The performance of the rookies is always an interesting story in the NBA. Veteran players have an established track record. Although a few will deviate from this record, for the most part the deviations we observe are relatively small. Rookies, though, are the great unknown. We know what these players did in college or foreign leagues, but we also know that performances outside the NBA do not correlate as well as we might like with what we will see in The Association (although there is some correlation, a story I hope to tell a bit later on).
This year our venture into the great unknown has been disappointing. Only one rookie – Adam Morrison – is averaging more than 30 minutes per game. Skipping over Brandon Roy, who has missed all but five games, only four other rookies have averaged more than 20 minutes per contest (Shelden Williams, LeMarcus Aldridge, Jorge Garbajosa, and Rudy Gay). Generally more than ten rookies each year log at least 20 minutes a night. So NBA teams are not giving much time to its newest players.
With Morrison the only player logging significant time, the Rookie of the Year award appears to be his to lose. Currently he is the only rookie averaging fifteen points per game. Of the other rookies, only Roy is averaging in double figures (and as noted, Roy is not currently playing). So if scoring totals matter, and our study of the NBA indicates that it’s scoring that drives player evaluation, Morrison is the early favorite to be Rookie of the Year.
If we look beyond scoring, though, the case for Morrison gets a bit murky. His Win Score for the season is 5.0. That does not mean he has produced 5 wins. That means his Win Score, the simple formula for player evaluation we introduce in The Wages of Wins, only comes to five. Given that he has played 542 minutes, his performance results in a per-minute Win Score of .009. Clearly that is below average for any position in the NBA.
Morrison’s low productivity numbers are driven by a low level of shooting efficiency. Currently he only scores 0.89 points per field goal attempt, a mark well below the NBA average mark of 0.98. Beyond shooting efficiency, as a small forward he has demonstrated an inability to rebound, create assists, or generate steals. His offensive rebounding numbers are particularly surprising. Morrison misses many shots, but he so far has only captured two offensive rebounds this year. That’s it, two. So he is adept at creating offensive rebound opportunities, but not so good at getting any of these.
If we look at all that Morrison does, it appears he does one thing well. He takes shots, which means so far he is good at propelling the ball in the direction of the basket. Getting the shot to go in very often, or doing anything else that helps his team win, is not happening yet.
If we turn to the NBA Efficiency metric, we also see that Morrison is below average. An average small forward will post a per-minute mark in NBA Efficiency of 0.424. Morrison currently has a per-minute mark of 0.247. So even the NBA’s metric says he is below average.
As noted, though, one can improve his NBA Efficiency score by simply taking more shots. Currently Morrison takes 14.6 field goals per game. How many more shots would Morrison have to take to be average in per-minute NBA Efficiency?
If Morrison did nothing else but increase his field goal attempts – shooting efficiency, rebounds, turnovers, steals, assists, blocked shots, etc… all stayed the same – he could become average in NBA Efficiency by taking 38 field goals attempts per contest. Of course, this would not help the Bobcats win many games. Morrison is already costing the team by only converting his 14.6 field goals per game into a below average quantity of points. By nearly tripling his quantity of inefficient shot attempts, Morrison will cost his team even more. But by the NBA’s metric he would be at least average.
Of course, I don’t think the Bobcats are going to let Morrison take nearly 48% of the team’s total field goal attempts each game. So this path to “averageness” (Microsoft says that’s not a word, but let’s go with it), will probably not open for Morrison. No, if he doesn’t improve his shooting efficiency he will remain below average in terms of Win Score and NBA Efficiency. But he still might win the Rookie of the Year. After all, it has to go to someone, and right now, Morrison is the only rookie actually playing.
By the way, it might be interesting to look at all players who are below average in NBA Efficiency and calculate the number of shots needed to reach “averageness.” Perhaps that would be a good future post.
- DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
Wins Produced and Win Score are Discussed in the Following Posts
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
6 responses so far ↓
A reader // November 30, 2006 at 9:40 pm
David Locke in Seattle (KJR sports radio talk show host turned Sonics radio announcer) had these posts last season on the topic and offered “a stud or dud” shootng efficiency rating weighted by quantity of shooting :
http://lockedonsports.blogspot.com/2006/01/stud-and-dud-in-nba.html
http://lockedonsports.blogspot.com/2006/03/nba-offensive-studs-and-duds.html
Krolik1157 // November 30, 2006 at 11:47 pm
This is a little off topic as a response to this post, but I’m new to the blog (read the book over the summer), and don’t want to comment on an old post. You guys say that a major piece of evidence that suggests your system holds water is that while year-by-year performance for NBA players stays the same, there is a weak correlation between payroll and wins for NBA teams. I would suggest that the reason for that weak correlation is the NBA’s payroll system, specifically the “Max-dollar” limitations and the system of “Bird Rights.” In the NBA, because of the rule that allows a team to keep its best player with a max dollar deal that doesn’t count under the cap, it is nearly impossible to find a true franchise player as a free-agent. He must be obtained through the draft or well before he reaches his potential. (Due to space limitations and Mr. Berri’s feelings about anecdotal evidence, I won’t go into examples here, but think about the best players on recent championship teams-and don’t say the Pistons. Billups had played like a bust before he got to Detroit, and Big Ben’s a whole ‘nother story.) Meanwhile, most years the laws of supply and demand make the several mediocre-to-strong players highly sought after, and since there is a relatively low finite celing on NBA contracts, they often get the same kind of contracts that the true franchise players do. (For example, the Cleveland Cavaliers pay Zydrunas and Larry Hughes max money, which is exactly what they are giving to LeBron. The correlation between dollars spent and WP wouldn’t be strong there, but the cause is the way the system is set up and the laws of supply and demand. I would suggest a study of correlation between 1st round draft pick PERs (still not a WP convert) and Winning % since the Max dollar/Bird rule bargaining agreement was put into place-my guess is it would be much stronger than the payroll one. To summarize, the system is at “fault” for the low payroll/wins correlation, not the unwillingness of GMs to give high-win score players like Ben Wallace and Erick Dampier ridiculous contracts, because the Bulls and Mavs are thrilled about how that’s working out.
a reader // December 1, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Stud or dud is really scoring efficency but it does get at distance from average efficency being a function of both quality of possession used results and quantity used.
For most guys with quantity of possessions used within say 1 standard deviation PER works ok. Move 2 standard deviations above or below on shots taken and you are a different breed and should mainly to be judged against your peers with a similar exceptional role, to shoot a lot or hardly at all.
Teams with one of these exceptional types should ask: 1) do we “need” him because of defficiencies on some skill elsewhere or to achieve the flavor of superiority we think will win us the most games and 2) are we getting the level of performance from them that we expected? and 3) it is the best solution available to the overall team productivity or would it be better to upgrade elsewhere?
For scorers pay special attention to player clutch and crunch FG%s. For nonshooters, count up as was done previously their extra contributions in other areas and compare it to their scoring lightness and also assessing how well other teammates are capable of doing those other things if the nonshooter were replaced and whether the team would be better off net.
In some cases teams with exceptional players need to more honestly examine whether they are they in fact hurting the team more they they are helping. Some exceptions work. D Wade. B Bowen. Some exception don’t or stop working if not perfectly complimented. Marbury. Foyle.
Charles Follymacher // December 2, 2006 at 9:45 pm
It’s still early. My dough’s on Millsap.
Cory K // December 3, 2006 at 9:45 pm
One thing apparently left out of the discussion (and which would be very difficult to account for) is that it’s HARD to get off a shot in the NBA. Think of Samuel Dalembert vs. Allen Iverson. Dalembert simply cannot get the kind of shot opportunities that Iverson can. Also, most of the time it is valuable to get off a good shot close to the basket, even if it doesn’t go in, especially if the player has drawn the defensive attention of multiple opponents.
Leaving these (and I’m sure many other) factors out of the analysis are why basketball experts will never trust statistics fully. That said, what a GREAT tool, and I’m glad Jerome Williams, Ben Wallace, Rodman et al are getting their due.
Lusidvicel // December 18, 2006 at 10:18 am
Hello, i love dberri.wordpress.com! Let me in, please