More on the Best Starting Line-Ups

The Wall Street Journal reported the top five starting line-ups – in terms of average WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] – since 1981-82.  Here are the top 25 across the same time period:

1. Utah Jazz [1996-97]: 0.238 WP48, 9.39 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 6]

2. Chicago Bulls [1995-96]: 0.236 WP48, 13.00 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 1]

3. Chicago Bulls [1996-97]: 0.221 WP48, 11.61 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 2]

4. LA Lakers [1984-85]: 0.219 WP48, 6.90 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 53]

5. Boston Celtics [1986-87]: 0.217 WP48, 6.50 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 68]

6. Utah Jazz [1998-99]: 0.216 WP48, 7.15 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 44]

7. Phoenix Suns [1992-93]: 0.216 WP48, 6.46 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 69]

8. Boston Celtics [2007-08]: 0.215 WP48, 10.95 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 3]

9. Boston Celtics [2008-09]: 0.214 WP48, 8.02 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 23]

10. Portland Trail Blazers [1990-91]: 0.213 WP48, 8.26 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 18]

11. Orlando Magic [1995-96]: 0.211 WP48, 5.82 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 92]

12. Boston Celtics [1987-88]: 0.210 WP48, 5.86 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 90]

13. LA Lakers [1985-86]: 0.208 WP48, 7.25 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 39]

14. Boston Celtics [1985-86]: 0.208 WP48, 8.94 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 10]

15. San Antonio Spurs [1993-94]: 0.206 WP48, 5.62 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 100]

16. LA Lakers [1986-87]: 0.205 WP48, 8.85 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 11]

17. San Antonio Spurs [1991-92]: 0.204 WP48, 3.32 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 200]

18. LA Lakers [1999-00]: 0.204 WP48, 8.84 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 12]

19. Seattle Super Sonics [1995-96]: 0.203 WP48, 8.01 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 24]

20. Orlando Magic [1994-95]: 0.203 WP48, 7.10 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 45]

21. Dallas Mavericks [2006-07]: 0.203 WP48, 7.81 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 28]

22. Chicago Bulls [1990-91]: 0.203 WP48, 9.20 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 8]

23. Houston Rockets [1996-97]: 0.202 WP48, 4.69 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 130]

24. Phoenix Suns [1989-90]: 0.200 WP48, 6.78 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 58]

25. Phoenix Suns [2007-08]: 0.200 WP48, 5.09 Eff. Dif. [Rank: 115]

The above list reports both the starter’s (top five players in games started) average WP48 as well as the team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).  Across the 759 teams that have played from 1981-82 to 2008-09, these two numbers have a 0.88 correlation.  So the quality of your starter’s isn’t everything, but it’s something.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the starters for the Boston Celtics in 2009-10 [Rajon Rondo, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett] would rank 9^th on this list (with a mark of 0.214). What about some other teams this year?

So far the Cleveland Cavaliers have primarily started the following quintet: Maurice Williams, Anthony Parker, LeBron James, Anderson Varejao, Shaquille O’Neal.  Last year these five players had an average WP48 of 0.201.  And if you replace Parker with Delonte West, the average rises to 0.211 (a mark that ranks in the top 15^th).

As noted, it was the LA Lakers that inspired this story. The Lakers starting line-up of Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, Ron Artest, Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum only averaged a 0.153 WP48.  If you replace Odom with Pau Gasol this average rises to 0.159.  And if Bynum returns to what we saw in 2007-08 [0.358 WP48], then the average rises to 0.199 WP48. 

So it’s possible that the Celtics, Cavaliers, and Lakers could field starting line-ups that will crack the top 25 (or come close).  Of course, all of this is based on last year’s numbers.  And although last year’s numbers are linked to what we see this year, player performance is not constant. So these starting line-ups may be better — or worse — than what is reported above; and we won’t have enough data to see where each team is at for a few more weeks.

The NBA often says it cares.  But if it really cared, the NBA would solve our data shortage by scheduling games a bit faster at the start of the season.  How about double-headers?  They do it in baseball.  And if they had a few of these at the start of the NBA season we could get the data we need to answer our questions so much quicker.

Until something like that happens (as if it would), we are left with the limited data we see in November. So look for a few more “Lawson” posts until this season really gets going.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

The Wall Street Journal and the Best Starting Line-Ups

It all started with a simple question:  How good is the starting line-up of the LA Lakers in 2009-10?  That was the question David Biderman – of the Wall Street Journal – asked me at the start of this season.  From that question came the following article: Few Starting Lineups Could Top These Celtics

As one can see, the article really never mentions the current Lakers.  It does reveal that Boston’s current starting line-up – based on last year’s performance – would rank in the top 10 since 1981.  It also notes that the Utah Jazz of 1996-97 had the best starting line-up since 1981. 

The Jazz of 96-97 finished with 64 wins and a 9.4 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).  This differential ranked 6^th in the NBA since 1973-74.  Unfortunately, the Jazz met the Chicago Bulls in the NBA Finals in 1997.  And although the Jazz had the slightly better starting line-up, Utah’s bench – as Biderman noted – was too much to overcome (for Utah). 

In my next post I will offer an answer to Biderman’s original question.  For now, feel free to post a comment on his article (and yes, Biderman and I know there is currently a typo in the chart). Update: The chart was fixed.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

A Focus on Dollars Could Help Memphis on the Court

Last August the Memphis Grizzlies cut their scouting staff from five to zero.  Such a move was consistent with the notion that the folks in Memphis – specifically their owner Michael Heisley – “value dollars over wins.”

This view may have been bolstered this past week by the fact Rudy Gay and the Memphis Grizzlies failed to reach a deal, making Gay a restricted free agent in 2010.  Here are the latest numbers (from ESPN.com):

An NBA source said the Grizzlies’ final offer was a five-year deal worth about $50 million, according to the report, while Gay was seeking a deal similar to the five-year, $65 million extension the Portland Trail Blazers agreed to with LaMarcus Aldridge.

So Gay would like $13 million per season while the Grizzlies would like Gay to play for about $10 million.  If we think about the logic of the NBA’s free agent market [something we discussed in The Wages of Wins and in a published article in 2008], Gay’s demand is closer to his predicted market value.  So from that perspective, the offer from Memphis was below market value (i.e. too focused on dollars or “cheap”).

Of course, the market value–as often noted – is driven by scoring.  If we think about everything Gay does on the court, it looks like the offer made by Memphis was actually fairly extravagant.

Consider Gay’s statistics from 2008-09 (reported in Table One):

Table One: Rudy Gay in 2008-09

Last season Gay was about average with respect to shooting efficiency (from the field and line), blocked shots, and steals.  He was below average with respect to rebounds and turnovers.  About all he does well is take shots and avoid personal fouls.  Because he’s willing to take shots, though, Gay is above average as a scorer.  But his efficiency numbers suggest he’s not exceptional with respect to this aspect of the game.  And since he isn’t exceptional at anything else, we shouldn’t be surprised to learn Gay really doesn’t produce many wins. 

Here is what he has done across his first three seasons:

2006-07: 0.1 Wins Produced, 0.003 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]

2007-08:  4.2 Wins Produced, 0.068 WP48

2008-09: 2.3 Wins Produced, 0.037 WP48

For his first three seasons, Gay has only produced 6.7 wins.  Let’s give Gay the benefit of the doubt and argue that going forward, his 2007-08 numbers – the best numbers he has posted thus far – will be his normal output.  If he had signed the offer made by Memphis, this means the Grizzlies would be paying $10 million per season for about 4 wins; or about $2.5 million per win.  Even if Gay played in a very large market, each win would not be worth $2.5 million.  In a small market like Memphis, such a price is far too high.  Yet this was the offer Memphis was willing to make.

And it looks like Memphis might be willing to pay even more.  From the same ESPN.com article we see the following:

“There’s no question we have a high appreciation for Rudy and his talent,” Heisley said, according to the report. “Now the question is how do you get to the right deal? If you’re asking me, am I willing to pay as much as I can possibly pay? No. That’s not appropriate in today’s financial climate.

“We’re going to make a very attractive offer to Rudy,” he added, according to the report. “We think he’s a great player. They think he’s a great player. We have a very high opinion of Rudy.”

Such a statement sounds like Memphis will make an effort to keep Gay next summer.  That will probably mean matching any offer Gay gets.  Once again, such an offer will probably be for much more than $10 million per season. 

So in the short-run, it looks like Memphis is making a good decision by not meeting Gay’s demands.  In the long-run, though, it looks like Memphis is very tempted to keep Gay around at a price that – relative to his productivity – is quite high. 

Of course it’s quite possible that Memphis really doesn’t want to pay Gay more than $10 million per season.  Although the reason for this is that Memphis is really cheap, in this instance, the focus on dollars over wins is going to result in a very good decision.  And not just for the team’s bottom line; but also for the team’s ability to compete on the court.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

A Discussion of Science and Journalism

Yesterday I was asked about the Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons.  Regular readers of the Wages of Wins Journal will know that Simmons and I do not always agree.  Still, I did buy his book (haven’t had a chance to read it yet, though); and the question yesterday reminded me of an essay I had read on line in September. 

Unfortunately I couldn’t remember where I read this essay.  Luckily, Tim posted a link in the comments.  The following is from a blog titled “No Time To Read.”  It’s not clear from the blog who wrote this, and it doesn’t look like the blog has been updated since this was posted last September.  Nevertheless, I found this to be an excellent discussion of how the approach of scientists (I play the scientist in this discussion) differs from the approach of journalists (a role played by Joe Posnanski and Bill Simmons).  Hopefully everyone find this as interesting as I did.  And if you are the author of this work, please let us know.

No Time to Read (September 7, 2009)

I got to thinking about a difference between writers and commenters. One crucial difference is skill, naturally. However, I am thinking about some of the emails sportswriters such as Joe Posnanski, Dave Berri, Peter King, and Bill Simmons get. The best correspondence they publish tends to follow up on a thought, often giving an example about some tragedy the pundits had written about.

Considering this small and selective sample, I concluded that the main difference beween lay writers and the professional is context. Professionals establish context in which lay writers tend to work. That is, professional writers organize examples by their themes, while the lay writers (i.e. commenters) write single examples. This leads, firstly, to the difference in length. The commenters provide an example or a vignette that refers to the established idea. I suppose one-graf bloggers tend to fall into this category, no matter how good the actual prose is. The professional writer would have developed the context for his main argument before using examples to emphasize his own point. While longer is not always better, of course developing ideas take up space. This leads to longer pieces. It takes a bit of skill to compress ideas into a paragraph (try reading abstracts from science papers and see if it makes sense to someone outside of the field you work in. The good ones will make sense to someone who doesn’t work in your field.)

For now, I want to focus on the difference between a professional writer’s and a scientist’s mode of writing. At the level of sports pundits and analysis, there are the Joe Posnanskis and Bill Simmons of the world, and there are popularizer of research, like Dave Berri. All three are wonderful writers for their fields, but I would rather read Posnanski and Simmons before Berri, if considering only the literary aspects of their writing. Nevertheless, the main difference between the two is not in the scope but in the details that provide context for their pieces.

Recently, Posnanski wrote about his desire to adopt a baseball stat for his blog. He hinted at reasons for disliking OPS (simply, on-base percentage + slugging avg), and presented an argument for his “hitting average.” That’s all fine and good; readers of Dave Berri’s blog and book Wages of Wins will note that finding Berri in fact tries to find statistical measures of athlete “productivity” that relates to point production and thus, wins. Now, here’s the difference between Posnanski’s and Berri’s approaches. It certainly isn’t scope, since both are ostensibly doing the same thing. However, Berri’s approach is scientifically sound where Posnanski’s isn’t, despite Posnanski dealing with objective mathemetical measures.

A caveat: I am not saying that Posnanski’s stat or approach is wrong. Posnanski has made every attempt to say that what he is doing is more for aesthetic reasons and than to find THE stat, the single model that explains MOST aspects of baseball. Again, I am merely considering their styles of presentation, which are partially limited by the scope and how they approach the details.

In any case, Posnanski details how stat-geek readers of his blog, led by Tom Tango, generated a new stat called “linear weights ratio.” Posnanski tests this stat out by checking the rankings of a number of players; of course, there is some alignment with more traditional advanced baseball stats. He also presents the formula for his hitting average, for readers to play with. Again, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this; Posnanski isn’t doing econometrics. If anything, he is doing a great service by getting various reads to think mathematically. But Posnanski doesn’t provide a context to evaluate that new metric. Mainly, he doesn’t compare this metric to established metrics. In contrast, Berri’s approach is, in essence scientific, since his arguments are constrained by the context of describing and comparing these metrics.

This context is the difference between a layman’s approach and a scientist’s approach. Berri did much the same thing as Posnanski suggests in researching basketball players’ productivity. Berri looked at the linear regression of things like points score, shooting percentage, rebounds, turnovers, and so forth, on the amount of points scored. Based on these stats and the weights identified from the regression analysis, he generated a linear model. He placed this stat, Wins Produced, into context by first applying it to all NBA players through all years for which stats are available, he compared its correlation to points scored for and against to existing NBA statistical models, and he generated points of comparisons for each NBA player to the “mean” player at his position. In this way, he is able to actually determine that his measure has a higher correlation to the efficiency differential (points scored – points given up) than the other stats. He was also able to identify the main difference between his and other models, in that the other models tend to use points scored as opposed to the ratio of points scored and shots attempted.

The weights Berri used are not arbitrary in the sense that he simply pulled them out in order to emphasize some difference between NBA players that he thought should exist. Naturally, he might have removed some measures from his model because the weight isn’t high enough, but that’s a different matter from “fine tuning” the weight. Regardless, the most important point is that generally, he made a model from the aggregates that significantly correlated with efficiency differential before applying the model to the players. In this way, he has created rankings of NBA player productivity that has generated some arguments in the sport pundit community (for an example, see here, here, here and here.)
While the particulars aren’t important, the conflict is illustrative of a scientific versus a more laid-back  (although it could still be rigorous) analytical approach. For Berri, he simply sets up a model, cranks out the numbers, and then organizes his views of the players by examining the stats. For the laid-back approach, one sees if the stat is properly associated with a player. Again, this latter approach is fine, within its domain. Sports writers are not scientists, nor do they control the purse strings for a sports team. Even within a sports franchise, one does not need to rely on statistics, if they so desire. As Berri notes, the stats comprise merely one component of NBA evaluation. It’s a shortcut to organizing player’s performance. In no case does it substitute ways of identifying why certain players are not rebounding, or generating enough assists, or reducing their turnovers.

In the Posnanski example, he presented a stat which is correlated with runs scored in baseball. He didn’t say whether this correlation is necessarily higher than other measures (such as OPS). This is a subtle point that is often missed. If the correlations between both measures are similar, than there really is no difference. Of course, there may be a lot more numbers involved in one over the other, but most scientists would simpler choose with one with fewer values. It’s probably also easier to calculate. Using the other numbers do not give you added value. I have seen people talk about complex stats as if complexity (lots of math squigglies) is somehow better or is more correct. That is not the case.

So, how does this relate to writing styles? Well, if the laymen write in examples, and professional writers extract themes and trends from examples, then scientists try to extract ideas/themes/trends that apply to all examples (well, ideally, all, but in generally they try to capture data from a meaningful sample that is indicative of the whole population.)

However, there is a limitation in the presentation of a scientific finding: the conclusions are bound by the premise of the hypothesis and the methods and measures that are used. Thus, in Berri’s case, he presents arguments for NBA player’s productivity in terms of his measure (or other measures, if he’s interested in comparing the different metrics.) But he is constrained by that, less so in his blog, but certainly in his peer-reviewed papers. As a matter of fact, Berri’s blog tends to be a bit dry, breaking down a player’s deficiencies by examining the particulars of how low his shooting percentage, rebounds, assists, etc are relative to the league or position average. Just as importantly, Berri suggests that the metric is best used as an entry point into proper player evaluation and development. It’s a short hand for identify players who might be improved. Despite Berri suggesting players don’t change much from year to year, from team to team, from coach to coach, it may be because no one has tailored a practice program for players based on this simple evaluation. Or it may reflect the ceiling offered by a player’s talent. Aside from these straightfoward analysis of why players have below, above, or near average productivity, Berri doesn’t write about how he might enjoy watching certain NBA players. I think it gives an unfair impression that he is a bloodless machine who doesn’t know what a basketball looks like. His model does not account for flair, style, or aesthetics that is probably the raison d’etre for watching sports in the first place.

For sports writers like Simmons and Posnanski, they approach it from the aesthetic domain first. The assumption is that they have an eye for talent and style, and that this is applicable to how everyone else enjoys watching that player or game. I don’t mean that they are interested in a so-called objective way to rank the entertainment or productive value of these players. I mean that they want, but are frustrated by the fact that they can’t always, to identify an essence of a player that can be applied without qualification or exception and can be easily demonstrable. The clearest example is in the way some describe and compare Kobe Bryant to Michael Jordan. Dave Berri can rank the two, not only in absolute terms but as some standard deviation above the league average for their eras. In that comparison, not only is Jordan more “productive” than Kobe, he is a nearly twice so. Simmons would argue that Kobe is the best there is now. He might be a cut below Jordan, but there is no player closer.

One solution here is to recognize that there is a difference between the professional and the scientific presentation of ideas. Berri started from the metrics first, despite whatever he might think about the players. Simmons cannot, or would not, separate the aesthetics and productivity of the players he enjoys watching. There is nothing wrong with either approach. The only difference is that Berri’s work easily translates into a scientific publication format. Its details all concern finding some measure, defending that measure, identifying advantages of using that measure, and discussing how this measure may be insufficient. In other words, Berri and other scientists are biased into finding “measurables”. For better or for worse, because in the end, the basic scientific hypothesis is “how much.” How much did this drug improve patient outcome? How much did the tumor reduce? How much is a photon deflected from its true path by a massive body? Can we identify how many molecules of this do we have?

This isn’t necessarily a reductionist approach; at its best, finding quantifables is a way of creating a reference point so we can start to discuss things. Thus, the proper angle to take against a scientist (i.e. Berri) is to identify and improve on his assumptions, find a different metric that gives a higher correlation, or improve on his metric by finding more terms that add value to enhance correlation. In other words, scientific discussion is limited by the context of the methods, which acts as a framework for subsequent arguments.

The sports writers do not have this limitation. They can seque between stats and aesthetics. Like Simmons, they can also sprinkle pop-culture references that actually advance their argument. However, I think because they do approach things from an aesthetic angle first, they tend to provide contexts based on motifs and not on metrics. In other words, it allows Simmons to focus on the literary spin of his piece, relating the NBA offseason to lines from  the movie Almost Famous. It allows Posnanski to say that he wants a new stat, because he doesn’t like how OPS is pronounce “ops” and not “Oh-Pee-Ess”. There is a lot of room for literary flourish, which shouldn’t make the argument any more objective, but it becomes much more enjoyable.

Interestingly enough, and, ironically, I haven’t looked at this for all cases, I think for the most part, Simmons and Berri emphasizes the same attributes they want from their ideal basketball player. They want someone who can shoot well (i.e. high shooting percentage), score a lot of points, make passes for assists, don’t cough the ball up, and make rebounds. Where they differ is in how they rank the so called “top players”.  Berri has noted that most conventional players evaluation centers on points scored (without regard to the number of misses the player made.) He has noted that player rankings and player salaries have a correlation of 0.99 compared to points scored. And strangely enough, Berri’s work showed that scoring points, by itself, does not lead to higher efficiency differentials. Despite what writers and general managers profess about finding complete basketball players, they put their money on the point-getters. In other words, all the verbiage devoted to arguing how smooth and graceful players are, how much one should enjoy their talent before they fade into old age, the idea of “aesthetics” and “points” are no different. It’s interesting that Berri noted that in fact there may be an implicit metric being used to evaluate players based on the so called explicit measure of a player’s style/gracefulness/aethetics.

 

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Should Everyone Be Unhappy with the New Contract of Rajon Rondo?

This morning it was reported at ESPN.com that the Boston Celtics have signed Rajon Rondo to a five year contract, worth at least $55 million.  This is not the maximum salary the Celtics could have offered, but it does top the $45 million offer the Celtics were reportedly offering before.  

Had Rondo not signed he would have been a restricted free agents when the 2009-10 season ended.  In other words, Boston would have still had a chance to re-sign Rondo when the season ended; and at the moment, the Celtics were not bidding against anyone for Rondo’s services.  So did the Celtics overpay for a point guard who averages less than 12 points per game?

As is often noted, an NBA player’s impact on wins extends beyond his per game scoring average.  And when we look at the entire box score –and covert those numbers into wins – we see that Rondo is a very productive player.  Last year he produced 17.2 wins for the Celtics.  No player wearing Celtic green – as Table One reports – produced more last season.

Table One: The Boston Celtics in 2008-09

Among point guards, only Chris Paul (28.2 Wins Produced) and Jason Kidd (19.8 Wins Produced) offered more.  And in the entire NBA, Rondo ranked 7^th in Wins Produced. In sum, last season Rondo was the most productive player on the Celtics, and ranked in the top ten among all NBA players.

Rondo, though, is not going to be paid like a top 10 NBA player.  To put his new contract in perspective, here is what some point guards are being paid who produced less than Rondo last year (contract details from the website of Patricia Bender and USA Today):

Chauncey Billups: 5 years at $60 million [12.8 Wins Produced in 2006-07, 10.0 Wins Produced in 2008-09]

Baron Davis: 5 years at $65 million [10.7 Wins Produced in 2007-08, 1.5 Wins Produced in 2008-09]

Tony Parker: 6 years at $66 million [5.3 Wins Produced in 2003-04, 8.5 Wins Produced in 2008-09]

Deron Williams:  4 years at $63.7 million [14.2 Wins Produced in 2007-08, 10.9 Wins Produced in 2008-09]

The production numbers are from the year before each of these players signed his contract (as well as what the player did last year).  As one can see, each of these point guards is paid at least as much per season as Boston is reportedly going to pay Rondo.  None of these guards, though, produced 17.2 wins in the season before their current contract was signed.  In fact, these four guards have never produced that many wins in a single regular season.

So why don’t the Celtics raise their offer?  The obvious answer is that player salaries in the NBA are not determined by Wins Produced.  The primary determinant of salaries is scoring, and Rondo is not much of a scorer.  Last year he only averaged 11.9 points per game; and on a per-minute basis, he was below average for a point guard.

If we examine what Rondo should be paid – according to the logic of the NBA’s free agent market [something we discussed in The Wages of Wins and in a published article in 2008] – then Boston’s original offer was closer to the mark.  So by the logic of the NBA’s free agent market, the Celtics are over paying a bit (but not much).

When we look at this contract from both sides, one could argue both the team and player may not be happy with this contract.  Boston is probably paying Rondo more than any other team would have offered.  And Rondo – if we think about his contribution to wins – is underpaid.

So what can we do to make everyone happy?  From the Celtics perspective, Rondo should focus more on scoring.  If he averaged about 15 points per game – which he could if he simply took about three more shots per game (or less than one per quarter) – then Rondo’s pay would match what he should get according to the logic of the NBA’s free agent market.  Of course, Rondo would still be producing more wins than his would pay would suggest.  To put his production of wins in line with his paycheck, perhaps Rondo could reduce his production of wins by committing a few more turnovers or reducing his steals.  NBA players aren’t paid for turnovers and steals, so changing these numbers won’t change people’s perceptions of his performance.  Changing these numbers, though, will alter Rondo’s production of wins.

Assuming none of these changes occur, I will make the following predictions:

1. Rondo will continue to produce more than he is paid. Because he does not rely on scoring to produce wins, the NBA player market will continue to undervalue Rondo’s services.

2. Given the age of Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce, we can expect the productivity of Rondo’s key teammates to decline in the near future. When this happens – and the Celtics start winning less often – perceptions of Rondo’s pay will change. Specifically, when the Celtics are not one of the top teams in the NBA, someone will argue that the Celtics overpaid for Rondo.   

Let me close by noting that The Wages of Wins was published in 2006, and the free agent model reported has been updated since that time.  As of 2008 – I have not added data from this past summer yet – the story told in The Wages of Wins still stands. Scoring dominates perceptions of value in the NBA (and you see the same story with respect to other decisions). And as long as this continues – and as long as Rondo maintains his production of wins — the money Rondo receives will not be consistent with his contribution to team wins.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

Feeling Lawson Regrets Yet?

Yes, it has only been two games (so this is a very small sample).  And yes, Brandon Jennings and Ricky Rubio have to play in an NBA game.  But look at what Ty Lawson has done (reported in Table One) across his first two games.

Table One: Ty Lawson after Two Games

These numbers weren’t generated against the Memphis Grizzlies (sorry, Chip).  Lawson’s first two games were at home against the Utah Jazz and on the road against Portland.  As one can see, against these two opponents, Lawson was well above average with respect to every statistic except assists and blocked shots.

Again, it’s early.  But do you think decision-makers in Minnesota, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia – the three teams that took a different point guard than Lawson last summer – are regretting their decision?  If I understand human behavior, I would say no.  And even if Lawson continues to produce, the answer will still be no (people have amazing powers of rationalization when it comes to their own choices).  But I think the fans of these teams – who might have questioned this choice last summer — should start feeling the pangs of regret.  And if not yet, I suspect those pangs will begin soon.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

Showing that Criticism is not Equal to Hate

In general, if you tell fans of a team that there is little hope before the season even starts, those fans are going to become unhappy.  At least this has been true when I have discussed the fortunes of the less-fortunate teams in the NBA. 

Often when I state that a particular NBA team is not very good (or a particular player is not very productive), fans of that team will declare that I “hate” their favorite team (or favorite player).  To prove that this is not the case I am going to return to the subject of the Detroit Pistons.

As the following picture illustrates, I am a fan of the Pistons. 

When Henry Abbott asked me what I wanted for winning the TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown, I asked for an autographed banner of the Detroit Pistons.  And for better or worse – and as we will see, last year, and probably this next year, are part of the “worse” – this banner is staying on my office wall.

The Pistons Decline

How did last year become part of the “worse”?  In 2007-08, the Pistons won 59 games. And the team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of 8.17 ranked second in the NBA (behind Boston). 

At the onset of the 2008-09 season, the team that won 59 games was still essentially the same.  But after winning the first two games of the 2008-09 season, general manager Joe Dumars made a bold move.  Chauncey Billups – the team’s leader in Wins Produced in 2007-08 – was sent to the Denver Nuggets for Allen Iverson.  Given the past performance of Billups and Iverson, one suspected this move would remove Detroit from the list of title contenders in 2009.  Looking at Table One, we can see that’s indeed what happened. 

Table One: The Detroit Pistons in 2008-09

Iverson ended up playing nearly 2,000 minutes in Detroit, producing only 1.4 wins.  His WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.034 was below Iverson’s career average; but even if Iverson had performed at the level seen across his career the Pistons would have struggled.   Iverson’s career WP48 entering the 2008-09 season was 0.083.  Had Iverson played at this level the Pistons would have only won two more games last year [in contrast, Billups produced 16.0 wins for the Pistons in 2007-08].

Although I doubt that Dumars looks at Wins Produced in making decisions, I suspect he knew that going from Billups to Iverson was a step back.  But the Pistons — with Billups — were not likely to win a title in 2009.  Given the age of Billups, it was time to start building another title contender.  And with Iverson’s expiring contract, Dumars had the ability to start building during the summer of 2009.

So in the short-run the Billups-Iverson trade looked bad. But in the long-run, this could be thought of as a stroke of genius.  Unfortunately, the word is “could”.  When we look at the moves Dumars made with this cap space, we (and I mean “fans of the Pistons”) are left disappointed.

Faltering on the First Steps to the Next Title

Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva – two players who have never been above average in their careers – were signed to relatively large contracts.  And Antonio McDyess – the player who led the Pistons in Wins Produced in 2008-09 – was allowed to depart for San Antonio.  Such moves leave the Pistons with the following depth chart.

Potential First String

PG: Rodney Stuckey [4.1 Wins Produced, 0.079 WP48]

SG: Richard Hamilton [2.5 Wins produced, 0.052 WP48]

SF: Tayshaun Prince [7.8 Wins Produced, 0.122 WP48]

PF: Charlie Villanueva [3.8 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48]

C: Ben Wallace [4.3 Wins Produced, 0.159 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Will Bynum [0.9 Wins Produced, 0.052 WP48]

SG: Ben Gordon [6.1 Wins Produced, 0.097 WP48]

SF: Austin Daye [rookie]

PF: Jason Maxiell [2.6 Wins Produced, 0.090 WP48]

C: Kwame Brown [1.6 Wins Produced, 0.078 WP48]

As noted this past summer, the Pistons 2009-10 depth chart fails to inspire confidence.  Ben Wallace and Tayshaun Prince were the only veterans who were above average last year.  And the Wins Produced of the nine veterans listed above only sums to 33.7.  This is hardly enough to contend for a title.  Yes, maybe Big Ben to can return to what he was the last time he played for the Pistons.  Any maybe the younger players will get much better.  And maybe…. I am spending too much time looking at my Pistons banner (and drinking the Kool-Aid).

The numbers seem to suggest that if the Pistons get to play teams like the Memphis Grizzlies every night, then Detroit will look amazing.  But against the better NBA teams the Pistons will probably have problems.

The silver lining in all this is that Joe Dumars is more than willing to make different decisions when things don’t work out as he originally thought.  Past mistakes – see Rodney White, Darko Milicic, and yes, Allen Iverson – were soon allowed to go elsewhere.  So when the Pistons don’t contend in 2009-10, we can expect changes to be made.  Such changes could –and we must emphasize the word “could” – bring in some players who are truly above average.  And if that happens, my banner will look so much better in my office.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

 

Previewing the Year of the Super Teams

To the extent that competitive balance matters (and its importance tends to be overstated), the NBA has a competitive balance problem.  As we detail in The Wages of Wins, relative to MLB, NFL, and the NHL; winning percentage (once one controls for schedule length) has a wider dispersion in the Association. And while competitive balance has improved in baseball, football, and hockey over time; the NBA’s level of balance has remained relatively poor (by the way, yesterday this issue was discussed at Slate.com — the NBA discussion starts around the 15 minute mark)

Again, the impact competitive balance has on league revenue has been overstated in the past.  Still, if you think this is important, the 2009-10 season is going to disappoint.  Having examined each team in the NBA, I think the 2009-10 season is going to be remembered as “The Year of the Super Teams” (or some such title).

If we go back to 1973-74, in only three seasons did the NBA have more than two teams win 60 or more games.

2008-09: Cleveland (66), Lakers (65), Celtics (62)

1997-98: Chicago (62), Utah (62), Lakers (61), Seattle (61)

1996-97: Chicago (69), Utah (64), Miami (61)

And if we consider teams that have won 75% of their games (62 wins or more), there never has been a year where more than three teams surpassed this mark.

This could all change in 2009-10.  When we look at how the best teams in the NBA improved this past summer, it seems likely that more than three teams will surpass the 75% mark in 2009-10.

The identity of these teams will be noted in the following preview.  Before we get to the preview, though, let’s quickly review the assumptions and qualifiers (mostly borrowed from a past forecast of an NBA season).

Assumptions and Qualifiers

If you know WP48 (Wins Produced per 48 minutes) and how many minutes a player plays, then you know Wins Produced. And as noted many times here, Wins Produced and actual wins are quite closely related (which is not surprising, since Wins Produced is based on the link between wins and offensive and defensive efficiency).

In looking at the past it’s easy to see a player’s Wins Produced (well, easy in the sense that it can be done). When we look towards the future, though, calculating Wins Produced becomes a challenge. First of all, we don’t know future productivity.  Yes, there is a strong link between past and future per-minute performance (for veterans, the link is weaker for rookies).  But it’s not a perfect link. In other words, players can get better (or worse).

Then there is minutes played.  I have not modeled minutes played, so for these I have to make an educated guess (with the emphasis on “guess” not “educated”).

All that being said, I did go through each team’s roster and made an effort to forecast the next season.  This forecast looks at past performance, but also considers factors like injury, improvement due to age, declines due to age, coaching, etc… (i.e. things that can alter performance). 

The following is an estimation of where each team will finish (given the team’s roster at the start of the season.  Teams are listed in four groups: Lottery Team, Playoff Team—Likely First Round Exit, Playoff Team – Possible Second Round Exit, and Title Contender.  A Lottery Team is expected to win less than 30 games.  Those expected to exit in the First Round are expected to win between 30 and 45 games.  Second Round teams should win between 45 and 55 games. And Title Contenders should exceed 55 wins.  These are obviously rough approximations, but should give an idea of where each team is likely to finish (given their current roster).

The Eastern Conference

Here is how I see the Eastern Conference unfolding:

Lottery Teams: The New Jersey Nets and the New York Knicks are the two teams in the Eastern Conference that I don’t think have a very good chance of making the playoffs.  So fans of these teams might want to pay attention to college basketball (and what happen internationally) and start thinking about the 2010 draft (and the 2010 free agent market).  Update: As noted by Daniel, only the Nets need to look forward to the draft.  Utah has the Knicks’ 2010 first round pick.

Possible Playoff Team — Likely First Round Exit: For the following teams I can come up with a scenario where they make the playoffs (some of these scenarios are more plausible than others), but I don’t think they are good enough to secure the fourth or fifth seed in the playoffs (seeds six through eight play Cleveland, Orlando, and Boston in the first round and therefore get to go home after the first round).  Charlotte, Detroit, Miami, Indiana, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Toronto each have a team that could win between 30 and 40 games (and some might push over 40 while others will fall a bit short of 30).  From this list of seven teams, I expect three will fill in the lower seeds in the Eastern Conference playoffs (and again, lose in the first round).  The identity of these three teams is difficult to ascertain, and mostly depends upon how specific players recover from injuries. 

Possible Playoff Team — Possible Second Round Exit: The winner of the playoff series between the fourth and fifth seed gets to advance to the second round, where that team will likely lose to Cleveland, Orlando, or Boston.  There are three teams that I think are the most likely contenders for those two playoff spots: Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington each have a team that seems likely to win between 40 and 50 games.  This is probably good enough to surpass the previous listing of teams, but nowhere near good enough to catch the elite in the conference.

NBA Title Contender: Cleveland has added Shaquille O’Neal, Jamario Moon, Anthony Parker (and maybe Leon Powe); Orlando has added Vince Carter (and enough frontcourt talent to play Rashard Lewis at small forward some of the time); and Boston might get Kevin Garnett for the entire season (and might have lost Glen Davis for awhile – which is probably a positive).   Each of these teams dominated the Eastern Conference last year, and each is probably better in 2009-10.  If each of these teams surpasses 62 wins — and one team from the Western Conference does teh same — then 2009-10 (as noted above) is a special year. Given the dominance of these teams it seems unlikely that any will fail to reach the second round.  Unfortunately, for at least one of these teams, the second round is as far as they will get.  Yes, 2009-10 is a season where we KNOW before the season starts that a truly dominant team – and I think Cleveland, Orlando, and Boston in 2009-10 could rank among the all-time great teams – will fail to reach the conference finals.   This is bad news for one of these teams, but very good news for fans of the NBA.

Western Conference

This is how I see the Western Conference unfolding:

Lottery Teams: If you are a fan of Memphis, Minnesota, Oklahoma City, and Sacramento, you probably already know that the next big event in your team’s history is likely to be the 2010 NBA draft lottery. 

Possible Playoff Team — Likely First Round Exit: The most productive player in the NBA is Chris Paul. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have most productive teammates.  Consequently, although I think New Orleans will make the playoffs, I don’t think they should expect to go beyond the first round.  I do expect, though, that the Hornets will be at least the seventh seed (and maybe the sixth seed).  Who will be the eighth seed? Golden State – at least before Brandan Wright was injured – has a shot (Corey Maggette is again listed on the Yahoo.com depth chart at power forward).  The LA Clippers also have a shot (at least, if Blake Griffin comes back soon).  And Phoenix also has a chance.  But I think the favorite for this slot is Houston (which means that Bill Simmons and I agree on something).

Possible Playoff Team — Possible Second Round Exit: For Denver and Utah, it seems more likely that each will exit in the first round.  But it’s possible that each team could pull off a first round upset and advance to the second round.  To go further, though, seems less likely (at least to me).

Western Conference Title Contenders:  Note the label change.  I think the NBA championship will be won by Cleveland, Boston, or Orlando.   But only one of the Eastern Conference titans will appear in the Finals.  Who will this team play?   The Western Conference Champion will probably be Dallas, the LA Lakers, Portland, or San Antonio.   Dallas and San Antonio have to continue to get production from relatively ancient players.  The Lakers need Andrew Bynum to produce.  And Portland’s efforts are going to be hampered by the injury to Nicolas Batum. 

Obviously I think these four teams will comprise the entire population of the second round in the West.  And just as obviously, at least two of these teams will not leave the second round.  But one of these teams should reach the NBA Finals (where again, I think they will probably lose). 

Closing Notes

It does seem quite possible that at least one of the four best teams in the West will win at least 62 games.  And so it’s possible at least four teams (Cleveland, Orlando, Boston, and at least one Western team) will win more than 75% of their games; making the 2009-10 the year of the Super Teams.  So the NBA will continue to be competitively imbalanced.  But I expect interest in the Association to remain strong.  At least, given my interest in writing about this sport, I certainly hope that is the case.

One last note in closing… there certainly will be surprises in 2009-10 (remember, players in the NBA are generally consistent, but performance can change).  So some teams will do better or worse than forecasted.   But unlike baseball and football, one can really know quite a bit about outcomes in the NBA before the season even starts.  This means teams identified as “lottery teams” should not expect to morph into this year’s New Orleans Saints or Colorado Rockies.  And the title contenders –barring major injury – will not become this year’s Tennessee Titans or New York Mets.  In sum, the NBA – relative to baseball and football – is much more predictable (just not perfectly predictable).   

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

Hoping for a Plan in Atlanta

Note: The following repeats much of what I said about the Atlanta Hawks in August.  Missing from that post was a table reporting what happened in 2008-09 and a listing of this team’s depth chart.  These items have been constructed and the original post has now been re-written.  With this post, Detroit is the only team that needs to be completely reviewed.  The Detroit post will be up later today or tomorrow.

Back in 2004-05, the Atlanta Hawks won 13 games with a -10.2 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).  Looking at the ten players who led this team in minutes played, we can see why Atlanta failed so miserably (WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes).

Al Harrington: 2,550 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.003 WP48

Josh Childress: 2,376 min., 10.8 Wins Produced, 0.218 WP48

Antoine Walker: 2,128 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.002 WP48

Josh Smith: 2,050 min., 8.1 Wins Produced, 0.189 WP48

Tyronn Lue: 1,528 min., 2.4 Wins Produced, 0.076 WP48

Pedrag Drobnjak: 1,435 min., -2.7 Wins Produced, -0.091 WP48

Tony Delk: 1,340 min., 0.3 Wins Produced, 0.012 WP48

Boris Diaw: 1,201 min., 1.1 Wins Produced, 0.044 WP48

Jason Collier: 942 min., -3.1 Wins Produced, -0.158 WP48

Royal Ivey: 809 min., -0.7 Wins Produced, -0.039 WP48

The Wins Produced of this collection sums to 16.0, telling us that this team failed because the players it employed were generally (although not always) unproductive. 

Over the next three seasons the Hawks improved, winning 26, 30, and then 37 games.  Last season the Hawks took another step forward and won 47 games, advancing to the second round of the NBA playoffs.  

Reviewing 2008-09

Table One reports how the players Atlanta employed last season performed.

Table One: The Atlanta Hawks in 2008-09

Table One ranks players by Wins Produced.  We can also repeat the exercise performed above and look at the players who led the Hawks in minutes played.

Joe Johnson: 3,124 min., 8.6 Wins Produced, 0.131 WP48

Mike Bibby: 2,740 min., 7.8 Wins Produced, 0.136 WP48

Josh Smith: 2,421 min., 5.9 Wins Produced, 0.116 WP48

Al Horford: 2,242 min., 9.4 Wins Produced, 0.201 WP48

Marvin Williams: 2,093 min., 6.5 Wins Produced, 0.149 WP48

Ronald Murray: 1,975 min., 1.4 Wins Produced, 0.035 WP48

Maurice Evans: 1,840 min., 2.1 Wins Produced, 0.055 WP48

Zaza Pachulia: 1,473 min., 2.7 Wins Produced, 0.088 WP48

Solomon Jones: 675 min., -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.012 WP48

Acie Law: 560 min., 0.5 Wins Produced, 0.040 WP48

If we look over these two lists we note that only Josh Smith appears both times.  This suggests that the Hawks improved because different players got to call themselves Hawks.

Now the Hawks wish to take the next step.  Steve Aschburner of Sports Illustrated, though, tells us — in Can Hawks evolve into contender? — the plan is now changing.

The Hawks, for the most part, have had a “stay-cation” summer. With Rick Sund passing his one-year anniversary as GM this offseason, Atlanta diligently has kept intact the nucleus assembled by predecessor Billy Knight. …”Yeah, I like our club,” Sund told the AJC. “The only reason I say that is there’s still growth from within.”

Looking at 2009-10

The Hawks have not entirely stood pat.  The team traded Acie Law and Speedy Claxton to the Golden State Warriors for Jamal Crawford.  On draft night the Hawks chose point guard Jeff Teague. And the Hawks also signed Joe Smith.

Judging by what he did last year in college, Teague is not expected to be a major producer of wins next season.  And when we look at the potential depth chart for Atlanta – taken from Yahoo.com  and ESPN.com – we see that Crawford and Joe Smith are also not expected to significant producers of wins.

Potential First String

PG: Mike Bibby [7.8 Wins Produced, 0.136 WP48]

SG: Joe Johnson [8.6 Wins Produced, 0.131 WP48]

SF: Marvin Williams [6.5 Wins Produced, 0.149 WP48]

PF: Josh Smith [5.9 Wins Produced, 0.116 WP48]

C: Al Horford [9.4 Wins Produced, 0.201 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Jeff Teague [rookie]

SG: Jamal Crawford [1.2 Wins Produced, 0.023 WP48]

SF: Maurice Evans [2.1 Wins Produced, 0.055 WP48]

PF: Joe Smith [1.2 Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48]

C: Zaza Pachulia [2.7 Wins Produced, 0.088 WP48]

A review of this depth chart reveals that every player in the Hawks potential starting line-up is above average.  But the team has very little off the bench.  And except for Horford, no player that is very far above average.  Consequently, this team lags behind the top teams in the East.

Once again, though, the plan is that these players will get better. And this is possible.  Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Al Horford are still in their early twenties.  Improvement at that age does happen. 

But we should be realistic about how much improvement is likely.  Basketball players – relative to what we see in baseball and football – are very consistent over time.  So although there is a standard age profile in basketball (players first improve and then decline), the slopes up and down are gradual.  Consequently, a dramatic change in player productivity is not something one should count upon.

Let’s imagine, though, that a dramatic change did happen.  Specifically, what if Williams, Smith, and Horford all boosted their WP48 by 50% (a fantastic percentage I just made up)?  These three players produced 21.7 wins last year.  Therefore, a 50% jump would result in 10.9 additional wins.  Such a leap moves the Hawks from a 45 win team (that is what their efficiency differential said they should have won in 2008-09) to a 56 win team.  Had this happened last season, the Hawks would have moved from the 4^th seed in the Eastern Conference all the way to…. okay, the 4^th seed.  Yes, the Cavaliers, Celtics, and Magic all won more than 56 games last year.  And these teams have all made moves this summer that will likely increase their win totals in 2009-10.  

So a 50% improvement in the three young players the Hawks are counting on to evolve (as Aschburner put it) would not be enough to overtake the top teams in the East. And even if that improvement happened, the Hawks are still likely to lose production from players like Mike Bibby, who are on the wrong side of the age profile. 

If we put it all together, the Hawks plan to contend in the East appears flawed.  Improvement from within is probably not going to close the gap between Atlanta and the top teams in the East.  This team might as well hope the Cavaliers, Magic, and Celtics suffer major injuries.  Certainly if such a hope was realized, the Hawks could also rise to the top.

As the saying goes, though, hope is not a plan.  And at this point, it doesn’t look like Atlanta really has much of a plan.  This is a team that has risen from the ashes because it acquired more productive players. To move on, more roster changes are needed. 

It’s possible fans of this team might disagree.  Two years ago Boston Celtics needed seven games to eliminate the Hawks in the playoffs.  This year, injuries to the Hawks appeared to derail their post-season run.  Despite such evidence, we must remember that the 82 game regular season is the better measure of a team’s quality.  In 2009-10 the Hawks finished with a win total in the mid 40s.  To seriously contend in the East, the team needs at least 15 more wins.  Improvement from existing players should simply not be expected to close this gap.  Yes, one can hope.  But again, that’s not really a plan.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

Is Houston Destined for the Lottery?

Note: The following repeats much of what I said about the Houston Rockets in August.  Missing from that post was a table reporting what happened in 2008-09 and a complete discussion of this team’s depth chart.  These items have been constructed and the original post has now been re-written.  With this post, only Atlanta and Detroit remain to be completely reviewed.  Those posts will be up before the season starts (I hope).

The teams considered playoff contenders in the Western Conference include Portland, the LA Lakers, San Antonio, Dallas (these four are the favorites for the title), Denver, New Orleans, Utah, and maybe Phoenix (and maybe Golden State and maybe the LA Clippers).  With the exception of Phoenix (and Golden State and the Clippers), all these teams made the playoffs in 2009.  Only one Western Conference playoff team – the Houston Rockets – are generally omitted from the list of 2009-10 contenders.

The Rockets were dropped from the list when it was learned Yao Ming would miss the next season.  Coupled with the injury to Tracy McGrady, the Rockets now face the prospect of entering the next season without a “star” player.  Here is how Chris Mannix describes the team in Sports Illustrated: Houston is now a pale imitation of the team that took the Lakers to seven games in the Western Conference semifinals.

Mannix goes on offer the following quite from Daryl Morey: “When the previews come out, we’ll probably be in the back of the magazines, under the cologne ads.”

In John Hollinger’s preview at ESPN.com (insider access required), ten teams are listed ahead of the Rockets. 

The Above Average Rockets

Perhaps, though, Houston doesn’t have that big of a problem.  Here is what the Rockets did in 2008-09.

Table One: The Houston Rockets in 2008-09

Yes the Rockets did receive 15.2 wins from Ming and McGrady.  But the Rockets also received above average performances [average Wins Produced per 48 minutes – WP48 – is 0.100] from Luis Scola, Shane Battier, Carl Landry, Chuck Hayes, and Kyle Lowry.  And in the off-season, the Rockets essentially swapped a slightly below average Ron Artest for a consistently above average Trevor Ariza.   Consequently the Rockets enter 2009-10 with the following depth chart (taken from Yahoo.com and ESPN.com):

Potential First String

PG: Aaron Brooks [-0.5 Wins Produced, -0.012 WP48]

SG: Tracy McGrady [4.0 Wins produced, 0.163 WP48]

SF: Trevor Ariza [8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48]

PF: Chuck Hayes [2.5 Wins Produced, 0.139 WP48]

C: Luis Scola [9.8 Wins Produced, 0.189 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Kyle Lowry [4.8 Wins Produced, 0.138 WP48]

SG: Jermaine Taylor [rookie]

SF: Shane Battier [6.2 Wins Produced, 0.147 WP48]

PF: Carl Landry [5.4 Wins Produced, 0.175 WP48]

C: David Andersen [rookie]

If McGrady takes the court this year, then the Rockets will have seven above average players in their rotation.  And these seven players produced 40.7 wins last year in less than 12,000 minutes. 

As I noted in August – when I originally commented on the Rockets–an NBA team that avoids overtime will play 19,680 minutes in a season.  Consequently, it seems likely some (if not all) of these players will play more minutes in 2009-10.  And if per-minute performance doesn’t change, increasing the minutes of these players (except for Aaron Brooks), will lead the Rockets to more than 40 wins. 

The eighth seed in the West last year won 48 games.  So if the West is the same in 2009-10, the Rockets will have to come closer to 50 wins to make the playoffs.  This may be difficult.  But I am suggesting – contrary to the perceptions of this team – that it’s possible the Rockets can make the playoffs without McGrady or Ming.

A Collection of Non-Scorers

Once again, perceptions say this is not possible.  When we look at the scoring of the above seven veteran players not named McGrady (and Ming), we can see why expectations are so low.

Luis Scola: 12.7 Points per game, 20.1 Points per 48 minutes

Shane Battier: 7.3 Points per game, 10.3 Points per 48 minutes

Trevor Ariza: 8.9 Points per game, 17.5 Points per 48 minutes

Aaron Brooks: 11.2 Points per game, 21.5 Points per 48 minutes

Carl Landry: 9.2 Points per game, 20.9 Points per 48 minutes

Chuck Hayes: 1.3 Points per game, 5.1 Points per 48 minutes

Kyle Lowry: 7.6 Points per game, 16.9 Points per 48 minutes

Scola leads this group with 12.7 points per game.  When we turn to scoring per 48 minutes we see only three players who exceed the league average of 19.8.  Scoring drives perceptions in the NBA, and the lack of scoring numbers from this group suggests the Rockets are doomed.

But wins are about more than scoring.  And when we measure these players contributions to wins (via Wins Produced), we see that Houston has fewer problems than people believe.  Consequently, I think it’s possible that Morey’s considerable reputation is about to become further enhanced. 

If the Rockets do make the playoffs without McGrady and Ming, the following will also occur:

Morey is going to be considered for Executive of the Year

Rick Adelman will be considered for Coach of the Year

Aaron Brooks – who may lead this team in scoring – will be considered one of the best point guards in the game.

All of this is possible because this collection of non-scorers is also a collection of above average performers.  Unfortunately, it seems likely that none of the non-scorers will get much credit if this team exceeds expectations.

Performance History

Let me close by noting that the six above average performers listed above have a history of productive play.  For example, consider the recent history of these players.

Luis Scola:

2007-08: 4.8 Wins Produced, 0.113 WP48

Shane Battier:

2007-08: 6.5 Wins Produced, 0.107 WP48

2006-07: 6.4 Wins Produced, 0.103 WP48

Trevor Ariza:

2007-08: 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.225 WP48

2006-07: 5.8 Wins Produced, 0.217 WP48

Aaron Brooks

2007-08: 0.3 Wins Produced, 0.020 WP48

Carl Landry

2007-08: 4.3 Wins Produced, 0.292 WP48

Chuck Hayes:

2007-08: 6.7 Wins Produced, 0.206 WP48

2006-07: 7.8 Wins Produced, 0.217 WP48

Kyle Lowry

2007-08: 4.3 Wins Produced, 0.101 WP48

With the exception of Aaron Brooks, these players were above average before 2008-09.  This suggests that these players will be above average in 2009-10.  If that happens, the Rockets have a good chance of being an above average team.  And this team – again, contrary to popular perception — might avoid the lottery in 2010.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.