NBA Info - January 2023

[Deleterious]

Walton never had a season over 5 APG.  Wilt never lead the league in assists.  He had two stand out years where he averaged 7.8 and 8.6 assists per game.  Every other year was a fairly big drop off.

Wilt averaged 4.4 assists per game for his career.  Jokic has one season (rookie year) where he was below 4.4 every other year was above that.  5 of his 8 seasons are over 7 APG.  2 of his 7 are over 8 APG and a third was 7.9.  

[Shinzaki]

Wilt leas the league in total assists in 67-68.  My appreciation for Walton's passing abilities is largely observational...that and I'm admittedly biased because those 76-77 and 77-78 Blazer teams are amongst my favorite teams of all time

[Deleterious]

Sort of misleading.  His max isn't the max.  Since it is an extension he can only get 4/$112m.  If he goes to free agency he can get a 1st year salary that is 35% of the cap.  Cap is expected to be $134m next year so he could get $46m in his first year.

 

[Deleterious]

Sounds like Diamond Sports Group is set to miss an interest payment in February.  That is the subsidiary of Sinclair that operates Bally Sports.  This would trigger a 30 day grace period and then chapter 11 comes right after.  Their second tier debt, about $5B, is trading at 10 cents on the dollar.  That is the debt that basically has no shot of being paid back in bankruptcy.

The article said there are two options in bankruptcy.  All TV contracts with the MLB, NHL, and NBA disappear and rights are open for bidding again.  Or the creditors take large equity positions in lieu of payments and basically become owners.

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, Deleterious said:

Or the creditors take large equity positions in lieu of payments and basically become owners.

I'm sure Sinclair would be thrilled with this option - their creditors maybe not so much.

[Deleterious]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm sure Sinclair would be thrilled with this option - their creditors maybe not so much.

My guess is the creditors would have a deal negotiated with Netflix/Amazon/Apple to sell it before they even took possession.  

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

My guess is the creditors would have a deal negotiated with Netflix/Amazon/Apple to sell it before they even took possession.  

The sports media revenue model existed on the basis of being subsidized by a lot of people would not have paid for the service if given the chance to opt out.  As the move to streaming gives people that exact option to opt out of a global cable package and tailor what they pay for, you have the irresistable force meeting the immovable object. When I do the back of the envelop math I don't see an obvious replacement model that works. So when we all had cable, the cable companies were forking over maybe $2-5/month per customer to the RSNs, but I would guess only 10% of cable viewers were viewing fans of any particular sport. So you split that out and now you are charging the people who are willing to subscribe to a single service >$ 20/month to raise the same revenue? I'm a pretty hard core baseball and hockey fan, *I* won't pay $20/month for the Tigers or the Wings, let alone if they try to bill for each.  Certainly could be enough people out there that will but I wouldn't take the wager. IDK, maybe PPV pricing could raise more? 

 

[Deleterious]

Nothing has changed.  Instead of subsidizing it with your cable bill you will now do it with your streaming bill.  It might even be worse now because I suspect they will bump the price up a few bucks on every customers + charge you $4.99 a month to view MLB games.

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, Deleterious said:

Nothing has changed.  Instead of subsidizing it with your cable bill you will now do it with your streaming bill. 

but that's just it isn't it? Most streaming services don't carry the RSNs - ergo they don't pay them.

[Deleterious]

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

but that's just it isn't it? Most streaming services don't carry the RSNs - ergo they don't pay them.

Ask again in 18 months.  

But yeah, a lot of streaming services already have sports that are not RSNs.  Amazon has the Thursday night NFL game.  YoutubeTV just bought NFL Sunday Ticket.  Peacock has premier league games.  Two of the three Hulu packages include ESPN+.  The NBA deal is up in a year or two and most feel at least part of their rights will go to a streamer.  Odds are you are already subsidizing sports in some form. 

And as the RSN contracts expire they will most likely end up on a streaming service as well.

If HBOMax wanted to add F1TV to its lineup I wouldn't mind.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Deleterious said:

Ask again in 18 months.  

But yeah, a lot of streaming services already have sports that are not RSNs.  Amazon has the Thursday night NFL game.  YoutubeTV just bought NFL Sunday Ticket.  Peacock has premier league games.  Two of the three Hulu packages include ESPN+.  The NBA deal is up in a year or two and most feel at least part of their rights will go to a streamer.  Odds are you are already subsidizing sports in some form. 

And as the RSN contracts expire they will most likely end up on a streaming service as well.

If HBOMax wanted to add F1TV to its lineup I wouldn't mind.

I think another thing that come into play is how much time people are willing to spend doing the kind of shopping the current market mess requires. I don't think this is a factor that is accounted for when various kinds of market analysis get done to support capital expenditures, but I think 'shopping' fatigue is a real thing when it comes to video services. I don't think many people actually enjoy the time they have to spend to stay on top of the constantly moving purchase choices they have, and that friction may have as much to do with how and how fast the market evolves as the individuall choices that services engineer to sell in it.

[Shinzaki]

Another factor in all this is the pirate sites like sports surge who allow people to view premium content for free

[Deleterious]

 

[Deleterious]

I guess someone went through JJJ's games at home and on the road.  His blocks and steals at home are much higher than on the road.  4.13 blocks per game at home and 2.19 on the road.  Steals at home are 1.4 and on the road 0.63.  So he speculated the Memphis score keeper has been padding Jackson's stats at home.

 

[gehringer_2]

53 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

I guess someone went through JJJ's games at home and on the road.  His blocks and steals at home are much higher than on the road.  4.13 blocks per game at home and 2.19 on the road.  Steals at home are 1.4 and on the road 0.63.  So he speculated the Memphis score keeper has been padding Jackson's stats at home.

 

or he is just less aggressive on the road because officials call more fouls on the visiting team?

[Deleterious]

I definitely expect better numbers at home.  But not that big of a gap.

[Deleterious]

 

[Deleterious]

 

[Deleterious]

Well, one good thing came of this.  

JJJ was -210 to win DPOY last I looked.  I just loaded up on him to win at -110.

Kinda screwed up though.   Nic Claxton was +1600 when the post hit Reddit and now is +350.  Could have made a bundle on that move.  Oh well, JJJ is going to win it so getting him at better odds is a good thing.

[Deleterious]

 

[Deleterious]

JJJ's DPOY odds are back to -175.

[Deleterious]

Luka had 53 tonight.  His fourth 50+ point game this year.  That is 19 total for the league and that already ties last years total.  Most teams have 25-30 games left.  

[Deleterious]

 

[Betrayer]

All records going forward need an asterisk to indicate that they were earned in the NDE (No Defense Era) of basketball.

[Deleterious]