Human Capital in the NBA

Feb 8, 2015; Sacramento, CA, USA; Phoenix Suns guard Goran Dragic (1) drives baseline against Sacramento Kings guard Ben McLemore (23) during the first quarter at Sleep Train Arena. Mandatory Credit: Kelley L Cox-USA TODAY Sports

First of all, dont use the expression human capital when talking about NBA players. Its a vaguely creepy neologism to begin with, but useful when describing aggregates of hundreds, thousands or even millions in economic terms. When describing the 15-man (give or take) playing staff of an NBA team, its downright impersonal. Its explicitly and almost intentionally transforming men into the machines which were the original capital investments.

The treatment of NBA players or athletes in general as fungible widgets or inputs in a production function is probably not a new thing. At the end of the day, its a business has been a stock answer in an athlete approach free agencys repertoire for many years. But the perception is that using thecalculating, depersonalizing language of the accountant or investment bankeris new. How could it not be, with the influx of finance industry veterans to the ranks of ownership?

This language is part and parcel of a mindset often described as analyical. Not unfairly so, as this new wave of owners has ushered in a wave of quant-centric front office personnel across the league. On one hand, this is a great boon to the league and its fans. We simply know and can learn much more about the game than was even possible three years ago. However, with this outlook there comes a great danger in losing sight that the players are people first, and as such subject to imperfections, emotions and inconstancy. Changing the environment around a player for the worse and its only natural to expect a dip in performance.

In plainer terms, if you treat someone like crap, they are less likely to perform for you. Getting a paid a lot of money is certainly nice, but money alone doesnt obviate the need for job satisfaction and basic human contentment. Being told either directly or by virtue of actions that one is of now value other than the value of the service they perform can and will wear on many. Not every player, some are likely so stoic, so emotionally removed from the business or simply clueless as to these cues to care. But some will react badly.

Fans and commentators usually treat those reactions unkindly. As if the concerns for being appreciated in ones work dont exist in whatever profession in which fans labor. Perhaps its the illusion that the moneydoes solve everything, or maybe its tinged by the jealousy that unlike most workers, athletes sometimes have the leverage to make their complaints over working conditions stick.

In any event, unsettled players are areal risk to a franchise. It might be pointless to appeal to a sense of decency (in the extreme version of this MBA mindset, there is little room for such niceties), but pointing out the practical, tactical problems with a disgruntled workforce might illustrate the issue as well. Simply put, if a certain method of asset management ends up devaluing or degrading some or all of those assets, that cost must be taken into consideration.

These internalities can take many forms. A collection of bad attitudes or unprofessional players can stunt the growth of a young player, either by teaching bad habits or at least hindering the development of good ones. A player might lose some motivation, allow his skills and conditioning to decline, knowing hell still collect a paycheck if a paycheck is all the job now means to him. Worst of all, it can sabotage the relationship between team and player to the point where rational self-interest causes the player to act in a manner detrimental to the organization.

Whether in the form of contract year gunning or an untimely trade demand,the entire framework of the team might be disrupted, and not in current bad-means-good colloquial terms.

Certainly, Phoenixs best laid plans are scattered to the wind with Goran Dragic expressing his desire to be out of the Valley of the Sun toot suite. While the team was busy arbitraging free agency, letting Channing Frye walk and adding Isaiah Thomas for less, Dragic saw another competitor for playing time, touches and shots arriving. In a contract year. With another would-be lead guard in Eric Bledsoe having signed a big money extention late in the offseason. After Dragichad been the point guard performingat a (sadly unrecognized)All-Star level a year ago in the Suns shocking 48 win season. Not to mention Frye was Dragics partner in a deadly pick-and-roll combo. Add that together and its more than a little understandable he lost trust in the organization his past contributions were devalued, his chances of putting up the numbers sadly still needed to secure a big next contract reduced. For all the loyalty he supposedly owes the organization, have they done right by him?

Read the original here:
Human Capital in the NBA