I invite some of our more advanced owners to help the more noobier amongst us in a discussion with an eye towards a Moneyball (Billy Beane/Michael Lewis) approach to drafting a WIS sim NBA team

I will kick it off by by suggesting that usage while very important (see ash's very fine contributions/explainers in these forums) can be overpriced, as can be minutes - there are guys with super high usage and minutes priced well over 9m that seasoned owners in a draft league would never dream of selecting not because they are too expensive but because they are total turd bombs that will crater your chances of winning anything

gentleman, start you engines...

I'll weigh in on this sometime in the upcoming week with an extensive response.

thank you. People like you and ben and robusk (plus a few others) are definitely my target audience

Posted by ashamael on 12/19/2020 7:49:00 PM (view original):
I'll weigh in on this sometime in the upcoming week with an extensive response.

Same, although I might surprise people with how simplistic my approach is.

thank you, thank you

am looking for things like is defense overpriced/underpriced/justrightpriced? assists seem to be underpriced (see all the 'who cares about rebounding if you dont miss?' teams in the opens) - do FTAs even matter? does steal % even matter? if not dont pay for that - maybe we can even drill down to how the player valuation works and talk about the real gems and why they are so

that kind of stuff

I am waiting for someone to roll out a starting squad of 5 Manutes just to show us that only blk% matters for instance

Let's be real here a moment: While we're all out here trying to win the last game of the season, we grow attached to certain player seasons for one reason or another. Whether it's your favorite player, a guy from your favorite team, or just a particular season of a guy that you've done well with in the past, the next time you're tempted to draft him, stop.

Just stop.

Is losing fun? Is losing FUN? [Players reply No] Then why you're having fun for? [Leaving the room angrily pushing a shelf]

If you are continuing to come up short by doing the same thing over & over, you are agreeing that losing is fun. When you are picking that $11m salary player in the first round of the ODL and a $10m salary guy in the 2nd round, you are shouting it from the rooftops that you like losing. I don't like losing. I don't think it's fun. What is fun? Contending for and winning titles. How do we do that? The request for this was the "Moneyball" approach, and it's an excellent way to look at being more successful in the sim.

First thing you have to do is forget the player name associated with the data presented. When I say Tim Duncan, you envision the all-time great who won five rings, never missed the playoffs, and is considered by many to be the all-time greatest power forward of all time. What you should envision is: 54-almost-55% efg, 90 or 100 defense, 32ish or 35ish crb at best, but mostly around 49-51 efg%, a lot of minutes and a lot of salary.

Forget, for a minute, that any other Tim Duncan exists except for two: The 97-98 version and the 06-07 version:

97-98 - 3204 minutes, 54.9 efg% @ 26.0 usg%, 32.5 crb%, 100 defense, $9.4M
06-07 - 2727 minutes, 54.7 efg% @ 28.4 usg%, 35.2 crb%, 90 defense, $8.3M

Which one are you choosing for your squad? You're probably thinking the 06-07 version. It looks cheaper & probably gives you a better value per minute. You'd be wrong, but actually, you'd be right. You are getting more per minute, but you're paying more for those minutes. The 97-98 season costs $2,934 per minute, while 06-07 costs $3,043 per minute. You're actually paying more per minute for the lower minute guy, which seems contrary to how things normally work here, but there's some big upgrades on that 06-07 version, particularly the usage (takes you up to tier 2, making rotations more convenient and making his excellent efg% a bigger impact) and the crb%. So the 06-07 Duncan is actually more expensive than the 97-98 Duncan, particularly when you try to fill out the rotation. So which one do you want for your squad?

The answer is probably neither. This, of course, depends on what kind of league you're playing in, but assuming all player options are available and we're playing in a relatively tight cap ($42m-$50m), I'm looking elsewhere. Forget the name Tim Duncan. I present to you this option:

2,298 minutes of 54.5 efg% @ 27.1 usg%, 91 defense, 35.3 crb% at a cost of $2,860 per minute.

There's a lot of good there. We're giving up a tiny amount of efg and a bit of usage to get a better overall deal. We also will have more fouls and slightly less position flexibility (only 98% at PF). Yeah, there's a lot of minutes to grab behind that, but we can afford to grab those minutes because of the money involved. Any guess at who this player is? It's 80-81 Robert Parish. Duncan is the superior player - obviously - but Parish is a really nice option here if you're looking for this kind of player (after striking out in a draft league or using an early pick on a different type of player as examples).

But unless I'm in a draft league, I'm usually not looking for this type of player. I'm only doing so because we were talking about Tim Duncan. Let's get hyper-specific and use clones, because this illustrates my point much better.

Your goal shouldn't be to buy players. Your goal should be to buy wins. In order buy wins, you need to buys runs buckets.

Most people would agree that 99-00 Shaquille O'Neal is the best overall version of Shaq. We're talking 3,163 minutes of 57.4 efg% @ 31.2 usg%, 80 defense, 11.9 ast%, and 34.7 crb% (with a fantastic tov% around 10 as well). This is the creme de la creme Aristotle. Beastmode. Absolute carnage!! The issue? He requires $9,938,313!! That's a whopping $3,142 per minute. We've spent almost $10m for this guy. What else could we do with $10m to get similar production?

Let's stick with Shaq & use clones, as even though I told you to forget names earlier, some players do have consistencies and he becomes the easiest example to use. I'm gonna grab the following two seasons of Shaq and compare them to the 99-00:

01-02 Shaq - 2,422 minutes of 57.9 efg% @ 31.9 usg%, 70 defense, 10.4 ast%, 30.5 crb% - $7,116,335 or $2,938/min
06-07 Shaq - 1,134 minutes of 59.1 efg% @ 29.9 usg%, 60 defense, 9.6 ast%, 29.8 crb% - $2,604,158 or $2,296/min

That's a total of 3,576 minutes of at least 57.9 efg% @ at least 29.9 usg%, and an avg of 66.4 defense & > 30 crb for $9,720,493 or $2,718/min. We're getting 400 more minutes for $200k less. Yes, we're giving up a bit of defense and boards but gaining efg% and a ton of minutes. Anybody we tried to pick to back up 99-00 Shaq would bring the average down or the cost up. As it is, for an OL, we're completely done with a position (can use rookies to fill in the gap during the regular season while expanding minutes in playoffs). We can now pass these savings on to other positions.

You might say - $200k?! Big deal. Well, it's more than that $200k because with 99-00 Shaq, you still need a backup, and 400 minutes of that type is not just expensive, it does not exist. You have to give something up - probably usage or efg. And even if it was only $200k, if I do that at five positions, then I've got another $1m to spend and upgrade something. Look sometime at the quality difference between two players who play the same minutes but have $1m different salary. It's staggering. You give up a little here, a little there, to gain a consequential advantage elsewhere.

Giving something up is the name of the game. It is the literal definition of Moneyball. By giving up a little defense and a little rebounding, I have secured 44+ mpg of superior offensive dominance.

***Note that you can spend a little more cash to pick up 02-03 Shaq & gain better defense with a few more minutes, or 04-05 Shaq for even better efg%. The 01-02 Shaq is just an example, though it's an example I've used time after time after time to great success.

Now, if you're in a draft league or some other type of no clone league, you obviously can't the aforementioned trick of double Shaq, but you can use the same mentality at every position to get more quality minutes. You give something up - usually in your SL - ever so slightly to increase other things. Many people make the mistake of drafting a top notch starting lineup - myself oh so included - without the thought that that lineup often only plays 60%-70% of the game. If I decrease my SL efficiency by say, 10%, to boost my team efficiency 20% overall, I've made a net gain and have a better team.

Would you rather get one shot in the head or five in the chest and bleed to death?

As the good brother Monk mentioned at the beginning of this, usage is expensive. It is a necessary evil, however, so you got to pay. But what you don't have to do is put out a team with five offensive options. This. Is. Not. Real. Basketball. Having one player on the floor that is an offensive liability, that the other team doesn't have to guard, doesn't have a big effect on the other four players' play. [note: there are some effects and some ways to abuse this, but they are very tiny and often not worth the trouble] This means that you are often better served by getting the best combinations of usage & efg possible in your high usage guys for 3-4 positions while going for ultra low but ultra specialized for the other one (or two). This almost always boils down to a rebounder, which in any non-restrictive league, is almost always going to be a Worm. When it comes to salary, there is nobody more efficient than grabbing a Worm (or three) for your squad. He brings you excellent defense and unparalleled rebounding. I'm not going to bore you with numbers here; just take me at my word. Marcus Camby is another guy with several excellent low/mid minute seasons that are high on boards & defense but low on usage & salary, allowing you to spend your money on other positions and priorities.

When you get the answer you're looking for, hang up.

There is more to cost than player salary, however. If you're playing in a draft league of any kind, you have to ask yourself the following question before drafting a player:

"Can I get almost the same thing later by grabbing some rotational dudes and use this pick on something more unique?" If the answer is yes, then you probably shouldn't draft that guy. Opportunity is a cost, and a big one. I bring this up here because I was talking about Rodman. Rodman used to go incredibly high in draft leagues. He does still seem to go in the first round almost always, but he used to routinely be a top five pick. Why bother now? I can sacrifice a bit of rebounding or defense at the three by grabbing similar guys in rounds five or six (and so on). If I'm picking him for PF, I'd be better off going with someone who brings a bit more to the table like Deandre or Gobert. Remember, draft leagues are the ultimate measures of opportunity cost. I'm not going to get a 55+ efg% @ 25+ usg% player who gives me 100 defense & 35+ crb% in the fifth (or even 2nd) round, but if I take that guy here, I can get decent rebounding. If you take Rodman over the Admiral, you are costing yourself the opportunity for that combination of efficient offense and dominant defense to be slightly better on the boards than other squads.

I made one decision in my life based on money. And I swore I would never do it again.

This begs the question: Is this the right way of approaching team building for every league? No, but also, yes. In a draft league, for example, you would not (or should not) pass up a chance to get 12-13 Lebron ($9.569m or $3,326/min). I think that season has surpassed 66-67 Wilt as the best overall player season in WISNBA in every format. Even so, 12-13 Lebron is expensive, so if you have cap worries, you need to be playing moneyball with the rest of your squad so that you get the most bang for your virtual buck. Don't mess around and pick more $3k+/min guys. Get you some efficient rotations of $2k/min-$2.5k/min dudes.

Ugly girl friend means no confidence.

Even in uncapped leagues, you can look at doing the opposite. In those, you want the guys who have the higher salary per minute, and you want them in abundance! You don't want the Honda, you want the Lexus, baby! Gimme those $3k+/minute guys! Gimme those guys that, even with a below average usage, are considered expensive! Give me the top salary seasons of Rodman & Deandre! Give me those late 60s Wilts! I want all of that! I want it now!

Any other team wins the world series Finals, good for them. They're drinking champagne, they'll get a ring. But if we win, on our budget with this team, we'll change the game. And that's what I want, I want it to mean something.

Posted by copernicus on 12/20/2020 2:55:00 AM (view original):
thank you, thank you

am looking for things like is defense overpriced/underpriced/justrightpriced? assists seem to be underpriced (see all the 'who cares about rebounding if you dont miss?' teams in the opens) - do FTAs even matter? does steal % even matter? if not dont pay for that - maybe we can even drill down to how the player valuation works and talk about the real gems and why they are so

that kind of stuff

I am waiting for someone to roll out a starting squad of 5 Manutes just to show us that only blk% matters for instance

I missed this post, and therefore the thing I just posted above missed the entire point. I spent like two hours on it, though, so I'm not deleting it.

Posted by copernicus on 12/20/2020 2:55:00 AM (view original):
thank you, thank you

am looking for things like is defense overpriced/underpriced/justrightpriced? assists seem to be underpriced (see all the 'who cares about rebounding if you dont miss?' teams in the opens) - do FTAs even matter? does steal % even matter? if not dont pay for that - maybe we can even drill down to how the player valuation works and talk about the real gems and why they are so

that kind of stuff

I am waiting for someone to roll out a starting squad of 5 Manutes just to show us that only blk% matters for instance

ok. 2nd time I've tried posting this (thanks horrible ads on WIS forums that not only freeze pages make it so that sometimes you post something and gets rid of it and says, "empty responses are not permitted."

Defense - just right bordering on underpriced. The entire DR system needs to be overhauled though and should be the first priority.

assists - probably just about right bordering on overpriced. The real problem is the implementation of the bonus. Firstly, it's completely inverted from what it should be: give bigger bonuses earlier ie make the curve steeper earlier and flatten it out sooner. Like, by 100%, the bonus should level off with such diminishing returns that nobody would ever dream of building a State Farm team. Also, get rid of the step function. It makes no sense that there's a drastic difference in having 79.3 ast% on the floor and 80 ast%. If they did this, though, I would say ast% as currently priced would be underpriced.

FTAs? No. Not at all. I'm not even sure how big of an impact fouled% has. It exists, and I guess if there were two players I was picking from that were super close to even in everything else, I'd use this to decide between... but I am not sure that situation actually exists.

I think stl% matters, but it's way down the pipeline in priority. Think absurd cap or uncapped leagues.

I'm not sure how much blk% actually does. Some high blk% teams dominate defensively, but often those teams have absurdly high DRs anyway. Really need someone to march out those high blk%, 60 defenders to show how much, if any, blk% matters.

Bravo and thank you for all of the above - all knowledge is welcomed

I am curious about how shot location % is accounted for in price, if at all. 94-95 (and other) Rodmans, 66-67 (and other) Wilts, most Dwight years - these seasons are all very good for their own reasons, but I find them especially valuable because none of them shoot more than 15% from the midrange. There are equivalents from the perimeter, players like 15-16 or 18-19 Curry, most Korvers, Duncan Robinson, some Jingles, some Lowrys.

Obviously it's no secret that there's value in varying shot selection, but a team consisting of a combination of interior and perimeter players like I listed above is clearly better than a mid-range focused team with the same stats, since many teams never adjust their defensive positioning, and if you have enough variance it can be even worse for your opponent to pick a direction to shift in, leaving shooters or dunkers more open, not to mention the increased foul%.

I wonder if that PNT/PER value is incorporated into player salaries or if there's some Moneyball potential there as well

good question - I've never seen any FAQ or dev talk suggesting that stuff(impacts the salary valuation equation) but I do think that there is game value in spreading your shots around and not simply conceding 1/3 of the floor to the other team and making their life easier when they have to defend you

If you are going to concede 1/3 of the floor I think that having an all shaq/all steph 'donut' type offense (minimal midrange) and forcing your opponent to pick his poison is an interesting approach

Posted by raggedclaws on 12/22/2020 1:46:00 PM (view original):
I am curious about how shot location % is accounted for in price, if at all. 94-95 (and other) Rodmans, 66-67 (and other) Wilts, most Dwight years - these seasons are all very good for their own reasons, but I find them especially valuable because none of them shoot more than 15% from the midrange. There are equivalents from the perimeter, players like 15-16 or 18-19 Curry, most Korvers, Duncan Robinson, some Jingles, some Lowrys.

Obviously it's no secret that there's value in varying shot selection, but a team consisting of a combination of interior and perimeter players like I listed above is clearly better than a mid-range focused team with the same stats, since many teams never adjust their defensive positioning, and if you have enough variance it can be even worse for your opponent to pick a direction to shift in, leaving shooters or dunkers more open, not to mention the increased foul%.

I wonder if that PNT/PER value is incorporated into player salaries or if there's some Moneyball potential there as well

Threes do cost money, but perimeter & paint percentages themselves are not worked into the salary formula IIRC. They added the offensive range stuff and didn't change salaries when they did it. Since perimeter in this thing is strictly three point shots, you could technically say it is part of the formula, but paint & mid-range are not.

(even threes are basically a byproduct of other stats, but there might be some extra little thing in there because it was requested to make bombers a little more expensive when they did the salary update around 2011 or 2012)

Posted by copernicus on 12/22/2020 2:06:00 PM (view original):
good question - I've never seen any FAQ or dev talk suggesting that stuff(impacts the salary valuation equation) but I do think that there is game value in spreading your shots around and not simply conceding 1/3 of the floor to the other team and making their life easier when they have to defend you

If you are going to concede 1/3 of the floor I think that having an all shaq/all steph 'donut' type offense (minimal midrange) and forcing your opponent to pick his poison is an interesting approach

Yeah extreme paint / perimeter is ideal. It's much harder to accomplish with the restricted player pools in most theme leagues, but I can assure you that a 2 Shaqs/3 Worms/3 Stephs team is ridiculously strong in OLs. I've won several with that as my core and only think State Farm or the classic Steph/Bron back court tops it consistently. You can get a little more extreme paint/perimeter, but you give up some important stuff to do so. I think I did a Shaq/Dwight/Worm/Steph/cp3 but I could be mistaken. I did a Shaq/Capela/Worm/Klay/cp3+Steph team that went 76-6, won 47 in a row and a ship within the last year.

Translating that to a draft league is exponentially harder.

progressive draft leagues add some wrinkles to strategy, as well

Yeah progs are a completely different animal. Salary usually doesn't matter at all, but aligning specific years of opportunity is everything.