« Odd Numbers blog, from Portfolio | Main | Aphorisms by Juan Ramón Jiménez »
Why did the Houston Rockets draft Yao Ming?
Yao Ming is (was?) a very good player and of course he looked great on paper. He's now injured for the third season in a row and out for the year. He has never been past the first round of the playoffs and it is not clear he will ever be healthy. It is clear that players over 7'4" almost always have persistent injury problems; human beings with that frame were not meant to play professional sports, least of all contact basketball. There are plenty of people that tall, but who has had the most successful basketball career? I believe the answer has to be the not totally impressive Rik Smits.
So why did the Houston Rockets draft Yao Ming? They couldn't not draft him. The lessons for financial markets are obvious. Drafting Yao Ming is like writing the disguised naked put. You see the money in front of you, you see the return in front of you, you see the potential in front of you, none of the alternatives are so glamorous, and so you can't not do it. Besides, other players get injured too.
Yao Ming, the naked put. Think about it.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM in Sports | Permalink
Comments
This is true but look at the rest of that draft. Jay Williams never played a full season at #2 because of a freak motorcycle accident. There is only one other player in that draft who an NBA executive would maybe put on their team now, and that is Amare Stoudamire who was coming out of high school which is also extremely risky.
If you look at the draft, there is only one other play in the entire first round who the Rockets would take today over Yao, even knowing that he has a foot injury and is out for the year. I'm not a Yao fan in particular, but think that the choice has been borne out as the right one (especially given media coverage).
Posted by: Ben Handel at Mar 4, 2008 12:18:51 PM
Two words.
Advertising Revenue.
Yao is the biggest thing (in real terms, not relative) to hit the NBA since Jordan.
Posted by: Adam Hyland at Mar 4, 2008 12:19:07 PM
Yao Ming, upside limited, lots of downside risk just like a short put... I
heard an investment expert say on TV the other day that buying a stock and
selling a call (buy/write) is less risky than buying a call!!! The buy/
write strategy is the same as selling a naked put, limited upside/
big downside risk... buying a call would be like drafting a second
rounder, little risk, unlimited upside...
Posted by: jtc at Mar 4, 2008 12:48:28 PM
If Yao Ming dropped dead today he has already had unarguably a much better career than Rik Smits.
The problem, of course, with looking at players of 7'4 or higher is one of sample size. Furthermore as a group I would be surprised if the performance was much worse than an average NBA player.
The argument can certainly be made big men, especially very big men, 7'4 or higher, are more injury prone, but clearly the history of nba big men indicate that it is very very worth it.
Lastly of the 02 draft, of the top 4 players, 3 of them are big men pf/c types, and also 3 of them have had significant injury problems. At the time Yao Ming was a slam-dunk first pick, but if you had to rerun the draft today, it's difficult to say he wouldn't be again, even if you factored out the increased fan base from Chinese fans. Yao, Amare, and Caron have all had injury problems, and Amare's have been arguably worse than Yao's.
Posted by: stephen chang at Mar 4, 2008 12:55:19 PM
The Chinese marketing aspect associated with Yao makes the choice only more compelling. It's almost as if it were meant to be - I believe the Rockets' team colors are traditional Chinese red and white, yes?
Posted by: Billare at Mar 4, 2008 1:01:43 PM
Why is 7'4" the cutoff? Shaq is 7'1"; so was David Robinson. I doubt that there is much difference between the injury rates of people of either height. It's probably a problem with sample size and sample bias.
Posted by: josh at Mar 4, 2008 1:08:30 PM
That link does not present any evidence (let alone "clear") that players over 7'4" almost always have persistent injury problems relative to other 7-footers, who of course are more likely to be get injured. The listed examples in that article are a tiny sample, most had very different body types than Yao, and in any case most failed due to terrible basketball skill more than injury.
Also, this post is a bit curious coming from someone who liked the Shaq/Marion trade for Phoenix.
Posted by: Mike at Mar 4, 2008 1:13:21 PM
"There is only one other player in that draft who an NBA executive would maybe put on their team now" Really? I'd take Carlos Boozer.
Posted by: PLW at Mar 4, 2008 1:30:25 PM
Another question is why can't teams protect their franchise players from injuries obtained from unimportant games. Stress fractures seem to be avoidable if they really 'stressed' it. It is probably similar to the "naked put" idea. The coach just can't stand not to play the guy.
Also, a problem of incentives. The coach will get in trouble for not playing him every day. He doesn't get in trouble for stress fractures.
Posted by: Andrew at Mar 4, 2008 1:36:51 PM
Two big reasons -
1. There is always going to be a premium on size in the NBA. Take a look a look at the 2001 draft - Kwame Brown, Eddie Curry, and Tyson Chandler all centers who were 18 at the time. You can always win with a mediocre guard (e.g. Derick Fisher). But, you need an inside presense to win a championship. Outside of the 90's Bulls, it's hard to find a championship team without an inside presense (Duncan, Ben Wallace, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.). Therefore, there is incentive to risk everything to take a chance on a quality big man.
2. The marketing power of Yao will be enough to carry the Rockets franchise. They don't need to win; he just needs to play. I don't have any numbers to back this up; only anecdotal evidence from newspapers, but everytime the Rockets play, it's broadcasted to millions in China. He is so revered that it would not surprise me if a Rockets game against a mediocre franchise would garner an audience rivaling an Idol airing. He atracted 300 Million for his first outings with Shaq. The Rockets easily levereged Yao into a financial boon for the organization.
In hindsight, looking at that Draft, I would still draft Yao at #1 with Amare Stoudamire at #2.
Posted by: Ethan at Mar 4, 2008 1:41:12 PM
The primary incentive of owners and GMs in the NBA is not winning championships, it is about making money. Yao Ming opens a huge market in China.
(Just like everybody else is saying).
Posted by: Andy McKenzie at Mar 4, 2008 1:48:53 PM
True, I only looked at the first round. Carlos Boozer would potentially be taken over Yao also.
Posted by: Ben Handel at Mar 4, 2008 1:49:14 PM
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was/is 7' 2" which is also close to 7' 4". He was also the NBA MVP six times, which is not chopped liver, and is hardly something you can do while being "always injured".
Does something magically bad occur after growing a couple of inches taller than 7' 2"?
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Mar 4, 2008 1:52:29 PM
"If Yao Ming dropped dead today he has already had unarguably a much better career than Rik Smits."
Unarguably, eh? Indiana from `94 to 2000 got as far as game 7 of the conference finals 4 times. In 3 of those 4 years Smits was their no. 2 scorer behind Reggie Miller. In 2000 they played in the finals against the Lakers, losing a game 4 in OT that would have tied it 2-2. In 1998 they lost game 7 of the ECSF by 5 to Jordan and the Bulls, who only played one other game 7 (winning by 29) in their 6 championship years.
(One SN guide tells me all that, in about 10 minutes).
Smits played 867 regular season plus 104 playoff games - not a super short career.
Yao is a bigger star, sure, and plays in a tougher conference, and in what seems to be a tougher league. But you have to wonder why Indiana with its lesser players Miller and Smits was so much more successful than Houston with McGrady and Yao. Better role players, no doubt.
Posted by: anon/portly at Mar 4, 2008 1:56:08 PM
What do you mean "human beings with that frame were not meant to play professional sports?" What were they "meant" to do? Did God create pro sports? Please, think for a moment, no one was "designed" to play pro sports, it takes a combination of luck and hard work and being that huge is both good and bad for one's chances on the basketball court. I think Yao is pretty good, definitely good enough to play in the NBA.
Posted by: wcbugs at Mar 4, 2008 1:58:02 PM
It should also be noted that Jabbar was/is often believed to be taller than his listed 7'2", and he had a ridiculously long and healthy career.
Posted by: anon/portly at Mar 4, 2008 2:05:39 PM
I guess that this post (and the comments) lead to the question: What do pro sports franchises try to maximize? And has anyone tried to empirically test the question?
Posted by: dcuser at Mar 4, 2008 2:27:57 PM
Agree with the anon/portly its hard to say smits was'nt effective at center. The dunking dutchman was pretty key to the pacers many runs at the title.
Its pretty clear your best shot at a title is with a talented big man. Yao fit that before healthy and was an easier pick. You have to roll the dice with all players, and health is the hardest i would say.
Ask any roto baseball player how easy it is to predict injury time?
Posted by: mr.Yawn at Mar 4, 2008 3:24:39 PM
1. The premise is artificial. Prior commentators have asked, Why 7'4 and not 7'2" or 6'11"? Also, don't hyper-athletic guys likr Grant Hill, Anfernee and Amare get hurt more frequently than Chuck Nevitt, Benoit Benjamin, Mark Eaton, Manute Bol? I have no idea, but I'm not asserting that I do. That Yao might have the slow, 7'+ durability gene exhibited by his predecessors, but a more proficient skill set, seems to have been the Rocket's bet.
2. There is no evidence for the premise that guys over 7’4” get hurt more frequently; saying there aren’t many good 7’4” players is besides the point.
3. The parameters of the question are pointlessly narrowed. Does Houston care about things besides Yao's "successful basketball career"? Of course they do. Flags fly forever, so 1 or 2 championships seem like a good payday. Chinese fan base could be purchased no other way.
So, I guess a good question for discussion here is how frequently do economists suffer from these infirmities (pumping bad information into squirrelly models) when they stray from their subject matter?
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Mar 4, 2008 4:44:17 PM
Tyler- you have aroused the passions of your readers. Could you be fooled by randomness- given the small sample size? Besides- I'd imagine Shaq weighs more than Bol, and he's done quite well, though he has had injuries.
Another thing to consider- perhaps we have better (or more widely used) painkillers now than before?
On the other hand- I'd imagine that you would reach diminishing returns for height like everything else- unless you raised the basket!
Posted by: al at Mar 4, 2008 6:11:34 PM
They were not designed for sport but people were designed to be hunters.and sport are a sublimed hunt.2 inches could look like nothing but between 99 degres and 100 there is only one degree but water only boil at 100 c degrees. 7 4 could be the breaking point.
And is also a matter of proportion ,the right mass been that tall could be to much to be athletic.Until Chamberlain there were no tall players.They were considered unfit to play.
Posted by: karl at Mar 4, 2008 8:33:32 PM
I'm going to echo some of the comments above. Not counting Yao, Dan Daly has a sample size of 9 (and not many of them were actually felled by injuries...ineptitude got them first). What kind of careers have the typical sample of 9 NBA players had? Rik Smits and Mark Eaton had fairly long, decent careers, and, odd though he might have looked, Manute Bol wasn't a complete joke, either. That's two decent careers and one not horrible career out of nine.
I don't know how a random 9 NBA players stack up to that, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it looked broadly like it.
Posted by: Scott Wood at Mar 4, 2008 9:25:11 PM
karl- George Mikan (6'10") dominated the NBA before Chamberlain.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 4, 2008 10:39:58 PM
Scott Wood took the words out of my mouth. A random sample of nine NBA centers from 6'10" to 7'3" is not a huge favourite to have a significantly better player than Smits or Yao.
Even if you do feel that a lot of the 7'4"+ crowd have underperformed (which I don't, given the list), it's probably got very little to do with some optimal sizing of NBA centres and more the fact that throughout high school and college, these guys to a great extent simply used their height advantage to dominate in the post. Their fundamentals aren't nearly as developed as the 6'10" centers, because they don't need to be. A similar thing happens in sports like boxing or mixed martial arts, where the heavyweights are not nearly as technically sound as the guys in the smaller divisions, who have to survive in their gym by actually developing their skills.
Posted by: Terrence Chan at Mar 5, 2008 4:24:22 AM
Shawn Bradley played 832 games, that has to be WAY above the average NBA center's career, especiall a mediocre center.
Posted by: at Mar 5, 2008 7:34:26 AM
I don't think this is a hard question at all (but I spend a lot of time on pro basketball).
1. As had been pointed out, there were lots of financial benefits to taking Yao that weren't associated with the alternatives.
2. The alternative uses of the pick weren't all that compelling. Just like in other fields, teams are guessing on draft picks, based on expected returns. At best you could say the Rockets (as well as most other teams in the "market") really misjudged the risks involved with Amare Stoudemire and the abilities of Taysahaun Prince and Carlos Boozer.
3. In general, we have the common perception that the 1st pick in the draft ought to be a superstar, but in practice this isn't the case. Although he tends to be the best player taken in the long run, again, you've got uncertainty to deal with and you've got the reality that talent varies from year to year.
So add all that up and Yao might not be a wonderful pick, but he stacks up well vs. previous first overalls like Kwame Brown (2001), Kenyon Martin (2000), probably even Elton Brand (1999) or Michael Olowokandi (1998 - a much better case for the NBA overestimating the value of size). Obviously you'd take Lebron (2003), but that sort of proves the point. Lebron is a once in many years sort of player.
Posted by: MikeDC at Mar 5, 2008 9:39:44 AM
You're giving the sports finance game away. Players have been viewed as financial instruments in analysis for many years now. The ones that don't suffer terribly for it.
Posted by: infopractical at Mar 5, 2008 10:35:09 AM
I meant to say that the *teams* that don't view players as financial instruments (with all the "Greeks" that help optimize a team's value) suffer terribly for it.
Posted by: infopractical at Mar 5, 2008 10:37:26 AM
Info,
I agree that players as financial instruments is an important component, but it's also worth considering that if they don't actually perform on the floor they quickly loose value in this respect as well. To wit, Jay Williams, the #2 pick behind Yao was viewed as a pretty marketable guy. Even before he wrecked his career and motorcycle, he seriously damaged that marketability with crummy play and a trade request.
Posted by: MikeDC at Mar 5, 2008 11:01:38 AM
There are a lot of guys who are 7' to 7'2. Every NBA team seems to have a couple and most D-I colleges have 1. The injury-prone guys tend to get filtered out, as there are lots more 7-footers around (Where? In 30 years, I've never known one, and it's not like they can hide). But people will always give an injured 7-5 guy another shot, because they're much harder to come by.
Posted by: nick at Mar 5, 2008 10:22:13 PM
Tyler,
You're missing the point of NBA economics. Franchises profit most during the first few years of a draft pick's career -- before they have to pay him anything close to what he's worth on the open market. Houston only paid Yao $18 million for the his first four seasons combined, yet he wasn't a "project," he was an impressive force from his first game onward. He was rookie of the year in his first year, then All-NBA 3rd Team in both his 3rd and 4th years. Even leaving aside the China fans money, that's an excellent ROI.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 6, 2008 4:40:56 AM
Tyler,
You're missing the point of NBA economics. Franchises profit most during the first few years of a draft pick's career -- before they have to pay him anything close to what he's worth on the open market. Houston only paid Yao $18 million for the his first four seasons combined, yet he wasn't a "project," he was an impressive force from his first game onward. He was rookie of the year in his first year, then All-NBA 3rd Team in both his 3rd and 4th years. Even leaving aside the China fans money, that's an excellent ROI.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 6, 2008 4:41:40 AM
Most players are partially selected for durability as they rise up the ranks.
7 footers are selected much more solely on their size.
Think Mike Vick in the NFL. He was so athletically superior in his pre-NFL career that durability did not matter.
Posted by: Andrew at Mar 6, 2008 1:17:47 PM
