HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

What are the pro-PA differences between the NHL and the other Big Three?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-24-2012, 09:48 AM
  #26
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think you're looking at this from absolutely the wrong angle.

"Deserve" and "should" have no place in a discussion about economics.

NHL players get paid what they get paid because of supply and demand--- in spite of the artificial restraints inherent in modern North American sports leagues (draft, free agency, caps).

The NFL and NBA meanwhile have an almost endless and steady supply of players who go straight from college to the professional leagues. While their roster sizes are vastly different in make up as compared to each other (and the NHL), those leagues don't have to scout worldwide, have a network of leagues to monitor and finally fund their own AHL teams to put on the finishing touches. Does it take a lot more time and effort to bring up younger players (prospects) to an NHL level? Are the players generally older when they do break in as regulars?

All of this, in my mind, signifies a greater investment that must be made in players just to get to a point teams consider 'NHL-ready' and from probably a smaller pool of young men overall. Yet all the major league teams seem to have roughly the same number of teams.

Finally, an additional thought on the types of players that make a difference on a basketball, football, hockey or baseball team. How many options do you have in finding those key players? I don't know how many college football programs there are, but every one of them has quarterbacks that are being developed and groomed every single season, for example. A guy that breaks through in the NFL can have a ten year career? Maybe longer, exempting an injury. That gives teams a lot of QBs to look over before they have to find the next one 'good enough'. Basketball has a smaller number of roster spots, but again, the key guys can have very long careers, so teams aren't hanging on every single draft to get that key player, and in fact, may be able to find plenty of guys who are good enough overall.

I don't follow the other sports enough to know the cycles very well, but they do seem to have an advantage that there are so many developmental levels that stretch out over the entire US. It seems that supply will always be far, far greater than demand. A more interesting question would be why those leagues' players actually do get as much as they do given the greater number of players feeding into the system.
You raise a couple of interesrting points here. But there are also some extra factors that need to be taken into account in this analysis.

Firstly, an NFL team (especially over the course of a full season) has a lot more players than an NHL team. An NBA team a lot less.

Bit more importantly, I think the extra supply of players in these sports just means that their elite tier is that much bigger/better than in the NHL. All these sports are just pyramids with only the top few making the big leagues. If that is true, it suggests that the NHL has a similar number of people who are almost good enough. All that really counts is how steep the sides of the pyramid is, and (possibly) how many jobs there are in the league.

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 11:06 AM
  #27
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Puck View Post
You raise a couple of interesting points here. But there are also some extra factors that need to be taken into account in this analysis.

Firstly, an NFL team (especially over the course of a full season) has a lot more players than an NHL team. An NBA team a lot less.
I think the effect you're expecting is mitigated by the development programs/leagues that each league draws upon, as the level immediately below has to fill the same number of roster spots.
Quote:
Butt more importantly, I think the extra supply of players in these sports just means that their elite tier is that much bigger/better than in the NHL. All these sports are just pyramids with only the top few making the big leagues. If that is true, it suggests that the NHL has a similar number of people who are almost good enough. All that really counts is how steep the sides of the pyramid is, and (possibly) how many jobs there are in the league.

I'm not sure why you think that is the suggestion. It circumvents the entire basis for the discussion I was trying to introduce.

There are two things to consider to test the hypothesis. The number of spots available is fixed for each league.

1) How big is the pool of talent that is being drawn upon to fill those spots? The NBA and NFL are drawing directly from NCAA programs. There are far more NCAA teams [which are generally competitive with each other] than there are AHL teams-- the direct feeder league for the NHL.
1a) Is the depth of the pool restricted simply by development opportunities?
Consider the biggest producer of hockey talent in the world. Canada. There are a fixed number of spots at each level from the earliest ages to the time a player gets to Junior levels if he's good enough. The players are grouped by age, from Jan 1 - Dec 31. Depending on the players' ages [e.g., 5, 8, 10, 12 or 15, etc.] the difference in size and mental ability between a January-born player and a November or December kid can be fairly significant. Data show that there are significantly more players moving on to the next tier who are born from Jan-Jul than the later months. This is significant for hockey because an NHL wannabe must get access to facilities, coaching and play among better and better peers in order to get a shot at the top level. Opportunities are more limiting in hockey than what happens to your typical basketball or football player, where almost anyone in school gets a shot at those sports at the expense of the community, not their parents and special organizations (Hockey Canada).

A lot more players could be produced (the points in #2 notwithstanding), but the opportunities are very limiting.


2) Is there anything about playing hockey that is more difficult to cultivate, and/or that takes a longer development cycle; conversely, is the level of "NHL hockey" so high that the league has unwittingly restricted the talent pool to a level that is difficult to achieve relative to the developmental opportunities?

--> We know it's much more expensive to play hockey (infrastructure, equipment and time costs to participants). If it takes a greater set of athletic abilities to produce one hockey player as well vs a basketball player or football defensive lineman... we're further restricting the pool to very 'elite humans'--- physically speaking.

--> Is there merit to the claim that prospects who have many other attributes but who fail to adjust to NHL speed is indicative of some of the factors indicated above (innate ability, development time, both, none of the above, something else)?




(I'm leaving MLB out of it because I don't know enough about the development cycle to include it.)

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 11:12 AM
  #28
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,181
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
There isn't? I don't see how anything you wrote actually proves that
By all accounts the owners could have really laid down the hammer in 2005 but they chose not to; not only that but they even offered up concessions they did not need to (UFA and more than half of the revenue with the possibility of the divide growing even more in the PA's favour).
I don't have to prove anything, I just have to disprove that the premise of the person I was quoting is false; how can I prove that something that does not exist does in fact not exist?

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 11:28 AM
  #29
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,898
vCash: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
My guess is the owners might have a long term plan to get the % int he 40's down the road. With where the NHL is compared to the other sports financially, the players are vastly overpaid. Too much pie given up. You cannot do it in one shot though.

The players have basically been overpaid for years and years. They are used to it. It is hard for them to accept financial realities.
this is the crux of the problem right here. the top 50 NHLers are probably payed fairly, the rest of overpaid by double.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron C. View Post
The biggest difference is the NHL stopped playing games and very few people cared.
it is difficult to quantify how much these constant and predicable work stoppages contribute to the problem, but it is safe to say it is a significant factor. the league brand is hurt each time and, this stoppage especially, the integrity of the league is damaged.

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 12:01 PM
  #30
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think you're looking at this from absolutely the wrong angle.

"Deserve" and "should" have no place in a discussion about economics.

NHL players get paid what they get paid because of supply and demand--- in spite of the artificial restraints inherent in modern North American sports leagues (draft, free agency, caps).

The NFL and NBA meanwhile have an almost endless and steady supply of players who go straight from college to the professional leagues. While their roster sizes are vastly different in make up as compared to each other (and the NHL), those leagues don't have to scout worldwide, have a network of leagues to monitor and finally fund their own AHL teams to put on the finishing touches. Does it take a lot more time and effort to bring up younger players (prospects) to an NHL level? Are the players generally older when they do break in as regulars?

All of this, in my mind, signifies a greater investment that must be made in players just to get to a point teams consider 'NHL-ready' and from probably a smaller pool of young men overall. Yet all the major league teams seem to have roughly the same number of teams.

Finally, an additional thought on the types of players that make a difference on a basketball, football, hockey or baseball team. How many options do you have in finding those key players? I don't know how many college football programs there are, but every one of them has quarterbacks that are being developed and groomed every single season, for example. A guy that breaks through in the NFL can have a ten year career? Maybe longer, exempting an injury. That gives teams a lot of QBs to look over before they have to find the next one 'good enough'. Basketball has a smaller number of roster spots, but again, the key guys can have very long careers, so teams aren't hanging on every single draft to get that key player, and in fact, may be able to find plenty of guys who are good enough overall.

I don't follow the other sports enough to know the cycles very well, but they do seem to have an advantage that there are so many developmental levels that stretch out over the entire US. It seems that supply will always be far, far greater than demand. A more interesting question would be why those leagues' players actually do get as much as they do given the greater number of players feeding into the system.
"Deserve" and "should" are just words that I'm using to talk about supply and demand. I'm probably one of the most economics minded people on this board, so let's not put people down over semantics.

I believe, however, that the global supply of players, the absolute number of guys available for the job and how you find them, really doesn't matter. The labor supply market is so far from being a factor that in the NHL, we should only bother considering the labor demand market. Here's a thought experiment:

(1) In a world with 750 hockey players total (but presuming, unrealistically, the exact same level of fan interest), teams would still maximize their revenue to the same level and then be forced to compete with each other for players. Players would get the same offers, and they'd be so much better than what players could make anywhere else in life that they'd take them.

(2) In a world with 7 billion hockey players but the same level of fan interest, you reward only the top 750, same effect.

(3) In a world with the same number of hockey players as this one, but the top 750 are four or five times as good as even the next 750, teams still maximize their dollars and pay players the same.

(4) In a world where the next best league pays players $600K. The NHL could offer $1M, or $10M, or $200M per player. And the top 750 would take it no matter what. That means the labor supply market isn't pulling the strings here - it's about labor demand.

I think no matter how you think the labor supply market looks (i.e., the players), you're going to get the same result, because that market is so well served that no one is going to say no. In order for the labor supply market to really matter, you have to be paying people something low enough that your top 750 players are going to either want to play somewhere else or hit what's called their reservation wage - the wage that's low enough that they'd just prefer not to work. The players are so far from either that I don't think it matters how the development system looks, how many players are in the supply pool, or any of that. The top 750 will take whatever deal is offered over a certain level, end of analysis. When you start talking about how long it takes to develop a guy or how far away you're looking, actually, I think you're starting to invoke the kind of inoperative stuff that sound in what players "deserve" in the moral sense.

So the take-away here is that I believe thinking about the labor supply market is a serious red herring, because (here's a graph-y sort of illustration for you) at anywhere close to the current levels of pay, the labor supply function looks like a straight line going up and down. That is, the 750 best players will play no matter what you pay them anywhere in the range that they're talking about now. Doesn't matter how many of them there are, how good they are, how they got where they are now.


Last edited by haseoke39: 12-24-2012 at 12:16 PM.
haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 01:26 PM
  #31
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think the effect you're expecting is mitigated by the development programs/leagues that each league draws upon, as the level immediately below has to fill the same number of roster spots.



I'm not sure why you think that is the suggestion. It circumvents the entire basis for the discussion I was trying to introduce.

There are two things to consider to test the hypothesis. The number of spots available is fixed for each league.

1) How big is the pool of talent that is being drawn upon to fill those spots? The NBA and NFL are drawing directly from NCAA programs. There are far more NCAA teams [which are generally competitive with each other] than there are AHL teams-- the direct feeder league for the NHL.
1a) Is the depth of the pool restricted simply by development opportunities?
Consider the biggest producer of hockey talent in the world. Canada. There are a fixed number of spots at each level from the earliest ages to the time a player gets to Junior levels if he's good enough. The players are grouped by age, from Jan 1 - Dec 31. Depending on the players' ages [e.g., 5, 8, 10, 12 or 15, etc.] the difference in size and mental ability between a January-born player and a November or December kid can be fairly significant. Data show that there are significantly more players moving on to the next tier who are born from Jan-Jul than the later months. This is significant for hockey because an NHL wannabe must get access to facilities, coaching and play among better and better peers in order to get a shot at the top level. Opportunities are more limiting in hockey than what happens to your typical basketball or football player, where almost anyone in school gets a shot at those sports at the expense of the community, not their parents and special organizations (Hockey Canada).

A lot more players could be produced (the points in #2 notwithstanding), but the opportunities are very limiting.


2) Is there anything about playing hockey that is more difficult to cultivate, and/or that takes a longer development cycle; conversely, is the level of "NHL hockey" so high that the league has unwittingly restricted the talent pool to a level that is difficult to achieve relative to the developmental opportunities?

--> We know it's much more expensive to play hockey (infrastructure, equipment and time costs to participants). If it takes a greater set of athletic abilities to produce one hockey player as well vs a basketball player or football defensive lineman... we're further restricting the pool to very 'elite humans'--- physically speaking.

--> Is there merit to the claim that prospects who have many other attributes but who fail to adjust to NHL speed is indicative of some of the factors indicated above (innate ability, development time, both, none of the above, something else)?




(I'm leaving MLB out of it because I don't know enough about the development cycle to include it.)
Basketball is probably the most similar to hockey in the development pool. It has both high school and college programs as well as a developmental league which is equivalent to the AHL. The NHL has the junior leagues worldwide, not just in Canada. You have 300k Canadian youth involved, about the same number in the US, 60k in Sweden and 60k in Russia. The numbers go down for other countries.

As far as cost goes, football is up there with hockey. The equipment is nearly equivalent. The odd thing in football below high school level is that most players who are future pro linemen are considered too large to play. The future skill position players are more likely to get early development time. The early size limitations are for safety reasons.

Interesting in hockey that you talk about skill. With its relative lack of youth enrollment, Russia has nearly the same number of teams in the KHL as the NHL. What differentiates the NHL and KHL is size. My take is that with a different set of rules that didn't reward size a larger talent pool would be available. IMO, your argument regarding hockey in the NHL is more about skill AND size.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 02:02 PM
  #32
PensBeerGeek
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Washington, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 879
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to PensBeerGeek Send a message via Yahoo to PensBeerGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
There is absolutely no basis to the notion that the owners take for the sake of it.
So, the NFL locked out last year because they had teams losing money hand over foot?

PensBeerGeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 02:03 PM
  #33
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,181
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensBeerGeek View Post
So, the NFL locked out last year because they had teams losing money hand over foot?
Last I checked we were talking about the NHL...

I know nothing about any other sports league so I won't comment on them.

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 04:45 PM
  #34
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Basketball is probably the most similar to hockey in the development pool. It has both high school and college programs as well as a developmental league which is equivalent to the AHL. The NHL has the junior leagues worldwide, not just in Canada. You have 300k Canadian youth involved, about the same number in the US, 60k in Sweden and 60k in Russia. The numbers go down for other countries.

As far as cost goes, football is up there with hockey. The equipment is nearly equivalent. The odd thing in football below high school level is that most players who are future pro linemen are considered too large to play. The future skill position players are more likely to get early development time. The early size limitations are for safety reasons.

Interesting in hockey that you talk about skill. With its relative lack of youth enrollment, Russia has nearly the same number of teams in the KHL as the NHL. What differentiates the NHL and KHL is size. My take is that with a different set of rules that didn't reward size a larger talent pool would be available. IMO, your argument regarding hockey in the NHL is more about skill AND size.

This doesn't happen often, but I completely disagree with your assessments of the numbers in the pools and where they're playing. Every school in America has basketball courts and football fields. Every player ( practically ) in the NBA and NFL played that sport in their high school, and then the majority in college. Hockey players are developed completely outside this system (within the school system) as most American schools don't offer hockey as an option outside places like Minnie, Michigan or Mass. Even then, it's just some schools, certainly not all. By the time hockey players hit high school age, they already have a reasonably good idea if they're on a track that will get them further--- or the majority need to be in consideration for junior consideration by THIS stage. NBA and NFL hopefuls won't know that until they're finishing high school and being recruited for colleges.

Thus, not only are you cutting the overall pool earlier with hockey, it didn't contain nearly as many kids in it as the other sports.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 04:49 PM
  #35
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
So baseball pays its people 42-45%, the NFL 47%, and the NBA 50%. The NHL has offered better core financials than all those, going 50% plus $300M.
All four leagues define the equivalent of "HRR" differently. There is no logical basis whatsoever in comparing percentages like that.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 04:49 PM
  #36
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
"Deserve" and "should" are just words that I'm using to talk about supply and demand. I'm probably one of the most economics minded people on this board, so let's not put people down over semantics.
It's neither personal nor a putdown. I'm just being clear that deserve connotes values socially or personally that aren't really reflective of the resources society or individuals indeed are committing to this segment.

Quote:
I believe, however, that the global supply of players, the absolute number of guys available for the job and how you find them, really doesn't matter. The labor supply market is so far from being a factor that in the NHL, we should only bother considering the labor demand market. Here's a thought experiment:

(1) In a world with 750 hockey players total (but presuming, unrealistically, the exact same level of fan interest), teams would still maximize their revenue to the same level and then be forced to compete with each other for players. Players would get the same offers, and they'd be so much better than what players could make anywhere else in life that they'd take them.

(2) In a world with 7 billion hockey players but the same level of fan interest, you reward only the top 750, same effect.

(3) In a world with the same number of hockey players as this one, but the top 750 are four or five times as good as even the next 750, teams still maximize their dollars and pay players the same.

(4) In a world where the next best league pays players $600K. The NHL could offer $1M, or $10M, or $200M per player. And the top 750 would take it no matter what. That means the labor supply market isn't pulling the strings here - it's about labor demand.

I think no matter how you think the labor supply market looks (i.e., the players), you're going to get the same result, because that market is so well served that no one is going to say no. In order for the labor supply market to really matter, you have to be paying people something low enough that your top 750 players are going to either want to play somewhere else or hit what's called their reservation wage - the wage that's low enough that they'd just prefer not to work. The players are so far from either that I don't think it matters how the development system looks, how many players are in the supply pool, or any of that. The top 750 will take whatever deal is offered over a certain level, end of analysis. When you start talking about how long it takes to develop a guy or how far away you're looking, actually, I think you're starting to invoke the kind of inoperative stuff that sound in what players "deserve" in the moral sense.

So the take-away here is that I believe thinking about the labor supply market is a serious red herring, because (here's a graph-y sort of illustration for you) at anywhere close to the current levels of pay, the labor supply function looks like a straight line going up and down. That is, the 750 best players will play no matter what you pay them anywhere in the range that they're talking about now. Doesn't matter how many of them there are, how good they are, how they got where they are now.

I honestly don't believe you considered any of the concepts I put forward. Maybe you're saying that the gap between those 750 and the next 750 isn't very wide or is extremely wide. Which is it?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 06:03 PM
  #37
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think the effect you're expecting is mitigated by the development programs/leagues that each league draws upon, as the level immediately below has to fill the same number of roster spots.



I'm not sure why you think that is the suggestion. It circumvents the entire basis for the discussion I was trying to introduce.
This is my point. I am suggesting a simple way of analyzing the situation and this analysis suggests the basis for your discussion is
flawed.

My simple way is to suggest that all the players in one of these sports can be considered as pyramid with the quality of the player rising with his height in the pryamid. There is a triangle at the top of the pyramid containing those players in the NHL/MBA/NFL. The players in the level below are all "almost good enough" to make the top level. If this model is correct (and the sides of the 3 pyramids have the same slope) it means that the ratio of almost good enough players to big league players is the same across all sports.

I guess your arguments could be viewed as claiming the slides of the pyramids have different slopes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fugu

There are two things to consider to test the hypothesis. The number of spots available is fixed for each league.

1) How big is the pool of talent that is being drawn upon to fill those spots? The NBA and NFL are drawing directly from NCAA programs. There are far more NCAA teams [which are generally competitive with each other] than there are AHL teams-- the direct feeder league for the NHL.
While the the NBA and NFL are drawing directly from NCAA teams the vast majority of NCAA players are not serious contenders for pro careers. In reality the NBA and NFL are drawing from a very small minority of NCAA players. I don't see any easy way to quantify the size of the population of players being considered as serious potential pros.

In reality the difference between the feeder leagues in the 3 sports is due to a number of historical and demographic reasons. You seem to be suggesting that these differences reflect some innate differences in the sports. I don't see how that could be established.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fugu
1a) Is the depth of the pool restricted simply by development opportunities?
Consider the biggest producer of hockey talent in the world. Canada. There are a fixed number of spots at each level from the earliest ages to the time a player gets to Junior levels if he's good enough. The players are grouped by age, from Jan 1 - Dec 31. Depending on the players' ages [e.g., 5, 8, 10, 12 or 15, etc.] the difference in size and mental ability between a January-born player and a November or December kid can be fairly significant. Data show that there are significantly more players moving on to the next tier who are born from Jan-Jul than the later months. This is significant for hockey because an NHL wannabe must get access to facilities, coaching and play among better and better peers in order to get a shot at the top level. Opportunities are more limiting in hockey than what happens to your typical basketball or football player, where almost anyone in school gets a shot at those sports at the expense of the community, not their parents and special organizations (Hockey Canada).

A lot more players could be produced (the points in #2 notwithstanding), but the opportunities are very limiting.


2) Is there anything about playing hockey that is more difficult to cultivate, and/or that takes a longer development cycle; conversely, is the level of "NHL hockey" so high that the league has unwittingly restricted the talent pool to a level that is difficult to achieve relative to the developmental opportunities?

--> We know it's much more expensive to play hockey (infrastructure, equipment and time costs to participants). If it takes a greater set of athletic abilities to produce one hockey player as well vs a basketball player or football defensive lineman... we're further restricting the pool to very 'elite humans'--- physically speaking.

--> Is there merit to the claim that prospects who have many other attributes but who fail to adjust to NHL speed is indicative of some of the factors indicated above (innate ability, development time, both, none of the above, something else)?




(I'm leaving MLB out of it because I don't know enough about the development cycle to include it.)
You claim that these other sports have an almost endless supply of players who are almost good enough for the top league. For various reasons there are more people playing football and baseball then hockey. This means that it is harder for any individual to achieve the big leagues in these sports than hockey. A natural athlete who has the innate abilities to eventually play in the NHL may not have enough natural skill to eventually make the NBA. The bar is higher in the NBA; they have many more people competing and fewer positions. The number of players almost good enough to make the NBA is reduced by the height of this bar.

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 06:09 PM
  #38
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
"Deserve" and "should" are just words that I'm using to talk about supply and demand. I'm probably one of the most economics minded people on this board, so let's not put people down over semantics.

I believe, however, that the global supply of players, the absolute number of guys available for the job and how you find them, really doesn't matter. The labor supply market is so far from being a factor that in the NHL, we should only bother considering the labor demand market. Here's a thought experiment:

(1) In a world with 750 hockey players total (but presuming, unrealistically, the exact same level of fan interest), teams would still maximize their revenue to the same level and then be forced to compete with each other for players. Players would get the same offers, and they'd be so much better than what players could make anywhere else in life that they'd take them.

(2) In a world with 7 billion hockey players but the same level of fan interest, you reward only the top 750, same effect.

(3) In a world with the same number of hockey players as this one, but the top 750 are four or five times as good as even the next 750, teams still maximize their dollars and pay players the same.

(4) In a world where the next best league pays players $600K. The NHL could offer $1M, or $10M, or $200M per player. And the top 750 would take it no matter what. That means the labor supply market isn't pulling the strings here - it's about labor demand.

I think no matter how you think the labor supply market looks (i.e., the players), you're going to get the same result, because that market is so well served that no one is going to say no. In order for the labor supply market to really matter, you have to be paying people something low enough that your top 750 players are going to either want to play somewhere else or hit what's called their reservation wage - the wage that's low enough that they'd just prefer not to work. The players are so far from either that I don't think it matters how the development system looks, how many players are in the supply pool, or any of that. The top 750 will take whatever deal is offered over a certain level, end of analysis. When you start talking about how long it takes to develop a guy or how far away you're looking, actually, I think you're starting to invoke the kind of inoperative stuff that sound in what players "deserve" in the moral sense.

So the take-away here is that I believe thinking about the labor supply market is a serious red herring, because (here's a graph-y sort of illustration for you) at anywhere close to the current levels of pay, the labor supply function looks like a straight line going up and down. That is, the 750 best players will play no matter what you pay them anywhere in the range that they're talking about now. Doesn't matter how many of them there are, how good they are, how they got where they are now.
H39 I think this is correct. I wish I'd read it before I wrote my last post as it makes the points I made their superfluous.

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 06:31 PM
  #39
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,220
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
We know nothing about BRI and nobody outside the NBA does; more likely than not they are pretty close because NBA makes money just like the NHL does: by playing in arenas, running the arenas, getting people in the luxury boxes and broadcasting those games on TV.
Although we don't have the full details, we are certainly far from knowing "nothing"

The NHL and the NBA have very similar core financials. Certainly it's implemented in a vastly different way (the NBA cap is hilariously complex), but the underlying financials are fairly similar with the exception of a national TV contract.

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 12:25 AM
  #40
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I honestly don't believe you considered any of the concepts I put forward. Maybe you're saying that the gap between those 750 and the next 750 isn't very wide or is extremely wide. Which is it?
I'm saying that no matter who those 750 people are or how large the group they come from is or how much better or worse they are then the next 750 people, no attribute of theirs determines what they get paid. They are/would be uniformly willing to accept any prevailing wage over a certain threshold (probably ~1M average or so). They are the labor supply, but what determines what they get paid is labor demand. If tomorrow the fan interest in hockey dried up and the NHL paid an average wage of $1M, they'd all still sign up to play. If it exploded and the NHL paid an average wage of $200M, they'd all take it. It doesn't have anything to do with who they are or where they come from as long as they happen to be the 750 best hockey players on earth, because the deal is so good that nothing about the labor supply of things is going to make a difference.

I really did consider the concepts you put forward, but I believe they're irrelevant. I believe you're describing different characteristics of the labor supply side of things in a market where labor supply doesn't determine anything.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 12:35 AM
  #41
PensBeerGeek
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Washington, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 879
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to PensBeerGeek Send a message via Yahoo to PensBeerGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
Last I checked we were talking about the NHL...

I know nothing about any other sports league so I won't comment on them.
You mentioned that there was no reason to think the owners would simply take back money, and I was disagreeing with that assertion based on that evidence that the players could go off of.

The NFL already had the most owner-friendly CBA, and it would be a stretch to say that any franchise was suffering financially. Business was smooth, and they chose to lock the players out anyway to get a couple points of revenue back.

So, yes, I believe that the owners will engage in another lockout at the end of this one, simply because they can profit even further from doing so.

The only thing that surprises me is that the players want a shorter CBA than the owners. It's not like they're going to win next time either... may as well put off being screwed again as long as possible.

PensBeerGeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 11:31 AM
  #42
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensBeerGeek View Post
So, the NFL locked out last year because they had teams losing money hand over foot?
Bravo sir, hopefully more see the light. It's all about how much more, who cares if they have to sacrifice a year

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 11:43 AM
  #43
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,592
vCash: 500
What's the difference between the NHL and the other big 3? Bargaining position.

Sure, there are probably differences in the way each one calculates revenue, but the real difference why NHL players deserve more is that there's more demand for them.

In football... the 2nd biggest league for players to go to is the CFL -- where there are 1/4 of the amount of teams, and the average salary is 4% of the NFL's average salary.

In baseball, there is Asia and Latin America, but they're nowhere near the same level as baseball in the US. Basketball is a bit better, with a stronger European foothold, but still not at the level of hockey.

In hockey, you've got the KHL, which has shown the ability to pay some players at or near what they would make in the NHL, along with several european leagues that aren't substantially behind the KHL.

To put it simply, the alternative for NHL players playing in Europe is a lot better than Basketball players in Europe, Baseball players in Asia/Latin America, or football Players in Canada. Factor in that Basketball and Football players are notoriously bad at managing their money, and that a substantial portion of Hockey players are from Europe, and they just don't need to sign such a favourable deal for the owners, because they don't need the owners as much as the other league's players do.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 01:34 PM
  #44
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 548
vCash: 500
The NFL and NBA have talent pools where the developmental talent become nationally well-known while still in college -- reducing the leverage of their PAs.

This is especially true for the NFL where Heisman candidates and star QBs become household names before they are even drafted.

scotchex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 01:42 PM
  #45
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 548
vCash: 500
MLB and NHL seem to have the strongest unions. Interesting since they also have similar minor league developmental systems.

NFL is widely considered to have the weakest union. I think because there's such a large pool of quality replacement players available -- and with impressive college resumes.

scotchex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 07:24 PM
  #46
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
This doesn't happen often, but I completely disagree with your assessments of the numbers in the pools and where they're playing. Every school in America has basketball courts and football fields. Every player ( practically ) in the NBA and NFL played that sport in their high school, and then the majority in college. Hockey players are developed completely outside this system (within the school system) as most American schools don't offer hockey as an option outside places like Minnie, Michigan or Mass. Even then, it's just some schools, certainly not all. By the time hockey players hit high school age, they already have a reasonably good idea if they're on a track that will get them further--- or the majority need to be in consideration for junior consideration by THIS stage. NBA and NFL hopefuls won't know that until they're finishing high school and being recruited for colleges.

Thus, not only are you cutting the overall pool earlier with hockey, it didn't contain nearly as many kids in it as the other sports.
I wasn't talking about numbers in the pools. I was comparing the characterizations. More the variety of venues than the numbers. The numbers for youth enrollment came from an article a few years back, but they are still close now. I can see your point about HS basketball, but the NBA is going more and more to guys who leave college very early as well as Euros. College is becoming an afterthought for basketball.

I was also making the point that the NFL is odd. Two tracks, big guys and skill guys. The big ones are well into high school before they have any idea as they usually get no early structured development. The big guys constitute about 10 of the starting 22 on an NFL roster. The other thing on NFL development is that the skill guys do get early development and usually have an idea of ability before they hit HS. The comparable for the NFL is only about the cost of early development time.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.