On draft night the New York Knicks sent Channing Frye and Steve Francis to the Portland Trail Blazers for Zach Randolph, Fred Jones, and Dan Dickau.
This trade is generally characterized as the Trail Blazers seeking to reshape the image of their team and the Knicks acquiring yet another high priced scorer. But I think there is more to this story than what has been typically reported.
The Backcourt Story
Let’s start with the guards. The Knicks are exchanging Francis for two backcourt players – Jones and Dickau. Although both Jones and Dickau have played regular minutes in their careers at some point, it is hard seeing either player getting significant minutes in the Knicks crowded guard rotation. The Knicks still have on the roster Stephon Marbury and Nate Robinson at point guard. At shooting guard the Knicks have Jamal Crawford and Quentin Richardson. Richardson actually played small forward for the Knicks last season, but typically has been a shooting guard in his career. Assuming neither Jones nor Dickau command significant minutes, the loss of Francis might allow the Knicks to move Richardson back into the backcourt (which is a potential development that begs more of a comment, but this is not the focus of this column).
As for Francis, he is now a 30 years of age. His time in New York was not entirely successful. As a Knick he only played 1,896 minutes and produced 4.5 wins. His WP48 (Wins Produced per 48 minutes) was only 0.112 in New York, just above the average mark of 0.100.
When we look at his career, though, we see a player who has typically been above average.
Table One: The Career of Steve Francis
Francis has produced 71.7 wins in his eight year career with a 0.161 WP48. Virtually every season he has been above average. In fact, Francis has typically been more productive than Marbury, Crawford, or Robinson. Still, Francis was paid more than $15 million last season, so it’s not hard to see why the Knicks would let him go elsewhere.
Acquiring Randolph
If cost is a reason to rid yourself of Francis, then it is hard to see why you would then acquire Randolph. Randolph has four years remaining on a six year deal that will pay him $84 million. When we look at Randolph’s career to date it’s hard to see how he is worth this contract.
Table Two: The Career of Zach Randolph
Thus far Randolph has only played more than 75 games in a season twice. Although he was above average last season, his career mark is closer to the league average.
Of course we could imagine a scenario where Randolph might be almost worth this money. Let’s imagine that Randolph plays 82 games in each of the next four seasons. And let’s say he manages to continue to post the 0.147 WP48 he offered last season (as opposed to the -0.003 he offered in 2005-06). If he averages 36 minutes per game he will produce about nine wins in each of the next four campaigns. For this he will be paid about $61 million, or about $1.7 million per victory. Last year the NBA paid out close to $2 billion in player salaries. Given that players produced 1,230 wins regular season wins, this works out to about $1.6 million per victory. So if we are optimistic about Randolph, he might be worth this contract.
Actually, though, there is another issue we are not considering. If all we focus upon is this trade we see that in the frontcourt the Knicks are exchanging Channing Frye for Randolph. Frye went from a 0.069 WP48 his rookie campaign to a -.0.079 WP48 last season. In 2006-07 Frye combined poor rebounding with a very low level of shooting efficiency. This combination resulted in a negative quantity of wins. So if all we focus on is Randolph for Frye, the Knicks come out ahead on this trade.
Unfortunately there is more to this move than just the pieces that have changed addresses. Randolph played 36 minutes a game in 2006-07. Eddy Curry, the New York Knicks center, played 35 minutes per contest. If we assume that Isiah will maintain these minutes in 2007-08, this leaves 25 minutes per contest at the power forward and center positions.
The Importance of David Lee
And hence we have a problem. The most productive player on the Knicks last season was David Lee. Because of injury, Lee only played 58 games last season. But in these games he produced 13.6 wins with a WP48 of 0.378. When we look at the Knicks in 2005-06 and 2006-07 we see that the emergence of Lee had much to do with the Knicks improvement.
Table Three: The Knicks in 2006-07 and 2005-06
In 2005-06 the Knicks led the NBA in payroll and only won 23 games. As a result, Isiah Thomas was given an ultimatum. The team must improve or he was to be fired. On March 12th the Knicks were 29-34 and in contention to make the playoffs. At this point Isiah received an extension. The record of the team after this point was 4-15.
About two weeks before the extension the Knicks lost Lee to an injury. Although the Knicks did manage to go 4-3 immediately after Lee left the line-up, the team’s record when Lee did not play significant minutes in 2006-07 indicates his value (in case Wins Produced was not convincing enough). When Lee played at least half the contest (24 minutes per game) the Knicks were 21-22. When he played less than this amount, or not at all, the team was 12-27. In sum, Lee was a major reason why the Knicks improved and Isiah Thomas managed to keep his job.
So how is Lee rewarded? The Knicks have acquired Randolph, another high-priced scorer. Yes, relative to an average power forward or Channing Frye, Randolph is an improvement. But relative to Lee, Randolph is a significant step down. In fact, had Randolph replaced Lee in the line-up for the Knicks in 2006-07 and maintained the productivity we saw in Portland, the Knicks would have won eight fewer games. And of course, Thomas would probably be looking for work.
Back to the Position Adjustment
The story of Randolph highlights the issue of the position adjustment. In economics we often talk about opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are the benefits you give up by making a specific choice. When looking at the value of a specific power forward to a team, the opportunity cost can be thought of as the value of an average player at that position. The same story can be told about point guards or any other position. To understand a player’s contribution to a team you must consider the opportunity cost of employing that talent. And in calculating Wins Produced, that opportunity cost is the average player at the player’s position.
Opportunity costs — or the position adjustment — are important in basketball because we see different numbers from different positions. Centers and power forwards are quite similar. Each position tends to rebound at a high rate and commit few turnovers. When we look at small forwards we see fewer rebounds and more turnovers. And for guards, we see even fewer rebounds and even more turnovers. Given the differences in what we see at each position, it makes sense to evaluate a player relative to what we should expect from another NBA player who would take the player’s minutes on the court. In other words, centers should be compared to centers and point guards to other point guards.
When we take this step we see that Randolph is better than the average power forward. Channing Fry is much worse.
But the analysis becomes more complicated when we shift our focus from the average player at a position to a specific player on a roster whose minutes might be replaced. Specifically, the opportunity cost of the Knicks employing Zach Randolph is not the average power forward the team could employ. It’s not even the value of Channing Frye. No, for Randolph to get his minutes at power forward, it looks like the Knicks are going to have to play David Lee less.
And if this is the outcome of this trade, then this move is not a winner for the Knicks on the court. Not only have they lost one of the best backcourt performers in Steve Francis but the team also has diminished the productivity of its frontcourt.
Okay, I better stop here for today. There is more I want to say on the subject of the Knicks. Specifically I want to comment on the Knicks drafting Wilson Chandler. Beyond offering more thoughts on the Knicks I also wish to offer a response to the latest comment on position adjustments from Matthew Yglesias. That, though, is going to have to wait until tomorrow (at the earliest).
– DJ
MT
July 10, 2007
Good post, Dave! It seems the less ZR plays, thebetter the trade will be! The roster decisions of the Knicks continue to amaze. They have 17 players under contract and can only dress 12, although they must pay 14 to 15. The most productive players statistically have the lowest salaries. They have 3 centers (normal), 6 guards (not unusual at this time of year) and thus 8 forwards, which is crazy. 5 are small forwards and 3 power forwards. The 5 small forwards is truly insane. Also, if Curry and Randolph play 71 minutes as you predict, they are two of the slowest players in the league – that means a lot of fast break time for the opposition. And it’s not that hard to defend post players by sagging on them, so I have no idea what the game plan is at MSG. It’s like they are trying to assemble two teams, the selfish veteran team with long term contracts and the young productive one with low salaries, both independent of the other. There’s no coherence at all.
Christopher
July 10, 2007
I’d like to hear more on the position adjustment, specifically how breaking out R Lewis by time played at SF and PF would support your previous post and if the time David Lee spent at the ‘3’ would act to mitigate this mess that is the Knicks.
JChan
July 11, 2007
The sad thing about this is that Randolph and Lee would make a pretty good front court (even though both are undersized to defend some bigger centers). But they would complement each other pretty well. Unfortunately the turnover machine known as Eddy Curry is there, plugging up valuable time by showing off his 57% FG% (which is obviously good). Seems like the Knicks are destined to be below average again, unless Curry can learn to take care of the ball.
Robin
July 11, 2007
This is why I’ve been hoping for the Knicks to trade for Jermaine O’Neal all summer. He is more of a combo F/C and could steal some of Eddy Curry’s minutes instead of just Lee’s. (Lee and O’Neal would probably be their most productive frontcourt pair anyway.) O’Neal is also ideal because the Knicks’ biggest hole skillwise is shot-blocking and interior defense. He fixes that and provides another scoring option, without needing to score in order to be effective. Amazingly, the guy is on the trading block right now, so here’s hoping the Knicks do everything they can to get him. I don’t see what Randolph adds to the team and I’ll be extremely disappointed if they keep him.
Cliff
July 11, 2007
Did you see Steve Francis play last year? He was horrible and sulked in the locker room without talking to anyone. This trade is worth it just to get rid of him, in my opinion. He may have produced 71 wins in eight years, but what did he do LAST year?
Jason
July 11, 2007
Wow…this was very interesting. I am a Knicks Fan and I agree completely. I hope that Isaiah takes this in consideration when determining the rotation. Maybe the knicks will trade Lee & Randolph for Garnett! Then we have no problem!
Jeff
July 11, 2007
Are you nuts? If Francis is so good and produces wins, why would the Blazers buy out his contract instead of starting him? David Lee is a great player and I think he will only get better, but again, he played almost all of his games off the bench last season for the Knicks and when he did start for them, he got in foul trouble. Lee will still be productive and help the knicks win off the bench. Lee will get 25 to 30 minutes a game off the bench next year. Randolph makes the Knicks a 43 to 44 win team and gets them back to the play offs, a place they have not been to since 2003.
A word to the wize, stats never tell the whole story. Knicks would have won 37 to 38 games if they stuck with the same roster as last year and guess what, your greatness Steve Francis would of never got to play behind Marbury and Crawford, wiat a minute like last year when all of the three were healthy.
The person who wrote this article should get another profession or write about somthing he has some knowledge on. Don’t make a stupid article like this one again, please for everyone.
Josh
July 11, 2007
I agree that getting rid of Francis was a must. While on the Knicks he wasn’t even a shadow of his former self. And although I agree that limiting Lee’s minutes would be a mistake, I don’t think that the Randolph trade is dispositive of that result. Besides, having the ability to have a post scorer drawing double teams down low for an entire game (either Randolph or Curry) can only help the Knicks’ shooters who, quite frankly, need all the help they can get.
Nate
July 11, 2007
I just read the article and found it very interesting and agree with pretty much most of what was said. Well written. However, i feel the need to address ‘Jeff’s’ response… I have never read such an ignorant post in all my life. Does this guy have any idea what it takes to make a ‘team’?? Or is he the kinda guy that sits at home and plays nba live and plays through a season with an all-star team just so he has all the superstars at his disposal? Basketball is a team game, and as such requires some type of balance, and a minimal amount of egos. I am a die-hard Knicks fan and it’s paining me to see the current state of the franchise. After the 05 season, I didn’t think it could get much worse. Last year we did show signs of promise, and much of that is due to the play of David Lee. Now while I can’t debate Isiah’s drafting ability (Lee, Balkman, Frye, Robinson), I do wander what the hell is going through his mind when he trades for Francis to play with Marbury (Two identical, scoring ‘point’ guards with no knack for playing defense), and NOW trading a good young, versatile (can play 4 or 5) big man in Frye, for ANOTHER ball-hogging, non-passing-out-the-post troublemaker to go with the turnover machine we already have racking up offensive fouls in the middle. And why, because he had one sub-par season as a result of having to play a primarily face-up game to try and fit in with Curry? So now, we have two 20-point low post scorers and no-one to kick it out to other than Jamal Crawford, and Nate Robinson WHEN he gets the minutes! the thing that got me, is that Ray Allen was on the block the whole time!?! Doesn’t trading for Ray-Ray make a lot more sense than for Randolph. Imagine a Starting five of Marbury, Allen, Q/Balkman, Lee and Curry. A lot more balance, the defenses have to stay a lot more honest, and we still have the talented but erratic Crawford to come off the bench for a scoring punch when needed, if he’s hot, keep him in, if not, Nate and Marbury together worked well for a 6 game win streak that season. Then we have penetration in Marbury, shooting in Allen/Q, hustle and defense in Balkman, rebounding and intangibles in lee, a high percentage 25 points in Curry, and the 6th man of the year in Crawford! And the Sonics would have a good young big man in Frye to go with Durant, instead of trading for a draft pick for someone that plays the same position as Durant??! Man…. maybe it’s just me, but sometimes the league just don’t make ANY sense at all.
Val
July 11, 2007
Whoever wrote this seems smart enough to head a fortune 500 company. But I’d seriously keep him away from away from any NBA Franchise front office.
I don’t care how many feeble stats you try and break down, Steve Francis is a certified bum! Period! You wanna know how bad he is? He is so bad, the Blazers paid him 30 mil to NOT play for their team. And they just traded away a very good player to do that as well.
Say what you will about DLEE, I love him a sa player, but he in no way is as good as Zach Randolph on the floor. Teams are not going “How are we gonna defend DLEE at the pf spot” They just aren’t at this point. Maybe one day soon that will be the case, Lee is still young. Zach is a bonifide beast in the paint, and can also play the high post very effectively. VERY effectively. He is someone what of a no name because of where he played. Best believe, the rest of the GM’s in the east did not like that he ended up on the Knicks playing with Curry who is well on his way to dominating on the offensive end himself. Frye, was a company man, but he was very soft. Fouls too much, and does not rebound well for a starting pf. He had to go. Zach is no worse a defender than Frye, but every bit and much more the scorer, rebounder Frye may never be. Great move no matter how you slice it for Frye and cancer Francis.
This also creates a huge dilemma for defenses. Who to gaurd? You can’t leave Zach or Curry singled. At anytime you cannot do that. They will score. With great efficiency at that. That then means you are chancing that your perimeter players can Gaurd Marbury, Crawford and Q (possibly Artest) one on one. What do you think the success rate of that will be since there are no players in the league who can Gaurd Steph and Crawford alone?
If the Knicks play solid defense, they will win a lot ot games this upcoming season. I don’t care what percentages you pull pluck…
Brandon
July 11, 2007
Man, no offence but this is the dumbest thing I have ever read. You broke it down like basketball is a one man sport. What about the other guys on the court. What about Jamal being hurt, Q being hurt, or Mabury playing hurt? You broke it down nicely, but theres way more to it. You tried to simplify it a bit too much. Lee doesnt necessarily have to play much less. When Eddy is out, we can move Zach to the 5 and play Lee at the 4. Or when Q is out, we can play Lee at the 3 spot. Or just bring him in for Zach. I guarantee there will be a lot of games where we will see Lee, Zach, and Curry in the game at the same time.
whatdoing
July 11, 2007
This was a cute story but much like some other posters I don’t think you can make real analysis in basketball using these two markers alone, sometimes you really have to trust your lying eyes. Francis may have been something at one time but not with the Knicks (I guess Larry Brown didn’t see this coming when he asked for Stevie). Here is the issue: If Lee (even though I LOVE the guy) could get his own shot off consistently then a Randolph wouldn’t be needed. Here is the essential problem with this stat: any player from a ‘bad’ team is more likely to have a bad “wins produced” number because it depends on the TEAM’S wins so it is much less an individual stat than “OPS” or “ERA” in
baseball.
JAY
July 11, 2007
BULL SHIT ARTICLE, ISIAH HAS THE RIGHT VISION!
Jeremy
July 14, 2007
This move makes me wonder again about the genius of Isiah. Was that just chance, or does part of his brain somehow intuit the lessons of Wins Produced?
All summer I’ve clamored for my team to make a move for David Lee. I heard time and again that Knick fans would run Isiah out of town if they traded that guy. Now I have to wonder about Lee’s availability; I don’t think Isiah values him quite as much as he should.
Regarding the comments to this thread, I see a lot of new folks, which is a testimony to the growing audience for this blog and the ideas behind the book. Wouldn’t it be great if just a few more of these new folks spent the time to understand what they were criticizing though? I think it would. Guys, you should check out the blog archives and the book. It’s well worth it.
dberri
July 14, 2007
Jeremy,
Good observations. About the audience… you can always tell when it has increased in size. You get the same set of comments. Then it dies down a bit until the next audience expansion.
jzero29
August 7, 2007
where do you get that wins produced stat? it seems like a crock to me. How can you judge wins produced? To say a guy who avges, 23pt, and replace a guy who avgs 10pts, and similar rebound numbers and to say they’d have lost 8 more games? the knicks lost a couple close ones, add zachs 23-lees 10 equals 13 extr points per game, those close games would end in our favor. lee’s tip, wouldn’t have happend, because the total would be 13points higher. for the record, randolph rebounds better also! i don’t get it. Your wp48 stat is a joke! You can’t judge teams on these made up ludacris stats, basket ball isn’t taht simple.
Pat
October 26, 2007
This is the same argument of who is more valuable Tyson Chandler or Eddy Curry, The bulls made the right choice and got rid of Eddy and kept Tyson. Sucks for you that you can’t see that.
WP is not made up it. Dave found, through research gasp!, that the most important things in for a player to do is 1. create possessions for his team/ deny possessions to the other team. 2. Turn each possession into the most amount of points possible (shoot efficiently, im looking at you ZBo who shoots under 50% for a big man).
Thats the basic idea of WP. And WP48 is just how many wins a player produces in 48 minutes of game time. Wow, look this stuff up before you blather on please.