The New Jersey Nets joined the NBA in 1976. Over the next 24 years the Nets only had seven winning seasons. The best of these teams was seen in 1982-83, when the Nets posted a 2.58 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) and won 49 games. If this is your best, obviously your franchise has problems.
The Guards of New Jersey
Then in 2001, the fortunes of this team changed. Over the next six seasons the Nets never had a losing season. The team also had a 1.9 average efficiency differential, besting the 1982-83 mark three times (2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04).
Obviously the key addition was Jason Kidd. In his first seven NBA seasons - with Dallas and Phoenix - Kidd produced 97.6 wins with a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.253 (more than twice the average mark of 0.100). If we look just at his four full seasons in Phoenix we see a 0.300 WP48. In sum, Kidd came to New Jersey as an elite player. In six plus seasons with the Nets, this elite status continued. Kidd posted a 0.353 WP48 with the Nets, leading the team in Wins Produced each and every season.
Although Kidd was consistently a very good player, he was not always working alone. During the Kidd era the Nets consistently employed a productive shooting guard. From 2001-02 to 2003-04, that off-guard was Kerry Kittles. In eight NBA seasons, Kittles produced 52.2 wins with a 0.148 WP48 (average WP48 is 0.100). If we focus just on the three seasons with Kidd, we see a 0.176 WP48.
Kittles departed after the 2003-04 season. Midway through the 2004-05 campaign, Vince Carter came to New Jersey. Like Kittles, Carter was also a productive shooting guard, posting a 0.188 WP48 from 2005-06 to 2007-08.
When we look at each of the past seven seasons - reported in Table One - we see the Nets starting backcourt produced an average of 30.2 wins each season. This works out to, on average, nearly 70% of the team’s Wins Produced. In sum, the Nets were led by its starting guards.
Table One: The Nets Backcourt from 2001-02 to 2007-08
The New Jersey Supporting Cast
One should note that although Kittles and Carter posted similar productivity numbers [at least in terms of WP48], the combination of Kidd and Kittles got considerably more help. One can see this in Table One, where it’s noted that Kidd and Kittles never produced as much as 60% of the team’s Wins Produced. Meanwhile the combination of Kidd and Carter always accounted for at least 79% of the team’s wins.
The same story can also be told if we look at the number of above average players on the team. Focusing just on those players who played at least 1,000 minutes, here are the players - other than the starting guards - who posted a WP48 in excess of 0.100 in each of the past seven seasons:
2001-02: Keith Van Horn (0.183), Todd MacCulloch (0.166), Lucious Harris (0.152)
2002-03: Richard Jefferson (0.192), Kenyon Martin (0.110)
2003-04: Richard Jefferson (0.186), Kenyon Martin (0.184)
2004-05: Richard Jefferson (0.125)
2005-06: Richard Jefferson (0.244)
2006-07: None
2007-08: Josh Boone (0.154)
The 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04 editions of the Nets were the best in franchise history (at least in the NBA). And when we look at the help the backcourt received, it’s easy to see why these teams were so good.
After Martin left for Denver, though, the Nets slowly declined. In 2004-05 and 2005-06 the Nets were able to field winning teams despite only having three productive players (Kidd, Carter, and Jefferson). In 2006-07 the Nets managed to win 41 games with Kidd and Carter as the only above average players.
The Decline of Richard Jefferson
And then we have the 2007-08 edition. Table Two reports what this team accomplished this past season, as well as what we would have expected had these players performed as they did in 2006-07. As one can see, the last edition of the Nets was bad. And given the past performance of these players (and the minutes played), we would have expected the Nets to be bad.
Table Two: The Nets in 2007-08
Although most players performed as expected, there were are few differences. Kidd and Carter — still the top two players on the team — were helped by the emergence of Josh Boone. However, the declines in the play of Nenad Krstic and Bostjan Nachbar (each went from bad to really bad), as well as the departure of Kidd, caused this team to fall even further than we would have expected.
But let’s play a game of what if. What if Richard Jefferson went back to what we saw in 2005-06? That one change would have resulted in 14 additional wins. In other words, if Jefferson had not declined, this team would have once again made the playoffs.
How did Jefferson decline? Table Three reports his career numbers.
Table Three: The Career of Richard Jefferson
FOR THE ITEMS IN RED, SEE THE UPDATE BELOW: Comparing 2007-08 to 2005-06 we see where Jefferson’s production has changed. His shot attempts and scoring have both increased. But his rebounds, blocked shots, and steals have declined. In fact, his performance with respect to net possessions (rebounds + steals - turnovers) was at an all-time low this past season. The decline in rebounds - which was even worse after Kidd departed — was the primary reason Jefferson morphed into a below average player.
It’s possible that Jefferson’s injury problems have caused him to limit his work on the non-scoring aspects of the game. Regardless of the reason, without a productive Jefferson, the Nets only had Kidd and Carter. And when that wasn’t enough for this team to contend for a title, New Jersey decided to trade Kidd and start over.
In sum, the Nets fall from elite status in the NBA can be tied to the failure to field a productive supporting cast. And that failure can be partially linked to the decline in the production the team received from Richard Jefferson.
Going forward the Nets do have above average players in Carter, Boone, Devin Harris, and DeSagna Diop. But none of these players are at the level of Kidd. So unless an extremely productive player is added to this mix (or one of the above average players gets much better, or Jefferson returns to form), we can expect the historic Nets to return in the immediate future.
UPDATE: NetsDaily noted in the comments to this post that the data on Richard Jefferson in Table Three was incorrect. In looking at the table, I had to agree. Basically, I incorrectly the labeled the years. The data - going from left to right - went from Jefferson’s rookie year to the present while the years went in the opposite direction. I have now fixed the table, so years do match the data.
This correction does change the story a bit. From 2005-06 to 2007-08, Jefferson did not decline in terms of blocked shots and steals. He did drop-off in terms of rebounds and shooting efficiency.
Although the data was incorrect, the essential story remains the same. Jefferson did get worse. Had this not happened, the Nets would have remained a playoff team.
Thanks to NetsDaily for spotting this error. Given that no one checks the tables before stuff is posted here, I suspect this kind of problem happens more frequently than I would like. If you spot something like this, please let me know and I will try and get that corrected.
- DJ
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
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.
16 responses so far ↓
Richard Jefferson and the Decline of the New Jersey Nets | GOT FANATICS! // May 5, 2008 at 10:24 am
[...] The New Jersey Nets joined the NBA in 1976. Over the next 24 years the Nets only had seven winning seasons.http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/ric… [...]
NetsDaily // May 5, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“Comparing 2007-08 to 2005-06 we see where Jefferson’s production has changed. His shot attempts and scoring have both increased. But his rebounds, blocked shots, and steals have declined.”
Rebounds, yes, but how have his steals and blocks declined?
steals
‘05-06: 59 steals in 3,059 min = 0.93 stl/48 min.
‘07-08: 76 steals in 3,200 min = 1.14 stl/48 min.
blocks
‘05-06: 17 blocks in 3,059 min = 0.27 stl/48 min.
‘07-08: 21 blocks in 3,200 min = 0.31 stl/48 min.
Jim // May 5, 2008 at 2:25 pm
This is pure garbage. Kidd an elite player, please if he had any type of jumpshot to go the rest of his game, we would’ve won the championship already. Put the blame where it belongs, right at the feet of their head coach, for wanting to be buddies with his star players instead of coaching them. And lets not forget Rod Thorn, this Net team has been in needs of a bigtime bigmen even when KMart was here and since his departure. Im glad to see Jefferson’s game evolve more as a scorer, top 10 in the league but he’s on the decline..wow go figure
antonio // May 5, 2008 at 2:42 pm
i wonder the season splits for the nets (post kidd and pre kidd). How were people playing with him and without him. Did players get worse or better? This might give us a more accurate forecast of what to expect for next year?
Ben Guest // May 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Future post idea:
How about comparing the careers of Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon? Many New Yorkers like to argue that Olajuwon and Ewing offered essentially the same production. I suspect that Hakeem’s WP48 is higher…
Animal // May 5, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I’m sorry Dave but this post really stinks. You’re taking a cheap shot at Reggie Jefferson.
Jacob Rosen // May 5, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Very interesting point, and one that I have been trying to investigate about the New Jersey Nets ever since they lost their ‘funk’ a few years back.
Random question, however, if you do have the time to answer it. Why is it that many people believe Rajon Rondo is a highly above average point guard in the NBA? Can you please illustrate why you have him ranked as the eighth best point guard in the league?
Here is what I see from Rondo as a player under six-foot-three, in comparison to the league average for players under six-foot-three last season:
16.922 points per 48mins - avg is 19.621
8.170 assists per 48mins - avg is 7.677
6.694 rebounds per 48mins - avg is 4.503
Why is Rondo ahead of players such as Mo Williams and Tony Parker in your ratings?
Here are my numbers on Williams and Parker for this season:
P48: W - 22.674, P - 26.874
A48: W - 8.356, P - 8.529
R48: W - 4.587, P - 4.586
These two are rather similar, and are above average point guards in every sense of these metrics. They are much improved over Rondo in terms of points, lead slightly in assists and trail by about two rebounds. Are a couple rebounds enough to make up for the advantage Williams and Parker receive by being able to take more shots in their systems?
dustin // May 5, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½Assists + ½Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers - ½Free Throw Attempts - ½Personal Fouls
So it looks like you not factoring steals, blocked shots, personal fouls, and ts% .
mjsenno // May 6, 2008 at 5:56 am
Watching RJ all season, the stats reflect his play. He focused on trying to score, hoisting more shots, going in transition in lieu of crashing the boards, playing with an offensive mentality.
Even in his scoring emergence this season, RJ disappeared at important moments on occasion.
http://www.njnetscast.com
Jason // May 6, 2008 at 11:12 am
Jacob, points per minute has some relevance, but *how* those points are scored is important. Scoring points though high volume shooting in itself isn’t necessarily valuable. A high FG%, such that points don’t come at the expense of shots for teammates and wasted possessions, is very important. Consequently, side by side “points per 48″ doesn’t mean that much.
Similarly, you didn’t appear to address turnovers in your comparisons. A turnover is a defensive stop for the other team. It’s a zero on your own scoreboard and quite costly as a result.
This forum has seen debates over the relative value of rebounds (or more specifically, the allocation of the value of a rebound to the player credited with the rebound–the value in terms of the team statistics is pretty clear), but rebounds are also markers of success. On average, each rebound is worth ab0ut as much as a point scored in terms of win probability. This makes sense when you consider what a defensive rebound marks. It marks a defensive stop. It marks the other team failing to score. An offensive rebound totally negates a missed shot. As such, 2 rebounds per game is equivalent to 2 additional points per game.
I haven’t looked at Rondo specifically, but at glance, he appears to have relatively few turnovers for a point guard, shoots a high percentage for a point guard, and rebounds above average for a point guard. These all indicate that he doesn’t cost his team possessions and helps stop the other team. That’s good even if it’s not as flashy as putting points on the board.
mrparker // May 6, 2008 at 11:30 am
How about explaining to us how the explicit french word Atlanta took Boston to 7. I think that would be an interesting study.
I suspect that it had alot to do with Josh Childress putting in some good work.
Jacob Rosen // May 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Going by that same logic, that rebounds and turnovers are theoretically more important to team basketball than gross points scored, why is Kobe Bryant hailed as one of the best players of the last decade? Here are a few notes from looking over an old table highlighted his regular season career in contrast to the average NBA shooting guard:
+.01 points per shot above average (1% increase)
+5.0 free throw attempts above average (102% increase)
+1.3 rebounds above average (23% increase)
+0.2 steals above average (11% increase)
+1.0 turnovers (meaning he averages one more) above average (36% increase)
+0.5 net possessions above average (11% increase)
+0.3 blocked shots above average (60% increase)
+1.3 assists above average (28% increase)
-0.1 personal fouls (meaning less than) above average (3% decrease)
http://www.wagesofwins.com/KobePlayoffs.html
What this shows, is that Kobe averages only 0.01 more points per shot, has 1.0 more turnovers, and registers only 0.5 more net possessions above the average shooting guard. How is he worthy of a potential hall of fame honor with these numbers? How do those numbers lead up to a 9.3 win score (in comparison to a 6.1 win score for the average shooting guard) without including some advantage for simply taking more shots?
Anon // May 6, 2008 at 1:06 pm
As I understand it, Kobe does benefit from taking a lot of shots, since he shoots a higher percentage than the league average.
But isn’t one of the key arguments berri makes that people overvalue scoring and equate that with value, even though other aspects of the game (such as efficiency and rebounding, for example) are just as important. So the reason Bryant is hailed as one of the best players of the last decade is because he scores a lot of points, and people don’t look beyond that (and people claim he’s a top defender in the league, even though that isn’t backed up with stats).
dustin // May 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm
+5.0 free throw attempts above average (102% increase)
That stat right there is pretty ridiculous.
Also, when people remember kobe, they don’t remember his first 3 mediocre seasons, so the career stats might be a bit misleading in terms of how people think of kobe.
Jason // May 6, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Two things are going on with Bryant: one is that he’s better than average in so many respects. Be a bit over average shooting and you make your team better by shooting more.
The second is that while he may be *popularly* regarded as being among the best of all time, he probably isn’t in terms of what he’s actually provided for his teams. This has been hashed and rehashed here with Kobe supporters getting incensed at the thought that he’s not “the best player in the game” usually resorting to citing that everyone says he is (including other players and coaches) ergo it must be true. Conventional wisdom says he’s among the very best, maybe the best.
But conventional wisdom isn’t always right. The detractors note that without an exceptional big man, his teams aren’t much more than middle of the pack (this season included).
He’s had some things going for him: he scores a bunch and that’s conspicuous. He’s also played in LA and played on championship teams which has made him conspicuous. He’s clearly an elite athlete. These three favor a favorable interpretation of him without any deeper analysis. Deeper analysis indicates that he’s very good, though perhaps not quite as elite as the three factors would have one believe.
Introducing the NBA Team Reviews: 2007-08 « The Wages of Wins Journal // May 10, 2008 at 1:26 pm
[...] on the right - titled NBA Team Reviews: 2007-08. So far columns examining the Denver Nuggets, New Jersey Nets, and Atlanta Hawks have been posted. There is no particular order to how these will be discussed, [...]
Leave a Comment