re: competitive balance, the salary cap has some obvious logic to it, but at the same time it makes it a lot harder to make trades, which makes it harder to turn teams around when they’re in bad shape. No salary cap (or a more flexible cap) would probably mean stronger teams in New York, Chicago, Boston and LA…. hasn’t really hurt baseball, I don’t think. Then again, I’m a Yankee fan and a Knick fan stuck in salary cap hell so I’m comnpletely biased.

How do you feel about the limited sample size of play-off games as a basis for determining if a player steps up or chokes in big games? My view: even with very limited sample sizes, it’s reasonable to use play off game numbers to get a sense of who steps up and who doesn’t….

As for the original post — if you think the NBA is skewed….look at MLB….given how much the Yankees and Red Sox combined spend on talent, and that they are in the same division, the chance of both of them ever missing the playoffs in the same year is remote…it’s a fix, effectively.

I completely agree!

In Dallas’ case, I think it was a terrible trade, but for different reasons… a) defense (Harris was better and they really miss Diop); b) the future (obviously)

IMO, Dallas has serious problems next year and beyond — they have zero cap flexibility, no chance of improving with the players on the roster now… and minus two first-round draft picks.

The one bright spot is Brandon Bass — he has been very impressive. But he plays Dirk’s position — what could they get for Brandon in a trade? I think they’re totally screwed.

Question: Is Dallas an above-average team, or a below-average team?

Hint: They were 16-13 overall, after the Kidd trade…<

Statistical fluctuations like these can typically random when the sample is so small.

It’s certainly possible that some of the better teams have the resources that can exploit the weaknesses that Kidd brings to the table and the weak teams don’t, but I suspect that’s not the case.

I think the 16-13 overall record does the best job of evaluating how good they were (but still not perfect because even that sample is too small).

I also believe 16-13 is worse than their win percentage before the trade and it looks like they actually had an easier schedule after Kidd by playing more games against non playoff teams (which could lead to other stats that misrepresent his value).

I think the best way to measure things is to look at the stats AND watch the games so you understand where the stats are coming from. That way you know which are meaningful and which are misleading because they are based on other factors.

You can still argue that it’s luck, a small sample size, etc.<<

Yes. But I think the stats can be impacted by schedule, the specific teams played, short term fluctuations that are random etc….

Exactly.”

Ok, we can agree that Kidd is not a good shooter, but he replaced Devin Harris…

Harris 3-pt. %: .335
Kidd 3-pt %: .381

Harris % jumpers: 66%, eFG .453 (in Dallas)
Kidd % jumpers; 60%, eFG .425 (in Dallas)

Not a huge difference.

Now, Harris gets to the line a lot, which leads to his overall TS% being much higher than Kidd’s… but you’re talking about style of play. Just like Kidd, Harris is much better suited to a fast-breaking team. Considering Kidd’s huge advantage as a passer, it’s not surprising that Dallas actually functioned better on offense, after the trade. (as measured by scoring more points, not by how stylish it looked)

Question: Is Dallas an above-average team, or a below-average team?

Hint: They were 16-13 overall, after the Kidd trade…

“Visual analysis” aside… would you agree that if a team scores more points (and has better offensive efficiency) after a trade, it doesn’t help the argument that the trade hurt its offense?

You can still argue that it’s luck, a small sample size, etc.