If we compare player performance in the basketball, baseball, and football we see that over time, NBA players are the most consistent. Football players tend to be quite inconsistent.
Although NBA players tend to be relatively consistent across time, player performance can change. And each year the NBA has an award that theoretically rewards the player who made the largest positive leap in performance.
According to Kelly Dwyer at Sports Illustrated.com, the favorite for Most Improved player in the NBA this year is Kevin Martin. In 2005-06, Martin averaged 10.8 points per game. This year his per-game scoring average has leaped to 20.5. Of course, Martin has also seen his minutes increase from 26.5 per game to 35.4. So part of the increase in scoring is tied to his increase in minutes. Still, when we look at Martin’s per-minute scoring production, we see that he has improved from 0.407 points-per-minute (or 19.6 points per 48 minutes) to 0.579 (or 27.8 points per 48 minutes).
This leap in per-minute scoring, though, is not tied to increases in shooting efficiency. In 2005-06, Martin’s point-per-shot [(PTS-FTM)/FGA] was 1.08 and his free throw percentage was 85%. In 2006-07 he has also scored 1.08 points per field goal attempt and is converting 85% of his free throws.
So why is Martin scoring more? The key is shot attempts. In 2005-06, Martin attempted 0.286 field goal attempts per minute (or 13.7 shots per 48 minutes). This year his per-minute field goal attempts stands at 0.380 (or 18.3 shots per 48 minutes). Martin has also seen an increase in free throw attempts.
Of course, production is about more than scoring. When we turn to the non-scoring aspects of performance we see very little change in Martin’s per-minute totals. Certainly it is the case that Martin is a more productive player overall. His Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] has risen from 0.161 to 0.226. But this improvement is only because this very efficient scorer is simply taking more shots per minute.
Well, if Martin is not “Most Improved”, who is? I have not looked at every player, but I suspect that we need to look no further than David Lee. In 2005-06, Lee posted a WP48 of 0.197. So like Martin, he was above average. This year, though, Lee has improved dramatically with a WP48 of 0.395.
Like Martin, Lee scored more per-minute without offering a significantly improved level of efficiency. Although increased scoring is part of Lee’s improvement, the biggest story can be seen in his rebounding numbers. Per-minute, Lee grabbed 0.268 rebounds in 2005-06. This year he grabbed 0.348 boards per-minute.
When we see a side-by-side comparison of Martin and Lee, it appears that this is an easy choice. Both players were good in 2005-06. Both players were better in 2006-07. But Lee has improved more than Martin. Martin has simply increased his shot attempts, which makes sense given that he is a very efficient scorer. Lee has both increased his shot attempts and taken a substantial leap forward as a rebounder.
Table One: Kevin Martin vs. David Lee
Of course there is one issue. Lee has only played in 56 games. Consequently, his Wins Produced has only increased by 9.4. If Martin can continue to play 35 minutes a night over the remaining games in the schedule, and his WP48 for the season can rise to 0.264, Martin should be able to match Lee’s increase in wins. Unfortunately, Martin would have to post a 0.486 WP48 over the remaining 12 games to make such a leap, and that seems unlikely.
Bloomberg Again
Tomorrow I will be on a guest on Bloomberg on the Economy, which is hosted by Kathleen Hays. Kathleen and I will be discussing the economics of the NCAA Final Four.
- DJ
8 responses so far ↓
Katie Gold // March 29, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Hallelujah, finally someone smart comments on the MIP award and get the right answer. I had been waiting for your analysis, and I think its dead-on. I tend to discount 2nd-year players because an improvement is expected, but David Lee’s performance has been exceptional. What about Deron Williams?
Mark // March 29, 2007 at 6:32 pm
For MIP getting mentioned is close to winning. They could have a team for it. Williams is a worthy name.
others- Biedrins Jefferson Walton maybe Granger and Barnes.
Mike // March 30, 2007 at 11:14 am
Wouldn’t it be the case that all pro athletes are probably equally “consistent”? On what athletic or psychological basis are you saying that NBA players are more consistent than MLB players? I’m guessing that you’re basing this on some kind of statistics you’re using, and to that I’d say you’re likely using the wrong statistics. In fact, you’re basically falling into the same trap that KG did with the Timberwolves. You’re using the wrong numbers to determine consistency.
VAT // March 30, 2007 at 12:12 pm
while i do not necessary disagree that lee is “more improved” than kevin martin, statistically speaking, i do take issue with one thing that perhaps you could address. you say that nba players are consistent performers in their sport, and as such we are able to interpolate their data over larger time spaces (ie per 48m) in order to get a clearer index of comparison between all players. you say that kevin martin increased his shots taken from 13.7/48m to 18.3/48m, but his shooting efficiencies stayed the same. isn’t there something to be said for a player who is able to perform at a consistent, high level even while increasing his minutes and shots taken by a significant number? this, in part, goes back to silverbird’s argument (sorry for bringing this up). kevin martin has taken the risk upon himself to shoot more over an increased amount of time, and in doing so has remained consistent in his efficiencies. i think this is a tremendous skill-set that not every nba player has. i would doubt that many players who see such an increase in playing time would a) have the ability to maintain their scoring efficiencies while shooting more and b) have the “temperament” to even attempt such a thing. i would also say that this, in turn, might be one reason eric musselman is an nba coach- he is able to anticipate this increase in overall production (ie increase in minutes + consistency in efficiency) and thus find the right combination for kevin martin to maintain his efficiency all while playing the most minutes possible.
i just think that when you start comparing the scoring per 48m of two totally different kinds of players (ie a creative scorer/jump shooter vs. a down-low scrappy banger) you’re inviting trouble. if lee took as many shots as kevin martin, would he maintain his shooting efficiency? i’m not so sure. and even if lee could (he does seem to able to do everything), could other “poor man’s david lee” type players like chuck hayes, craig smith, or jason maxiell do the same? i’m skeptical.
KD // March 30, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I’ve resisted, but I can’t hold back any longer. Kevin Martin utilizes moves in his offensive arsenal (drive left pull up, drive left finish with left in the lane, Mike Bibby-type sidestep jumper, finish off a two-foot jump) that he didn’t have last year. He’s IMPROVED. David Lee is using the same non-moves he was using last season, when he was awesome, and not getting minutes. There have been no actual moves or quirks added to his game beyond increased awareness away from the ball on both sides of the court, improved stamina, and added strength.
Huey // March 30, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Mike,
Dave has a method for measuring player performance in various sports. You’re going to have to do a lot better than “you’re likely using the wrong statistics.”
TK // March 30, 2007 at 9:25 pm
And two points for KD:
1. Dave has always said that these measures don’t tell the why; they tell the what. So the numbers don’t say why Kevin Martin has been able to keep up his efficient scoring with his expanded minutes, just that he has. And they don’t say why David Lee’s rebounding has soared beyond just his growing minutes, just that it has.
2. And none of the things that you mentioned — the pull-up, the sidestep, etc. — none of those things in and of themselves help Kevin Martin’s team win games. He either scores efficiently, rebounds, avoids turnovers, etc., or he doesn’t. Iverson has dozens of clever moves in his arsenal; that doesn’t mean he helps his team win lots of games.
What you’re pointing to here is the equivalent of extolling how much better Manny seems at hitting the curveball in a given year. At the end of the day, the numbers will either bear out that he’s more or less productive. The anecdotal observation may be interesting to some, but it’s not the subject of this board or the discipline of sports economics.
TK
KD // April 2, 2007 at 10:27 pm
It’s interesting enough, to me, how much an individual improves. Blame me for looking at in within the vacuum; but I’m solidio with my findings. Slag off the Knicks, I’m taking it one guy at a time.
Numbers are a measure of performance, indeed — but that doesn’t exactly hurt Martin’s argument.