Is it possible to have too much of a good thing?
Oh yes, it's quite possible. As human beings, we are made well aware of this fact early on in life. During our childhood years, we acquire a craving for unhealthy, yet abundantly enjoyable substances like chocolate, peanut butter, caramel, and the like. When we're feeling ambitious, we even go as far as to include all of these ingredients into a formation of incredible proportions. Eventually, the Ice Cream Sundae is born and our world is never the same again.
The trivial nature of this quick example is not lost on me. So let us consider another relevant case.
You know these ultra-powerful tools we call cellphones that almost never leave our sight? They have ushered in a new age of innovation ability. It is truly a marvel of modern engineering that we can gather almost any tidbit of information we would ever want, or need. On top of that, we can also be entertained for hours on end with an endless stream of clever content waiting for us after every swipe.
However, at some point, all of the convenient blessings of these pleasures transform into crippling curses.
The consequences seem pretty minor, right? In our younger years, we undoubtedly consumed too much ice cream, chocolate, or some other sweet edible within a particular time frame and it made us slightly ill. By the same token, people of all ages, particularly adults, have trouble staying off of mobile devices which leads to some...interesting problems. The negative outcomes range from having your phone confiscated for a few weeks, to falling down a slight of stair in public for failing to keep an eye on where you're walking. Shameful, but generally harmless.
But as we all know, the implications of overdoing anything in the NBA can be life changing. We're talking about millions of dollars here. Millions. Money partially dictates where players decide to life their lives, what they invest in, and more. To a lesser extent, this is the effect money has on the general public. If we work somewhere for five, ten, even twenty years, the odds of us leaving that position for another that offers a pay raise are quite high.
Professional sports operate in a similar, yet somewhat different fashion. We have some of the best athletes on earth employed by the 30 teams of the associating putting in serious work for their clubs. Like us, they are looking for pay raises. The difference here though is they would have to stay put to get their maximum raise instead of leaving town. Some of the very best of this class -- the one percent of the one percent, are so valuable to their parent teams that their true value is hard to assess. How much additional revenue does Davis bring to the Pelicans? How about Harden to the Rockets? Or Curry with Golden State? Tough to know for sure. What is abundantly clear however, is these players who double as faces of the league in addition to their own teams are worth more than what the normal maximum contract allows team to pay them.
That brings us to the issue at hand. The "Supermax" contract was brought in to give teams who draft special players an extra tool to help retain those players as long as possible. The glitz and glamour of L.A. or New York shine bright and serve as a draw to those who might be looking for more recognition or opportunities (See - James, LeBron)
In certain cases, it serves it's purpose beautifully. On July 8, 2017, the Rockets retained James Harden by signing him to a massive 4 year/$169 million Designated Player Veteran extension that would keep him in Houston through 2023. That's a mouthful, so most just refer to it as the Supermax. What we might forget is that Harden is actually still under his old deal since the extension was just added to his current deal signed in 2012 instead of replacing it. If you're keeping track, that means his extension will officially kick in next season and he will enjoy a legitimate pay bump of just under $8 million.
If only every case were this cut and dry. The beard is coming off of one of the most prolific regular seasons in history. 36 points per game on 61% true shooting is rather spectacular by any measure. Of course he's worth $30+ million per season. If a firm maximum figure wasn't in place, he would probably demand even more.
This purpose of this post is not to study the handful of players who are worth a supermax. If you've ever watched any of the names mentioned thus far, it's pretty obvious why that's the case. The mission here is to look at some names who might be on the fence and how their recent addition to the supermax eligibility list has exposed some of the flaws of this unique distinction. Let us first give the NBA a pat on the back for a few things they've nailed here.
Media (Voting) Circus
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently spoke on the Posted Up Podcast with Chris Haynes about this very topic. One very good point he made had to do with the voting committee for the All-NBA awards. There are some skeptics that believe the media should not the group in charge of voting players onto such meaningful award ballots. Upon initial examination, it's easy to see why putting literally millions of dollars in the hands of those who merely write about the league, as opposed to play or coach it. They're not down in the trenches day in and day out with these players they're voting for, so what makes them qualified to have such power?
Well for one, the media covers the game at an extremely high level. They know what they're talking about. Believe it or not, you can become very well-versed in the game after thousands of hours watching film and speaking to those who know the game best. That's starting to crossover into a whole other issue that's been a hot topic in the community lately, and that is another conversation for another day.
Anyways, Silver's reasoning behind having media members vote instead a short list of executives or some other small group was on point.
Take a listen:
In this clip, Silver outlines the reasons behind the media serving as the voting committee. This is a classic case of sample size theatre. Some of the brightest minds in basketball have conducted very advanced studies on how long it takes for shooting percentages and other key statistics to stabilize in a NBA season. Krishna Narsu from Nylon Calculus dropped this piece in 2017 that is still incredibly relevant a couple years later. It's quite good, so you should give it a read.
Long story short, it takes anywhere from five to 30 games for key statistics to become trustworthy. Meaning, we can expect them to hold fairly steady as the NBA calendar continues to move along. After adding up all of the averages NC came up with for all of the metrics they examined, I arrived at a admittedly general and broad number of 14.2.
It's hard to pull any sort of reliable conclusions from small samples. There is an exorbitant amount of noise in a player or team shooting 90 percent from three in two games. Unless they're a god disguised as a mortal being, it is sure to regress in the following games.
So what does all that have to do with the NBA award voting committee? Well, you heard it in that short snippet from the Commissioner himself. If they relied on a super exclusive group like General Managers or other league higher-ups to have the final word on these awards, they would be looking at a sample size of 30 individuals, or less. There is more likely to be differing opinions in a group that small and you risk having players who are not the most deserving grabbing a spot with someone else's name on it. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if Westbrook made 1st team All-NBA over Curry? Yeesh, that wouldn't go over well.
It's also better have the media vote over players. Many people (mainly players lol) have advocated for players to be the ones voting here. Well, that's not necessarily the best course of action, either. Players view each other in a very positive light, especially ones they have a close relationship with. We would be dealing with a slight bias problem there.
Based on what we know so far and the results of the voting this season, this is something that the league has gotten right so far. What about the specific criteria? Are All-NBA teams 1-3, Defensive Player of the Year and MVP difficult enough to earn so that fringe stars aren't becoming eligible?
If the 2018-19 voting results are any indication, we might need to up the ante a bit. Kemba Walker and Rudy Gobert made the ballot, but with significantly less votes than anyone else on even the 3rd team. They will be the main cases of study here, because they have been linked to a supermax in the near future and there has been a small uproar on whether they are worth it or not. Here are the final results...