Gordon and Villanueva?

For reasons I will touch upon in my next post, this has been a busy week.  So busy that I have actually been out of touch with this forum and hence I am quite surprised to see more than 100 comments on my last post.  At this point, many of these are unread. But I did read enough to get a sense that some people (although perhaps not many) are interested in some comment on the Detroit’s recent acquisitions.

The story of these acquisitions begins last fall. Joe Dumars decided very early in the 2008-09 season that the Pistons – as constructed in October of 2008 — were not going to win the NBA title in 2009.  Having reached that conclusion, Dumars traded Chauncey Billups to the Denver Nuggets for Allen Iverson.  At the time Dumars argued that Iverson would help.  I disagreed, and even argued that Dumars might also think that Iverson would probably not help the Pistons win another title in 2009.  And I went on to argue that Dumars was really motivated to trade Billups by the fact Iverson’s contract expired in 2009 and thus the Pistons would have substantial cap room this summer.

Although we could debate motivations, it’s now clear the results met expectations.

• The Pistons – with Iverson – struggled and barely made the playoffs. 
• And the Pistons entered the off-season with substantial cap room.

Within moments of the start of the free agent signing period – as PistonPowered argues — much of this cap room vanished.  And in its place the Pistons had acquired the services of Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva. 

As a person who follows the Pistons, here is my initial reaction: Ugh!!! 

When we look at Wins Produced we can understand the lack of enthusiasm for these signings.  Here is what Ben Gordon has done across the first five years of his career:

Gordon’s Wins Produced = 15.3

Gordon’s WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] = 0.059

And here is what Villanueva has done across his first four seasons:

Villanueva’s Wins Produced = 11.2

Villanueva’s WP48 = 0.074

An average player posts a 0.100 WP48, so each player is posting a career mark that is below average. Now when we look at 2008-09 we see numbers that are much closer to average. That being said, each player is now being paid like an above average player (in fact, Gordon is getting more than $10 million per season).   And I don’t think all the numbers support this position.

Of course, if all we focus upon is scoring, then Gordon and Villanueva are above average players.  But once we move past scoring we see that Gordon was below average last season with respect to rebounds, steals, turnovers, blocked shots, and assists.  And Villanueva was below average with respect to steals, turnovers, and personal fouls (and not really far above average with respect to anything else).

In sum, it looks like the Pistons have traded away valuable cap space for two players who are not going to take this team to a championship.  As I noted a few posts ago, it seems clear that an NBA champion needs a player who posts a WP48 in excess of 0.200.  At this moment, though, the Pistons do not have a player on the roster that has surpassed this mark.  Now Antonio McDyess did post a mark in excess of 0.200 last year, but…

• McDyess is currently unsigned.
• and he will be 35 next season. 

So even if McDyess comes back, he will be very old by NBA standards and therefore he is not likely to be the key player on a future NBA title team.

Once again, it looks like these two moves are not going to produce a title in Detroit in 2010.  And given the length of the contracts, it doesn’t look like the first part of the next decade looks promising either.

By the way, had I checked earlier I might have put the Pistons aside and spent this post on the relative merits of Trevor Ariza and Ron Artest.  I guess that post will have to wait for later.

- 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.

Detroit Refuses Rondo?

This past week we have seen Cleveland acquire Shaq and Orlando acquire Vince Carter.  We have heard that Amare Stoudemire might be going to Golden State and Yao Ming might be done for awhile (if not forever).  And on top of all this we had the NBA draft.

All of this news gives me plenty of topics to discuss.  But despite this abundance I want to choose an item off the menu.  About a week ago, Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo! Sports reported that the Celtics were shopping Rajon Rondo.  And the potential trading partner was the Detroit Pistons.  Here was the specific proposal:

The Celtics send Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen to the Detroit Pistons for Tayshaun Prince, Richard Hamilton, and Rodney Stuckey. 

Let’s look at this proposal in term of each player’s Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] from last season:

Rajon Rondo: 18.3 Wins Produced, 0.332 WP48

Ray Allen: 9.8 Wins Produced, 0.163 WP48

Tayshaun Prince: 7.3 Wins Produced, 0.114 WP48

Rodney Stuckey: 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.077 WP48

Richard Hamilton: 1.9 Wins Produced, 0.040 WP48

So the Celtics were offering two players who produced 28.1 wins for three players who combined for 13. 2 Wins Produced. Of course Ray Allen – who turns 34 in July – is ancient by NBA standards.  But Stuckey is only two months younger than Rondo. So Rondo is not only the most productive player in this proposed trade, he is nearly the youngest. 

Despite what we can see about productivity and age, though, it was the Pistons – according to Wojnarowski – who rejected this proposal.  Here is what Wojnarowski said a week ago:

For the Pistons, this deal makes little sense, unless they wanted to let Allen’s expiring deal gain even more salary cap space for the free-agent class of 2010. The idea of trading his three best returners for an expiring contract and one good young player wasn’t worth considering for Dumars, sources said.

So Wojnarowski argues – and apparently the Pistons agree – that this deal makes little sense for Detroit. In fact, it wasn’t worth considering. Let’s try and understand this reasoning by focusing on points scored per 48 minutes

Rajon Rondo: 17.3

Ray Allen: 23.9

Tayshaun Prince: 18.3

Rodney Stuckey: 20.2

Richard Hamilton: 25.8

When we focus on scoring, the worst player in this transaction is Rondo. Given this lack of scoring, it’s hard for some to see Rondo as anything more than just a “good” player who might have some maturity issues.  In fact, such was the recent argument of Tony Massarotti of the Boston Globe.  Massarotti argued that Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are the key players on the Celtics and Boston could win another title without Rondo. 

To be fair to Massarotti, if the Celtics find someone as productive as Rondo, what he says is true.  But here is the list of point guards who produced more wins than Rondo last year:

Chris Paul: 29.4 Wins Produced, 0.471 WP48

Jason Kidd: 21.0 Wins Produced, 0.349 WP48

Yes, that’s the list.  And Kidd is now 68 years old.  After Rondo we see the following five names on the Wins Produced ranking of point guards in 2008-09:

Jose Calderon: 12. 4 Wins Produced, 0.255 WP48

Andre Miller: 12.2 Wins Produced, 0.197 WP48

Steve Nash: 12.0 Wins Produced, 0.232 WP48

Deron Williams: 11.9 Win Produced, 0.228 WP48

Chauncey Billups: 11.2 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48

As one can see, after Rondo there is quite a drop-off.  And despite this drop-off, the Celtics appear to be casually throwing his name out there in the trade market.

Of course, players are not evaluated in terms of Wins Produced in the NBA.  When we look at player evaluations (from the draft, voting for the All-Rookie team, free agent market, and assignment of minutes played), scoring dominates the story.  And Rondo is not a scorer. 

Unfortunately for Boston fans (but apparently not fortunately for fans of Detroit), the over-valuation of scoring by talent evaluators in the NBA might end up costing the Celtics their most productive player from last season.  And despite the arguments of Massaroti, if Rondo is allowed to depart Boston can probably look forward to a longer wait for their next NBA title.

- 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.

Quick Thoughts on the 2009 NBA Draft

For the past few weeks (or longer) people have wondered who would get drafted and in what order.  Last night the wondering ceased and we got to see how NBA decision-makers ranked the players – both international and collegiate — who hope to embark on a career in professional basketball. 

In a few days I hope Erich Doerr can offer some insights into the international players selected (and perhaps more thoughts on the draft overall).  For today I want to put up some quick comments on the college players selected.

These comments begin with Table One, which lists each college player selected and the player’s Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes (PAWS40).

Table One: Ranking the Players Selected from College in the 2009 NBA Draft

In looking at Table One it’s important to remember that college numbers do not predict perfectly what we will see in the NBA.  Still, there is a correlation.  And that should not be surprising.  If a player was not able to excel in college we should suspect he might struggle against the superior talent in the NBA.  So Jonny Flynn, Jordan Hill, and Gerald Henderson (just to name a few) might end up disappointing the fans of the teams that selected these players in the lottery.

At the other end of the spectrum we see DeJuan Blair, Blake Griffin, and Ty Lawson.  Obviously most people consider Griffin the best talent in this draft.  Blair has better numbers, but from what I understand, his knees might be a problem.  Of course, if the knees are not an issue the Spurs might have found an extremely productive player.  Rebounding in college is highly correlated with what we see in the NBA.

Okay, those are my quick thoughts.  Here are some quick thoughts from Erich Doerr:

2008-2009 ROY

After last year’s draft, I claimed “Beasley, Oden, Fernandez, and Love easily grade out as the best projected rookies. For the statistical purists, I’ll provide a 60% confidence interval that one of these four will win rookie of the year and a 70% confidence interval that one of them will actually deserve it.” Apparently, I was overconfident in predicting the trophy winner and under-confident in predicting the biggest Win Producer.  This year, the top selections seem to project better, so I’m left to claim that one of Griffin, Harden, Curry and Thabeet will win the Rookie of the Year award and probably deserve it, given a 75% confidence interval.

2009 Prospects

While Blake Griffin’s freshman numbers didn’t warrant much attention, his improvement and subsequent season certainly did; Griffin became well worthy of #1 overall.  Outside of Griffin, outstanding Win Scores pointed to Harden, Curry, and Hansbrough as underrated by the early mocks and the stats were vindicated by last night’s selections.

Summer school

For the year round fans, keep your summer league eyes on players like Lester Hudson, Ahmad Nivins, Lee Cummard, and Jon Brockman.  DeJuan Blair would make this list, but in my opinion, you’ll likely see plenty of him in the preseason and rotational minutes in 2009-2010.

Once again, Erich and I should have more thoughts on this draft next week.  And I have a few trades to discuss as well. 

- 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.

Trading Before the Draft

While NBA fans are intently focused on the NBA draft, the following trades were made.

San Antonio Spurs get Richard Jefferson [0.064 WP48 in 2,929 minutes]

Milwaukee Bucks get Kurt Thomas [0.183 WP48 in 1,404 minutes], Fabricio Oberto [0.033 WP48 in 677 minutes], and Bruce Bowen [-0.013 WP48 in 1,508 minutes]

 

Minnesota Timberwolves get Darius Songaila [-0.046 WP48 in 1,521 minutes], Etan Thomas [-0.047 WP48 in 306 minutes], Oleksiy Pecherov [0.025 WP48 in  277 minutes], and the 5^th pick in the 2009 draft

Washington Wizards get Randy Foye [0.022 WP48 in 2,494 minutes] and Mike Miller [0.270 WP48 in 2,356 minutes]

 

Milwaukee Bucks get Amir Johnson [0.106 WP48 in 911 minutes]

Detroit Pistons get Fabricio Oberto, who they reportedly are going to let depart as a free agent.

RJ Helps?

The biggest name in these transactions is Richard Jefferson.   Here is what Jefferson has done across the past three seasons:

2006-07: 0.044 WP48, 1.8 Wins Produced

2007-08: 0.040 WP48, 2.6 Wins Produced

2008-09: 0.064 WP48, 3.9 Wins Produced

So across the past three seasons Jefferson has produced 8.5 wins.  To acquire his services the Spurs had to surrender the ancient Kurt Thomas, who produced 5.3 wins by himself in 2008-09.   Furthermore, this trade apparently puts the Spurs over the luxury tax threshold and takes San Antonio out of the 2010 free agent market.   And yet we are told this trade clearly helps the Spurs.

Once upon a time – as Table One reveals – Jefferson might have helped quite a bit.   

Table One: The Career of Richard Jefferson

But across the past three seasons, Jefferson has generally been below average with respect to everything not associated with scoring.  And when we look at scoring, we see a player that is only slightly above average.

When we compare Jefferson to his new teammates on the Spurs, RJ’s scoring prowess looks even worse.  Jefferson took 14.9 field goals per game last season and posted a 48.7% adjusted field goal percentage.  Here is what some of his teammates did last year with respect to field goal attempts per game and adjusted field goal percentage:

Tony Parker: 17.5, 51.3%

Tim Duncan: 14.8, 50.4%

Manu Ginobili: 11.2, 52.4%

Roger Mason: 10.0, 52.6%

Michael Finley: 8.5, 53.2%
Drew Gooden: 7.6, 49.0%

Matt Bonner: 6.6, 60.6%

As one can see, relative to all of his new teammates not married to Eva Longoria, Jefferson took more shots per game last season.  And his ability to get his shots to go in the basket falls below what many of his new teammates can do.  So the Spurs have acquired someone who likes to take shots but can’t get them to go in as well as San Antonio’s existing options.

Of course, someone might argue that Jefferson won’t need to take as many shots with the Spurs.  After all, as the above list demonstrates, the Spurs already have very good options on offense.  But if Jefferson isn’t going to score, what exactly is he going to do to help his teammates win games?  Once again, with respect to the non-scoring aspects of the game RJ is below average. Jefferson’s only redeeming quality – at this point in his career — is that he is a slightly above average scorer.

When we put the whole picture together, it appears the Spurs might have fallen victim to the Isiah Thomas fallacy, i.e. you can never have too many scorers.  This is a fallacy, because there really is only one ball.  It is not possible for all these players to get their shots.  And if Jefferson is not going to get his shots, then how does he help the Spurs close the gap between San Antonio and the LA Lakers?

The Other Trades

The other two trades are harder to comment on at the moment. The key for the Timberwolves is what they are going to do with the 5^th pick.  For next year it seems unlikely that they will draft someone who is as productive as Mike Miller.  Miller, though, will be 30 next February and that is old for a basketball player.  So it’s possible that T-Wolves will be better off in the long-run with this trade. Then again, I suspect most of the players taken in the top 10 in this year’s draft will be below average NBA players.   But before we draw any conclusions, let’s see who the T-wolves select.

As for the Bucks and Pistons… once upon a time Amir Johnson looked like he would develop into a very productive NBA player.  Last year, though, he was just average.  Although average is… well, average; on the Bucks an average player might help.  Last year the Bucks gave 579 minutes to Malik Allen [-0.137 WP48] and only employed two big men – Andrew Bogut and Austin Croshere – who posted above average numbers.  And Croshere only played 77 minutes. So Amir will probably help Milwaukee.

As for the Pistons, it looks like they are doing everything they can to get under the salary cap this year.  And as a Pistons fan I am looking forward to seeing what they will do with all that cap space.

Let me close by noting that these are not the only potential trades before the draft.  It looks like Jamal Crawford might once again be packing his bags.  But I am going to hold off posting on any more trades until after the draft.  Right now the plan is to have the next post be an evaluation of the NBA draft, and that should appear on Friday morning (with the help of Erich Doerr).

- 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.

Playbooks and Checkbooks

When I first started working in the field of sports economics there were no academic journals devoted to the subject, no textbooks, and national meetings for people in the field had just started.  About 15 years later, we now have two journals devoted to the subject (Journal of Sports Economics and the International Journal of Sport Finance), at least two textbooks, and in about a week people from around the world will gather at the Western Economic Association meeting to present and discuss nearly 60 new papers (there are also yearly meetings at the Southern Economic Association and of the International Association of Sports Economists).

Although growth in the field has been phenomenal, there is still something missing. For non-economists who wish to understand what sports economics is all about, there doesn’t exists a single comprehensive resource that is easily accessible.  Yes, we have textbooks.  Textbooks, though, are designed to facilitate communication between a professor and her/his class. These are not really designed for casual reading by the non-academic.

Fortunately, Stefan Szymanski has decided to fill in this gap.  Playbooks and Checkbooks: An Introduction to the Economics of Modern Sports was recently published.  And in this book Szymanski takes the non-academic through many of the stories told in the sports economic literature.

Although the book is about economics, it begins with a brief history lesson.  Szymanski and Andrew Zimbalist previously re-counted the history of soccer and baseball in National Pastime.  Szymanski’s latest not only summarizes this history, but also provides further details to help the reader understand the sports enjoyed today have significant historical roots.

Once the history lesson concludes, Szymanski goes into the economics.  Once again, this book is for the non-economists. So you will not find any graphs or equations.  What you will find are the many stories economists have told about sports. 

In fact, many of these stories I have told when I teach the Economics of Sports. These include such topics as…

• competitive balance in professional sports (and how teams are not entirely honest on this subject)
• the functioning of labor markets and the measurement of worker productivity
• the economics and history of discrimination in sports
• the economics and history of free agency and player drafts
• the (supposed) economic impact of sporting events and stadiums
• and the impact of broadcasting revenues on sports

Again, these are topics I cover in my college class.  This book, though, presents these topics to people who don’t wish to read a college textbook or sit in a classroom.

It’s important to highlight the accessibility of this book.  As noted, there are no graphs or equations.  There are also very few footnotes and no end notes.  All you will find is clear writing that spells out much of what economists have learned about sports across the past several decades. 

So if you were ever interested in learning sports economics – and let’s face it, who isn’t? – this is a book you should go get.  It really is a comprehensive introduction to the subject.   And I might have mentioned….it is really accessible.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Pondering Potential First Round Point Guards

We are now less than a week from the 2009 NBA Draft.  In looking over Chad Ford’s latest mock draft at ESPN one is struck by how many point guards are projected to go in the first round.  Nine of the thirty players Ford thinks will go in the first round are classified as a point guard.

Beyond the number of point guards ranked is the ordering of the players.  There appears to be a substantial disconnect between the ranking of these players and how these players performed in college. 

Table One: The “Top” Point Guards in the 2009 Draft

Table One reports what the seven of these lead guards did in college last season (Ricky Rubio and Brandon Jennings didn’t play college basketball).  The players are listed in the order provide by Ford in his mock draft.  In looking over the list the play of Jonny Flynn and Ty Lawson stand out.  Of the guards listed, Flynn was the least productive in college last year.  Yet Flynn is considered a possibility for the Sacramento Kings with the fourth pick and certainly a lock for the lottery. Meanwhile, Lawson was easily the most productive point guard last year and only DeJuan Blair and Blake Griffin posted a higher Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes (PAWS40). Lawson, though, is not considered a possibility for the lottery.   In sum, the consensus appears to be that Flynn is clearly better than Lawson.  But last year in college it wasn’t even close.  Lawson was more productive with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, turnovers, and assists. Flynn only has advantage with respect to personal fouls.

It’s important to emphasize that college numbers are not a perfect predictor of future NBA performance.  So it’s possible the consensus is correct here.  That being said, there is a statistical relationship between what a player does in college and in the NBA.  And Flynn did do far less than Lawson.  That suggests that supporters of Flynn need to offer some explanation for why the differences we saw between Flynn and Lawson last year in college are going to reverse once these players enter the NBA.

By the way, PAWS40 is not the only metric that ranks Lawson ahead of Flynn.  John Hollinger ranks Lawson and Griffin as the two best players in the draft (insider access required).  Hollinger’s PERs model does have problems if you are trying to explain wins.  But it’s a great model if you are looking for a summary statistics that captures perceptions of performance (NBA Efficiency is also a great model if you just want to consider perceptions).

Given this characteristics of PERs, one might wonder if the consensus regarding Lawson will change as we approach the draft.  Ford currently argues that seven point guards will be taken before Lawson. But with PERs ranking Lawson as the top point guard, will Lawson still last until the 23^rd pick?

One last note…Erich Doerr did send me some analysis for the 2009 draft but he doesn’t have time to write a post.  I will do my best to get at least some of Doerr’s analysis posted 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.

Winning the TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown

Very early on Monday morning Henry Abbott – of TrueHoop – posted the following:

Congratulations, David Berri

June 15, 2009 1:29 AM

Champion of the 2009 TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown.

Berri, the lead author of the Wages of Wins, beat ESPN’s John Hollinger by seven points. Hollinger picked every series of the playoffs right, except for three — Houston vs. Portland in the first round, and both Conference Finals. Berri, meanwhile, correctly predicted that the Lakers would beat the Nuggets.

Soon afterwards my phone just started ringing.  Members of the media from around the world kept calling, wondering the secret to my victory.  And here is the story I told…

It all began when the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol.  At the time Andrew Bynum was still hurt.  But I argued that once Bynum was healthy, the Lakers with Kobe Bryant, Gasol, Bynum (as well as Trevor Ariza and Lamar Odom), would be the favorites to win the NBA title.  That was my argument in the midst of the 2008 NBA Finals (when Bynum was still hurt).  And that was what I argued at the onset of the 2008-09 season.

Now that the Lakers have indeed won the 2009 NBA Championship we can take a step back and evaluate my immense predictive powers.  Not only did I correctly identify the winner in thirteen of the fifteen 2009 playoff series, I also correctly identified the NBA champion in 2009 more than twelve months before it happened.  Such a result clearly indicates that what is said about basketball in The Wages of Wins is correct. 

Then again….

Let’s take a step back and identify two problems with the previous two paragraphs. 

1.  Okay, no one actually called me (not even Henry). 

2. Although I did pick the Lakers to win more than 12 months ago, one crucial detail was incorrect.  The key to the Lakers was going to be the return of Andrew Bynum.  Bynum the person did return to the court, but the Bynum we saw in 2007-08 did not.  In 2007-08, Bynum posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.394 (average is 0.100).  This past season his WP48 was 0.198. Such a mark is quite good, but not nearly as good as what we saw in 2007-08.  Plus, Bynum was again hurt.  In 2007-08 he only played 35 games before a season ending injury.  This past season he only managed to appear in 50 games. 

When we look at Bynum we see a clear decline in performance.  This could be due to

• Bynum’s injury problems.
• diminishing returns (the team did add Gasol), although this effect tends not to be so large.
• the possibility that what Bynum did in 1,008 minutes in 2007-08 was not representative of what he will do over time in the NBA.

All three explanations might have some validity (although, once again, the diminishing returns story probably cannot explain the size of the decline we observe).  Regardless, I assumed Bynum would return to what we saw in 2007-08 and therefore concluded the Lakers were the clear favorite to win the title in 2009.  The Lakers did win, but I am not sure that would have happened if Orlando didn’t upset Cleveland.  In fact, I was quite happy to see that upset.  Picking LA to beat Orlando seemed much easier than trying to guess if Cleveland or LA would be victorious in the NBA’s Kobe-LeBron dream finals.

Learning from the Smackdown

So what have we learned from the entire TrueHoop Smackdown experience?

Picking playoff games is really not a very good test of a model or someone’s analytical skills.  As I have been saying all along (see HERE and HERE and HERE), a seven game series is too short for predictions to be made with perfect accuracy.  In other words, the best model can be done in by the randomness of a small sample.

That being said, I think we have some evidence for the elements of a “best” model (at least “best” under the circumstances of the playoffs).  Two years ago I lost to Justin Kubatko in this contest.  As I noted at the time, both of us made our picks according to a team’s efficiency differential.  Kubatko, though, considered home court advantage and I did not.  Because both efficiency differential and home court advantage matter (and this can be seen statistically), Kubatko had the better model and he probably deserved to win.

Last year I did not participate and Kubatko repeated as champion.  This year I was back and Kubatko was absent.  But with a model based on efficiency differential and home court advantage I was victorious.  So we have now seen three consecutive seasons where the person who only considered these two factors managed to win the contest.  

Superstar Search in the NBA Draft

Here is an interesting factoid about the NBA Finals.  Since 1978 (the first year we can calculate Wins Produced) no team has won an NBA title without one regular player (minimum 41 games played, 24.0 minutes per game) posting at least a 0.200 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  Only one team – the 1978-79 Seattle Super Sonics [led by Gus Williams with a 0.208 WP48] – managed to win a title without a regular player crossing the 0.250 threshold. And only four other champions didn’t have at least one player surpass the 0.300 mark. This tells us – and hopefully this is not a surprise – that to be an elite team you must have at least one elite player.

Okay, now let’s connect this factoid to the draft.  Since 1995, no player who posted a below average college PAWS40 [Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes] his last year in college managed to post a career WP48 above the 0.200 mark (after five seasons, minimum 5,000 minutes played).  So although college numbers are not a crystal ball (and really, college numbers are not perfect predictors of what a player will do in the NBA), it does seem like players who don’t play relatively well in college are not likely to become superstars in the NBA.

Now let’s apply these two pieces of information to the upcoming NBA draft. What do Jrue Holiday, Jonny Flynn, DeMar DeRozan, and Jordan Hill have in common?

1. These four players represent picks 7 through 10 in Chad Ford’s current mock draft.  

2. All four players posted below average PAWS40 numbers last season.

An average player drafted since 1995 posted a PAWS40 of 10.13.  Here is what this quartet offered last year:

Jrue Holiday: 9.17

Jonny Flynn: 8.64

DeMar DeRozan: 7.76

Jordan Hill: 9.95

 And when we look at picks 11-20 we see the following names and numbers:

Gerald Henderson: 9.70

Austin Daye: 9.23

Earl Clark: 8.53

B.J. Mullens: 7.74

Jeff Teague: 9.97

Sam Young: 8.33

These players were also below average with respect to PAWS40 last season.  And given what we have seen in the past, none of these players are likely to become superstars in the NBA.  So if Chad Ford’s latest mock draft is accurate, we have some evidence – before any of these players start playing in the NBA – that half of the first 20 players selected will not become NBA superstars.  And it is likely – before we ever see the broadcast on draft night – that at least some of these players will be touted as potential superstars when they are drafted.

One last note on the subject of superstars: Since 1977-78 there have been 848 teams.  Of these, only 216 – or about 25% — had a regular player with a WP48 beyond the 0.300 mark.  Another 183 teams – or another 22% — had a player with a 0.250 WP48.  So this means over half of all teams did not have one player that seems a prerequisite to win a title.  And it tells us that New York, Toronto, Utah, Phoenix, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Washington, Denver, New Jersey, Memphis, and Sacramento have at least one move to make if they wish to contend for the 2010 title.

- 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.

Evaluating Jordan Hill

Once again it is time for the NBA draft, that wonderful time of the year where we discover that there are suddenly an abundance of future stars just waiting to join your favorite NBA team.

Looking Back at 2008

To see this point, here is what Chad Ford – the draft expert at ESPN.com – had to say last year:

• #4 – Russell Westbrook: Overall, he has a chance to be a better version of Rajon Rondo.
• #16 – Marreese Speights: He is kind of a poor man’s Elton Brand.
• #23 – Kosta Koufus: He could be the second coming of Mehmet Okur — a sweet-shooting big man who can play inside and outside.
• #27 – Darrell Arthur: He has a chance to be an Antawn Jamison-type player.
• #28 – Donte Greene: Lots of scouts compare him to Rashard Lewis.
• #34 – Mario Chalmers: He’s kind of a poor man’s O.J. Mayo
• #41 – Nathan Jawaii: a huge player from Australia who looks like a bigger version of Elton Brand.

One year later here is what this collection of future “stars” has accomplished:

• Russell Westbrook: 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.071 WP48
• Marreese Speights: 1.6 Wins Produced, 0.063 WP48
• Kosta Koufus: 0.8 Wins Produced, 0.070 WP48
• Darrell Arthur: 0.2 Wins Produced, 0.008 WP48
• Donte Greene: -2.4 Wins Produced, -0.161 WP48
• Mario Chalmers: 6.6 Wins Produced, 0.120 WP48
• O.J. Mayo: 2.3 Wins Produced, 0.035 WP48
• Nathan Jawaii: yet to play in the NBA

An average NBA player has a 0.100 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minute]. Of these players, only Chalmers surpassed the mark of an average player.  To put that in perspective, here is how some of the players these future “stars” were compared to performed at the start of their respective careers.

• Rajon Rondo: 7.0 Wins Produced, 0.184 WP48
• Elton Brand: 9.7 Wins Produced, 0.155 WP48
• Mehmut Okur: 3.1 Wins Produced, 0.109 WP48
• Antawn Jamison: 4.9 Wins Produced, 0.220 WP48

Rashard Lewis was drafted out of  high school and only played 145 minutes his rookie season.  In his second season, though, he produced 4.7 wins with a 0.142 WP48.  

So we see the actual stars each produced from the start of their career.  The players identified by Ford, though, have so far struggled.

To be fair to these players, most rookies struggle.  And most rookies do not develop into NBA stars.  But this is not the story we hear when the NBA draft season is upon us.

Evaluating Jordan Hill

To illustrate this point, consider what Doug Gottlieb had to say about Jordan Hill (insider access required):

What I like: Has played basketball for only the past six years competitively. Hill has played hurt, played tough and loves a physical game. Hill, like Thabeet, is more used to getting his points off the rim and not off the pass, making it an easier transition as a team’s fourth or fifth offensive option.

What I don’t like: Is not great at any one thing, and seems more like Etan Thomas than Brian Grant.

Best case: A Brian Grant-type

Jordan Hill – a power forward out of Arizona – is generally thought to be a lottery pick (Ford’s latest mock has him going 10^th to Milwaukee). Although Grant and Thomas are not considered “stars”, each had productive seasons in the NBA. Across 12 seasons, Grant produced 60.3 wins and posted a 0.135 WP48.  Most of these wins were produced for Portland and Miami.  In seven seasons with these two teams, Grant produced 51.3 wins with a 0.167 WP48. 

Again, Gottlieb thinks Grant is the best case scenario for Hill.  And that doesn’t look to bad. But what if Hill is actually Thomas?  Thomas had had trouble staying healthy, but he has produced 17.3 wins with a 0.125 WP48 in his career.  His third season was the only time he managed to appear in more than 75 games, and that season he produced 5.6 wins with a 0.143 WP48.

So it appears the best case and worst case for Hill looks pretty good.  But did Gottlieb get this analysis correct?  One check is to compare what these players did in college.

The average power forward taken in the draft since 1995 posted a 12.5 Win Score per 40 minutes (WS40) his last year in college.  Last year, as a junior, Hill posted a 12.3 mark. So he was slightly below average.  Grant as a junior, though, posted a 16.4 WS40 while Thomas had a 13.7 mark.  In other words, both were above average as juniors (and each was also above average as seniors). 

Now Win Score in college is not a perfect predictor of NBA performance.  But players who are below average in the college tend not to develop into above average performers in the NBA.  So the team that drafts Hill is probably not getting an NBA star (or even Grant or Thomas).

Hill or Blair?

All that being said, it does appear that after Blake Griffin, Hill will be the next power forward taken.  This means some lottery team is going to pass on DeJuan Blair to take Hill.  Let me close this post with a quick comparison of these players.

Table One: Comparing Jordan Hill to DeJuan Blair

As Table One indicates, Blair offered more than Hill with respect to everything except free throw percentage and personal fouls.  Once again, performance in college is by no means a perfect predictor of what we see in the NBA.  And there are suggestions that Blair might have a problem with his knees.  But there is an immense difference between what these players did last year in college.  So even if Blair is a health-risk, there does appear a good chance that if he stays healthy will be a very productive NBA player (which is not the story the numbers suggest for Hill).

Superman, Shaq, Magic History, and Reader Comments

On Thursday I had the privilege of giving a seminar at BYU.  The subject was the next book and it was fun talking with the students about some of the stories we will tell. 

While I was having fun, though, the usual Thursday post in this forum was skipped.

To make up for this, here are a few items of interest (hopefully):

Superman vs. Shaq

Adrian Wojnarowski has written an interesting column detailing Shaquille O’Neal’s behavior towards Dwight Howard (and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar).  Apparently Shaq believes there is a substantial gap between Shaq and Superman.

In an effort measure the gap, here is a ranking of every player who has ever played for the Orlando Magic.

Table One: Ranking the Orlando Magic (1989-90 to 2008-09)

As one can see, Superman tops the list.  Fans of Shaq would note that Howard produced his wins in five seasons while Shaq only played four years in Orlando.  In Shaq’s fifth season, though, he only produced 13.3 wins and this would not be enough to close the gap.  Shaq did post a higher WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] in Orlando, but that’s primarily due to the fact Howard started playing at 19.  If we look at what each player did from the age of 20 to 23, the WP48 of each player is essentially the same (not that a 0.329 vs. 0.306 is really that different in the first place).  So it doesn’t look like Shaq can claim he was ever that much better than Howard.

Here are a few more observations from Table One.

• Tracy McGrady is ranked 4^th in the history of the Magic.  As one can see, once upon a time McGrady was a very productive NBA player.  That is no longer the case today.  With the Magic he posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minute] above 0.200 each season.  He has not done this for the Rockets since his first season in Houston.  And now that he is 30 years of age, we might suspect that McGrady is not likely to reach the 0.200 mark again.
• Nick Anderson is currently second on the list.  The next players on the list who are still active with the Magic are Hedo Turkoglu and Jameer Nelson.  Turkoglu would have to produced 58 more wins to catch Anderson, and given Turkoglu’s level of production and age, that seems unlikely.  Nelson could catch Anderson, but he is going to have maintain his current productivity and stay healthy. If that happens (and those are big ifs as Nelson ages), Nelson will catch Anderson in five seasons.
• Scott Skiles is currently ranked 10^th.  Nelson should pass him next season, but I am not sure Skiles is remembered for being an average point guard. 

Readers Explain Randomness

My last post on the random nature of the playoffs resulted in a number of comments that suggested the point of the post was being missed.  While I was getting ready to post a reply, though, readers jumped in with comments explaining the role randomness plays in the playoffs.