Hi all,
Just got some research put up online and thought that some members of the forum would be interested in it. Basically it attempts to calculate the impact of salary cap violations on the probability of a home team win.
Here are some quotes from the article.
The crux of it is this:
Even upon accounting for team specific factors, such as keeping a core player group intact, an additional $1 million AUD of salary cap violations by the Melbourne Storm would have increased the probability of a home team win by between 6.4% and 10.6%. Without these team specific factors the estimate lies between 16.8% and 27%.
Also:
The success of the Melbourne Storm between 2006 and 2010 was not solely based on circumventing the salary cap and was also based on the identification of talented players and the ability to keep a certain player group together.
As a result:
The results raise questions on how the salary cap functions with respect to the identification and valuation of player talent. Indeed, the significant success in the period before 2007 predated the largest salary cap violations, but closely aligns with the amount of games played by a core playing group identified in Longden and Kannard (2014). The discussion surrounding Figure 4 of Longden and Kannard (2014) highlights this crucial issue and the timing of the breaches in comparison to home team wins.
Here is the article:
http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=6356
And here is the whole paper that I called Longden and Kannard (2014) so that you can look at Figure 4:
http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=6357&sez=Publications&padre=73
Hope that it passes muster and stands up to the WTF test..
Note: WTF was meant to mean 'West Tigers Forum' but it can be interpreted the other way.
Thanks,
Tom.
Will be interested in the discussion on salary caps and talent identification. Also happy to answer questions as they come..
Just got some research put up online and thought that some members of the forum would be interested in it. Basically it attempts to calculate the impact of salary cap violations on the probability of a home team win.
Here are some quotes from the article.
The crux of it is this:
Even upon accounting for team specific factors, such as keeping a core player group intact, an additional $1 million AUD of salary cap violations by the Melbourne Storm would have increased the probability of a home team win by between 6.4% and 10.6%. Without these team specific factors the estimate lies between 16.8% and 27%.
Also:
The success of the Melbourne Storm between 2006 and 2010 was not solely based on circumventing the salary cap and was also based on the identification of talented players and the ability to keep a certain player group together.
As a result:
The results raise questions on how the salary cap functions with respect to the identification and valuation of player talent. Indeed, the significant success in the period before 2007 predated the largest salary cap violations, but closely aligns with the amount of games played by a core playing group identified in Longden and Kannard (2014). The discussion surrounding Figure 4 of Longden and Kannard (2014) highlights this crucial issue and the timing of the breaches in comparison to home team wins.
Here is the article:
http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=6356
And here is the whole paper that I called Longden and Kannard (2014) so that you can look at Figure 4:
http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=6357&sez=Publications&padre=73
Hope that it passes muster and stands up to the WTF test..
Note: WTF was meant to mean 'West Tigers Forum' but it can be interpreted the other way.
Thanks,
Tom.
Will be interested in the discussion on salary caps and talent identification. Also happy to answer questions as they come..