The Financial Value per Minute (FVPM) model provides a way to quantify the statistical value that players and teams generate on the court. When applied across different NBA eras, FVPM gives us not just raw numbers, but also insights into how rules, style of play, and statistical opportunities shaped team outputs. It's important to note, ATT VPM will always be much higher than DEF VPM due to the number and weighting of offensive actions vs defensive. Below, we analyse four iconic teams—the 1986 Boston Celtics, 1993 Chicago Bulls, 2001 Los Angeles Lakers, and 2017 Golden State Warriors—alongside their league-wide averages.
* Today’s median salary was used for the FVPM
1985/86 Season
League Average: 164 ATT VPM, -21.8 DEF VPM, 2.56 APM (Actions Per Minute), $17,159,599 FVPM.
Boston: 389.7 ATT VPM, 5.3 DEF VPM, 3.26 APM, $25,111,609 FVPM.
Context:
The 1986 season was played at one of the highest paces in NBA history. More possessions meant more shot attempts, which in turn created abundant rebounding opportunities. Boston capitalized with a frontcourt of Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Bill Walton—one of the deepest rebounding and scoring rotations in history. Their high ATT VPM reflects their offensive execution, while the DEF VPM, though modest, was inflated by the sheer number of missed shots available to collect. Fouls were high across the league, consistent with the physical nature of 80s basketball.
Takeaway:
Boston’s numbers are a product of both talent and pace. They dominated categories the model rewards—rebounds, assists, offensive efficiency—making their FVPM output the highest of the four teams analyzed.
1992/93 Season
League Average: 160.6 ATT VPM, -13.9 DEF VPM, 2.44 APM, $17,169,599 FVPM.
Bulls: 356.7 ATT VPM, -4.8 DEF VPM, 3.0 APM, $22,739,957 FVPM.
Context:
At first glance, Chicago’s negative DEF VPM suggests weakness, but this is misleading. The Bulls were 3rd in offensive rebounding, turning misses into second-chance points, but only 22nd in defensive rebounding for this season. This was not due to poor rebounding fundamentals—it was because their efficient offense gave opponents fewer possessions and thus fewer missed shots to rebound. Similarly, their big men (Grant, Cartwright) were not prolific shot-blockers, which hurt their DEF VPM under the model’s weighting. Much like the 80s, fouls were high because of the physical style of 90s defence and offensive rebounding was still a big factor. The pace of the game had slowed somewhat so teams were getting fewer possessions to accrue per minute value.
Takeaway:
The Bulls’ FVPM profile highlights how offensive dominance and statistical weighting can understate defensive impact. They were not weak defenders—rather, the environment created fewer defensive counting opportunities.
2000/01 Season
League Average: 131.4 ATT VPM, -3.2 DEF VPM, 2.29 APM, $15,206,474 FVPM.
Lakers: 261.8 ATT VPM, -9.3 DEF VPM, 2.87 APM, $16,462,055 FVPM.
Context:
The 2001 Lakers produced a lower DEF VPM than the Bulls, but again, this reflects weighting rather than actual defensive quality. This era was known as the "dead ball era" with some of the slowest pace in history. Shaquille O’Neal anchored the paint, but his defensive presence was not fully measured in blocks or rebounds compared to Hakeem or Robinson. The Lakers fouled heavily, a product of Shaq’s physicality inside and Kobe’s aggressive perimeter defence. Their ATT VPM was strong, fuelled by Shaq’s interior dominance and Kobe’s scoring versatility. The keynote is their postseason performance: the Lakers went 15–1, proving that their defensive execution exceeded what the regular-season FVPM profile suggests.
Takeaway:
FVPM undersells the Lakers’ defense because it wasn’t stat-padded. In practice, their playoff dominance shows the gap between statistical value and situational impact.
2016/17 Season
League Average: 156.3 ATT VPM, -11.3 DEF VPM, 2.3 APM, $17,020,090 FVPM.
Warriors: 395.5 ATT VPM, 54.2 DEF VPM, 3.17 APM, $28,459,823 FVPM.
Context:
The 2017 Warriors played in a completely different basketball ecosystem. Pace had increased again, but more importantly, the three-point revolution created a surge in long rebounds. Opponents missed more threes, inflating defensive rebounding opportunities league wide. Golden State thrived here, with Draymond Green, Kevin Durant, and Andre Iguodala anchoring switchable defence. Their foul rates were far lower than our other teams, reflecting both modern officiating and the ability to defend in space without grabbing. Their ATT VPM was enormous, powered by the most efficient three-point shooting backcourt ever combined with Durant’s versatility.
Takeaway:
The Warriors’ FVPM dominance reflects both their talent and the structural advantages of the modern game: more possessions, more threes, and rules favoring skill and speed over physicality.
Final Reflections
When comparing eras using FVPM:
- 1986 Celtics benefited from pace, elite rebounding depth and offensive efficiency.
- 1993 Bulls showed how efficient offense and controlling play through offensive rebounding can reduce defensive statistical opportunities but impact winning.
- 2001 Lakers illustrate how having both a dominant inside and perimeter offensive force can overcome most challenges.
- 2017 Warriors highlight how modern shot profiles and rules have inflated certain categories while rewarding versatile, switchable defence. They were a perfect team for an 80s pace without the physicality and modern shot selection.
The model shows that FVPM is not about labelling teams as “good” or “bad” but about highlighting how their statistical strengths aligned (or didn’t) with the categories valued by the formula. It’s a lens on basketball history that must always be contextualized by pace, style, and rules of the time. Each team took what their era had to offer and turned it into greatness.
