Look at Ray Ray Run

Might want to find some more reputable NBA boards if the ones you follow were filled with fans of the bulls and wcj future.

Youre welcome for the free education following all the snide remarks about how ignorant my thoughts were.

Ron, I remember people absolutely trashing me on this. Some told me I knew nothing about basketball yada yada. Even more were telling me the bulls had 4 good nba players and a bright future and I was hating on Wendell Carter. The bulls are complete trash and desperately need 1-1 this year but won't end up with it i don't think. Good on you owning it. Sexton is gonna be a star. What a last 30ish games from him. Kid was awesome at Bama and young with a bad team but his progress has been amazing to watch. Huge 4th tonight vs the hawks. This is also gonna be a bold prediction but he beat the best team in the east tonight.

For all that seem to think cohen won't care about losing money. Found this excerpt from Black Edge and found it interesting. Cohen is competitive and still wants to make money. Cohen also obviously a huge pos as black edge lays out well.

Stop escalating? Lol the guy posts to me out of left field and me responding is the problem. Got it pal. I'll make your job easier as this isn't enjoyable for me with a barrage of trolls that apparently I should never respond to; as if I don't ignore 90% of them. Have a good holiday and best of luck.

Oh really? I had no idea. ? Lets just say I'm tall enough for your implied short joke to merely make you look like a d and not offend me in the process. Continue on there champ. How old are you? 12?

Might be the weirdest question I've ever been asked online. I'm married and not interested. Sorry buddy.

It literally shows how every team did in every year. Every dot on that chart is one team, their payroll and their results from a single year. There are no averages there. Not sure why you continue to say otherwise.

Might want to learn how to do something basic, like quoting a post, before calling into question said posters intelligence.

Lets relax on the sustained success stuff until we actually sustain success for at least two years. You're getting a little ahead of yourself.

No data has been manipulated; I have no idea what you're talking about. Have a nice night, I'm out. These aren't averages; they are countless data points that show a curve which clearly indicates that more money spent is directly correlated to more winning.

How is it misleading to present information that very much shows that the more money you spend, the more wins you are likely to have. The low payroll teams that do well are the exception to the rule, they are not the rule in itself. They are lauded because they "overcome" the deficit they are put in at the beginning of the year. The fact is, in baseball, if you spend more money, you are more likely to win. There's really no refuting that. Outliers exist in all walks of life; in every statistical set that exists. Just because Mike Trout was drafted with the 25th pick in the draft doesn't mean teams should trade the #1 overall pick every year for the 25th pick. Spending money puts you in a better position to succeed; just as drafting #1 puts you in a better position than drafting #25.

How is data false? That is a graph of payrolls and wins. There is nothing nebulous about that data. "Try thinking on your own" literally just means ignore evidence, believe what you want. I came to my conclusions based on my thoughts, plus substantiated evidence. That's how positions are justified in my world. I can't just have opinions without areas of support.

I'm sorry that I use data to actually substantiate my positions; I don't enjoy speaking from places of ignorance and when I do I'm always happy to be called on it.

I'll post this again because I edited it and you seemed to have missed it: Edit: Listen, I know the theme of soxtalk of late is to pile on and pretend that I act like an expert everywhere; because I respond on topics by which I'm knowledgeable on and avoid topics of which I'm not, but I merely responded to a poster who said "rich people are more intelligent than non-rich people." I refuted that with a study, and then you said I was generalizing. That's nonsense; I was refuting a generalized view from another poster.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-baseballs-small-budget-success-stories/ You can disagree, but cash buys wins:

Sure, and "naturally" smarter people are not "naturally" wealthier; that was the basis of the study. There are plenty of poor people who are incredibly intelligent and there are plenty of dumb fucks who have endless amounts of money.

No, but just in anything in life you should do what gives you the best opportunity to be successful. Spending big money is a fundamental part of the success curve in MLB.

OK Ptatc, you got me there; my agenda is to show the average man that they aren't lesser than the wealthy people who take advantage of them and have further degraded their worth by not properly compensating them for the work they do; for example, production is up 60% per employee since 1978 but wages are up a meager 3-4% after inflation. So my agenda is absolutely to educate on inequality and the causes of it, and express the fact that it's not talent or knowledge that separates the wealthy; it's money that they use to lobby away workers rights (Prop 22 for example) and beyond. Just as medicine is your life work, you could argue this is mine.

A chart? I'll trust the Cornell University study, among others if you'd like me to link those as well, done over your personal beliefs. I have no agenda. https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 "It is very well known that intelligence or talent exhibit a Gaussian distribution among the population, whereas the distribution of wealth - considered a proxy of success - follows typically a power law (Pareto law). Such a discrepancy between a Normal distribution of inputs, with a typical scale, and the scale invariant distribution of outputs, suggests that some hidden ingredient is at work behind the scenes...... In this paper, with the help of a very simple agent-based model, we suggest that such an ingredient is just randomness. In particular, we show that, if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals."

I agree here but as an employee, I still find his way of operating to be honorable.

Being wealthy does not directly correlate with being intelligent. https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/so-youre-smart-but-youre-not-rich-this-eye-opening-new-scientific-study-tells-you-why.html And Jerry spend less than his wealthy peers so...

Yes, I frequently compare my spending habits to that of someone who has more money than the average net worth of over 2100 households. It's actually been argued by some studies that rich people are significantly cheaper than poorer people. https://www.sciencealert.com/lower-status-people-more-likely-to-share-wealth-than-higher-status-people It's an inexact science though and there are conflicting reports.

This was the speculation, but upon their last agreement. the cap will not stay flat after this year. https://nba.nbcsports.com/2020/11/06/report-nba-salary-cap-will-increase-at-least-2-annually/ That said, they are still going to hold 18% of player salaries in escrow. As you said, it's all complicated but with the cap guaranteed to grow 2% each of the next three years after this one, that escrow amount ends up shrinking down to under a 13% reduction in current salary (potentially) over that time period. To compare that with MLB, last year players took a 73% reduction in salaries and if owners hold firm again this season and push the season back to say June or July, you're looking at another 50% cut in their pay. So you are correct that the NBA is cutting back somewhat, but they are not cutting back in the way that the MLB did or is doing due to fans not being in the stands. And the interesting thing to me is that the cap actually gave owners much more leverage in the NBA because salaries are directly tied to revenue. I guess it also makes making a deal a bit easier as well though. MLB owners are exploiting players because players don't have a cap so they can't tie their earnings to revenue like they do in the NBA. Lastly, as NBA revenue grows so do players salaries to the same proportion; in baseball, that has not been the case the last 10-20 years. Which is really what drives me crazy; MLB player revenue has declined as revenues grew, but now that revenue declines MLB wants the players to subsidize that. It's bullshit.

So that settles it; don't spend money, because it's not like money spent directly correlates to success over the past 20 years of the game.