Kori Ellis
02-17-2006, 01:52 AM
The high price of victory
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AhF7WbR_9E1JquDN1IS7TRW8vLYF?slug=cnnsi-poorinvestment&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
Which teams are getting the most for their money?
The average cost per victory, as of Wednesday, was $2.4 million (based on player salaries totaling $1.88 billion this season divided by the 777 games played thus far).
The leader is no surprise: The Pistons are spending $1.4 million per victory, followed closely by the third-place Spurs at $1.6 million per win.
But this table gives new perspective to the miraculous season the Hornets are having in Oklahoma City: They emerge as the second most efficient team in the league, based on their 28-23 record in spite of the NBA's second-lowest payroll (thank you, Chris Paul).
San Antonio and other franchises pay attention to this ratio with the ultimate goal of spending less than $1 million per win by the end of the season. Based on current winning percentages, only the Pistons, Hornets and Spurs are on track to limbo under the $1 million level.
This ratio also suggests that it's OK to spend big as long as you win big. Dallas' $94 million payroll is second only to New York's, yet the Mavericks are more efficient than half of the league because their expensive talent produces results.
Then consider the Knicks, who are lumped with Charlotte at the bottom of the East standings while hemmorhaging $93 million more than the Bobcats in payroll.
Understand why the Pacers will be looking to trim payroll this summer? They and the Lakers are the only winning teams who rank near the bottom in terms of payroll efficiency. Only three teams are netting a smaller return on their investment than the Pacers.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AhF7WbR_9E1JquDN1IS7TRW8vLYF?slug=cnnsi-poorinvestment&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
Which teams are getting the most for their money?
The average cost per victory, as of Wednesday, was $2.4 million (based on player salaries totaling $1.88 billion this season divided by the 777 games played thus far).
The leader is no surprise: The Pistons are spending $1.4 million per victory, followed closely by the third-place Spurs at $1.6 million per win.
But this table gives new perspective to the miraculous season the Hornets are having in Oklahoma City: They emerge as the second most efficient team in the league, based on their 28-23 record in spite of the NBA's second-lowest payroll (thank you, Chris Paul).
San Antonio and other franchises pay attention to this ratio with the ultimate goal of spending less than $1 million per win by the end of the season. Based on current winning percentages, only the Pistons, Hornets and Spurs are on track to limbo under the $1 million level.
This ratio also suggests that it's OK to spend big as long as you win big. Dallas' $94 million payroll is second only to New York's, yet the Mavericks are more efficient than half of the league because their expensive talent produces results.
Then consider the Knicks, who are lumped with Charlotte at the bottom of the East standings while hemmorhaging $93 million more than the Bobcats in payroll.
Understand why the Pacers will be looking to trim payroll this summer? They and the Lakers are the only winning teams who rank near the bottom in terms of payroll efficiency. Only three teams are netting a smaller return on their investment than the Pacers.