It's Not All in The Money

The New Jersey Nets' 2009/2010 payroll is just under $60 million. Nearly three-quarters of the way into an 82-game season, they've won 7 games. The Cleveland Cavaliers, winners of 49 games, have a team payroll of $83.5 million. That's seven times as many wins at about a third of the cost.  $8.5M per win in the case of the Nets versus less than $2M for the Cavs. More than $550M over the course of the season. 

There are probably hundreds of ways to cut the data and play with the stats, especially when you open it up to more than just the teams with the best and worst records. But I'll resist the urge to determine the best way to calculate each team or player's monetary contribution to success.

I did, however, want to examine these kind of uneven statistics within the context of the NBA's salary cap. Prior to the 1984/1985 season, the NBA implemented a salary cap limiting the total amount a team could spend on player payrolls each season. While the regulation does not completely standardize payroll levels, it certainly limits the degree of fluctuations. To put things in perspective, the difference between the highest and lowest team payrolls in the NBA is about $45 million; the difference in the cap-less MLB is $164 million.

I'm not exactly sure what side of the debate I lie on just yet. On the one hand, another significant element of the game's strategy is left in the hands of businessmen with checkbooks rather than on the court. On the other hand, it theoretically levels the playing field and decreases the likelihood that one franchise will consistently dominate and buy its way into the playoffs each year (unless you're Mark Cuban and can afford to personally write off luxury taxes for exceeding the salary cap). Theoretically, there is less variation in quality of play and performance level on a team level. Theoretically, anyone can be competitive and everyone has a shot. Theoretically.

But then you have teams like the Nets who are thirty games behind the Oklahoma City Thunder, despite having a higher payroll. You have the Atlanta Hawks, who went from a 2004/2005 season in which there was serious doubt as to whether or not they would win more games than the Falcons, to putting on a strong showing in the playoffs three years later despite only a $12 million payroll increase. And on the other side, you have the Lakers, Celtics, Cavs, and Spurs, that are playoff contenders year-in and year-out.

You can still have a huge differential between consistently good teams and consistently terrible teams, despite a relatively even playing field from a payroll standpoint. You can still have one team go through "worst-to-first" kind of jumps over the course of a few years without a significant increase or decrease in financial resources. 

The point being, there is still much more to the game than just the money. Maybe the ability to identify the best "bang-for-your-buck" players has a role, but all of the on-the-court factors such as coaching strategy, team dynamic and energy, etc. remain key influences, and actually become that much more important. 

Or, in all honesty, maybe I'm just incredulous that the Nets have really only won 7 games at this point in the season and this is an attempt at a more intelligent-sounding way to ridicule them.