is Soto “worth?” What the stats say or what he eventually ‘got,’ because one person was willing to ignore the statistical determination? In your simplified world, Soto is worth $750 million, and you don’t concern yourself with whether or not he performs to ANY level or even if he plays ANY games. [I]*”… at its core, value is comparing what you get to what you spent; if you spend less to get something, you got better value than someone else who spent more for the same thing. For this exercise, [B]win shares[/B] (WS) are what we're buying, [B]actual wins[/B] are what win shares convert to, and [B]salary[/B] ($) is what we're spending. So let's start with the basics. In the 2015-16 NBA season, the thirty NBA teams spent roughly $2.353 billion on salaries for 564 players. As with any regular season, those thirty teams split up 1,230 wins based on, you know, actually playing basketball against each other. League-wide, that can be converted to the statement that each win was roughly "worth" $1.913 million.”[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?