Not exactly.
Today’s post, though, is going to begin with a series of bullets designed to highlight – in rapid-fire fashion (as bullets often are) — the historically bad play of the Minnesota Timberwolves.
A Bad History
- From 1989-90 (the first year the Minnesota Timberwolves played NBA basketball) until 1994-95, the T-wolves averaged 21 victories per season. For these years the T-Wolves never reached 30 victories.
- In 1995, general manager Kevin McHale selected Kevin Garnett in the NBA draft. KG was the first player to move from a high school roster in the spring to an NBA roster in the fall. So McHale’s move was quite bold.
- From 1995-96 to 2006-07, Garnett’s Wins Produced per season was 20.7.
- The Timberwolves as a team, though, only averaged 43 wins per season in the KG era.
- If we subtract what KG did (20.7 wins) from what the team averaged (43 wins), we see that Minnesota averaged 22.3 non-KG wins from 1994-95 to 2006-07. In other words, the non-KG wins were only 1.3 beyond what the team did before Garnett arrived.
- In 2007-08 – the first year after Garnett left — Minnesota only won 22 games.
- This means that in the 19 year history of this franchise, the Minnesota Timberwolves have averaged only 22 non-KG wins per season. The best season in this stretch was the 1998-99 season, where the non-KG winning percentage in the 50 game lock-out season was 0.377. This work out to 31 victories over an 82 game campaign.
- In sum, without Garnett, the Timberwolves would have had 19 years of very bad results. Such a stretch would have led people to label the T-Wolves as not only the worst team in NBA history, but also the worst team in professional team sports in North America.
Okay, that’s a strong statement. Certainly without KG we could imagine the T-Wolves selecting higher in the draft each year. Plus the team would have more money for free agents. Consequently, we could imagine that more talented players would have landed in Minnesota.
And then we note that Kevin McHale – the much maligned GM in Minnesota – would have been making those selections. This causes us to wonder if the above bullets really hit the mark. It seems very possible that Minnesota -without KG – would be a historically bad franchise.
Table One: The Minnesota Timberwolves in 2007-08
Table One illustrates this possibility. Minnesota traded Garnett to the Boston Celtics last summer for Al Jefferson and a mess of additional players. With this move, and the other roster moves McHale made, Minnesota only brought back (by my count) five players back from the 2006-07. In sum, McHale made wholesale changes to this roster. But despite all these moves, the outcome was basically the same.
Let’s review some stats associated with this trade.
- Jefferson played 2,919 minutes for Minnesota last year, producing 13.2 wins.
- KG played 2,995 minutes the year before in Minnesota, and produced 20.6 victories.
- The non-KG wins in 2006-07 was 11.4.
- If we add 11.4 wins to what Jefferson gave Minnesota (13.2), we get 24.6 victories. Again the team won 22 games, so this is not much different.
So there you have it. McHale, despite changing most of the players, still ended up in the same spot the T-Wolves have been for 19 years. Without KG, this team wins less than 25 games.
One Good Move
Given this history, can we just pencil the T-Wolves in as a very bad team in 2008-09? The answer appears to be a re-sounding NO! On draft night McHale did something amazing. In the past McHale had a chance at Ray Allen, but he chose Stephen Marbury (68.9 career wins for Marbury vs. 113.1 career wins for Allen). He could have had Brandon Roy (17.2 wins in his first two season) but he chose Randy Foye (3.3 wins in his first two seasons). In each case McHale chose the flashy player over the solid player.
When the T-Wolves went on the clock in the 2009 draft, O.J. Mayo was on the board and that was McHale’s selection. Mayo is another flashy guard. But rather then keep the flash, McHale traded Mayo to the Memphis Grizzlies for the rights to Kevin Love. As noted before, Mayo might be flashier than Love. Love, though, posted much better college numbers and is expected to be a much more productive NBA player.
The trade with the Grizzlies, though, was not just about Love and Mayo. McHale managed to get Memphis to throw in Mike Miller. Miller led the Grizzlies last year with 11.0 Wins Produced. A few weeks ago I noted how bad this trade was for Memphis. What’s bad for Memphis, though, is just amazing for Minnesota.
If Kevin Love can match Al Horford’s rookie production (not a far-fetched thought), he will produce 9.0 wins. And if Jefferson and Miller maintain what they did in 2007-08, Minnesota’s top trio will produce 33.2 wins. Such a trio would be the 12th best threesome in the league in 2007-08. And such a mark would – by itself – set the Minnesota record for non-KG wins.
With a quality supporting cast, the T-Wolves could also make the playoffs. Unfortunately, McHale has returned to form after the draft. A trade with the 76ers gave Minnesota Calvin Booth (3.6 career wins) and Rodney Carney (-1.3 career wins). And just to prove that McHale is not over the pursuit of the flashy guard, he re-signed Sebastian Telfair. Telfair has produced -4.0 wins in his four year career. Yes, negative quantities of wins means you really are not helping.
So the supporting cast in Minnesota is probably not going to be enough to move Minnesota into the post-season in the very tough Western Conference. Still, the Love-Mayo trade looks to be one move the McHale got right. And given the non-KG history we have seen, one right move might be considered a quantum leap forward.
– 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
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.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Joe
August 12, 2008
Mentioning the Wolves-Sixers trade in the fashion you did was misleading. They got the cash to pay their salaries almost fully while getting a 1st round pick in the process. The Sixers did this only as a 100% salary dump to get Brand for the “Philly max.”
The Telfair signing made no sense.
Tball
August 13, 2008
The same could be said of the KG trade (I wouldn’t say misleading, but maybe incomplete).
KG was traded for Jefferson, fodder (Green, Telfair, contracts to make the deal work), Gomes, Minnesota’s 2008 1st round pick (which Boston had previously acquired), and Boston’s 2009 1st round pick (which should be assumed to be of mild significance). That Minnesota 1st round pick became Mayo, which became Love and Miller and cap space. So you could argue that KG was traded for Jefferson, Love, and Miller (or 33 wins/season).
drza44
August 13, 2008
Tball, you actually missed it a bit. The pick they got back from Boston wasn’t Minny’s 2008 pick…it was at least the 2011 pick, if not later. The conditions on the pick make a long story, but the gist is that Boston wouldn’t have gotten that pick until 2 years after the Wolves give the Clippers a first round pick (for the Cassell deal). The Clips pick is top-10 protected, so they may not give that pick to them for years, which means the pick Minny got back from Boston is for well down the road.
So KG wasn’t traded for Jefferson, Love, and Miller. He was traded for Jefferson, Gomes, and Telfair with the #1 picks being a likely late first rounder from Boston this year and their own #1 back somewhwere between 2011 and 2014. Jefferson, Gomes, and Telfair also make about the same salary as KG, so the trade wasn’t even really a cap space saver.
Todd
August 13, 2008
The trade made Minnesota bad enough to land the #3 pick. If they still had KG’s 20+ wins, the Wolves would have probably been a late lottery pick. This was part of the idea behind the trade – to sacrifice the present to improve the future. So far it seems to be working, and the signing of Telfair to a short term deal should insure that they do not improve too much to fast. While I do not think this was the point of the signing, it is an unintended side effect.
shrink
August 13, 2008
I just wanted to make a brief comment on the making “what if?” statements about the Wolves if they didn’t have KG. These are certainly hard to make, and I appreciate the author’s attempt to qualify what the absense of as great a player as KG would have meant.
First, he acknowledges it would clearly have meant lottery picks back then, but he dismisses the worth because McHale was picking them. that’s really not fair, because, obviously, he made the bold pick of Garnett his first year (over NCAA Player of the Year O’Bannon), who was of course, an All Star. His next pick, Marbury or Ray Allen (draft night trade), were both All Stars, and his only other lottery pick back then, Wally Szczerbiak on a terrific trade, was also an All Star (though its hard to remember since injuries have sapped the talent he demonstrated). The other evidence we have from this time period were either mid to late 1st rounders, or a complete absense of them. Would McHale have done better with lottery picks? I think the answer is certainly “yes.”
However, what I think was particularly absent in the article was that the absence of Kg would mean the absence of his salary. Garnett became the highest paid player in the NBA, and while I think he was worth every penny, if he wasn’t on the team that money could have been spent on other talented players. I believe 35-40% of the Wolves payroll went to Garnett, and clearly, in addition to the lottery picks, the “What if KG wasn’t there?” scenario doesn’t look nearly as bleak for the Wolves.
Owen
August 13, 2008
Shrink – The money they spent on KG is mentioned in the article….
“Okay, that’s a strong statement. Certainly without KG we could imagine the T-Wolves selecting higher in the draft each year. Plus the team would have more money for free agents. Consequently, we could imagine that more talented players would have landed in Minnesota.”
shrink
August 13, 2008
Regarding the Telfair signing .. I think you’re putting too much emphasis in the WOW stat to say, “negative quantities of wins means you’re not helping.”
MIN’s roster has Randy Foye as a PG (and some question that fit), and no one else to play the position. Position specificity matters.
Let me say it this way. Al Jefferson produced 13.2 Wins. If you had 5 Al Jeffersons and put them on a team, your team doesn’t win 66 games.
While quantities of wins is a wonderful attempt to isolate individual value, it is a relative estimation based on how much a player helps his team win doing the job he’s supposed to do. Simply, Al is a very nice PF/C compared to other NBA big men, but he can’t do well if there is no PG to get him the ball. At a mere $2.3 mil, to get a PG with Telfair’s familiarity with the Wolves system amidst all the personnel change was a good decision.
shrink
August 13, 2008
Whoops — you’re right Owen, and I apologize to you and the author. It was all right there, and I just missed it.
kg fan
August 13, 2008
i think what hurt minny a lot was the whole joe smith deal, they lost how many 1st round draft picks because of that?
ilikeflowers
August 13, 2008
shrink, the necessity of position is understood and specifically addressed elsewhere by the author (reference the book or other posts). The issue with Telfair is that he’s a way below average NBA player (his W48 is typically around -0.050), and that there were likely other (lightly regarded and affordable) point guards available who are better.
Marbury was a bust as the #4 pick for the TWolves. He’s an average player for his career, and his most productive seasons were with the Knicks.
Szczerbiak has been a good but not great player in the past but as the #6 overall pick he certainly wasn’t a steal. He was however one of McHale’s better selections.
Mark
August 13, 2008
As a life-long Clipper fan, the hint that any other franchise would be considered worse than mine is both welcomed and disturbing. We could always use someone else to make fun of, while losing the unofficial title would give the fan base even less of an identity.
Adam T
August 13, 2008
“Love [compared to Mayo] posted much better college numbers and is expected to be a much more productive NBA player.”
And this expectation of being a “MUCH” better player is based on who and what? This seems to be such a close-minded statement that I don’t even know where to begin Mayo’s defense…Love MAY become an All-Star…I’d say it’s 50/50. Mayo is in the same boat. This seems to be the general agreement amongst most experts and analysts. They both should be at the least good role players on pretty good teams. Their ceiling’s – although OJ’s seems higher – seem to be All-Star talent and solid contributors on a championship team. But nowhere have I heard that Love is expected to have a MUCH better career than Mayo when it’s all said and done…such assumptions helping any blog post is half the reason that there is a overarching stigma against bloggers in the first place.
But why argue with a guy that is happy just because his team didn’t do something bad..
Good luck, TWolves
Rob
August 13, 2008
Are you guys serious?
I know you guys are Wolves fans and everything, but mentioning Kevin Love and All-Star in the same sentence is absolutely ludicrous. I know you guys have been through hard times, but you guys just gave away a potential star for a guy (Love) who’s potential is AT BEST Andrew Bogut. He is undersized and lacks the physical tools to be of major significance in the league. And Mike Miller? Albeit, he is a good shooter, but he is essentially a one-trick pony with ZERO upside. Have you seen the guy on defense? Guy can’t guard a card-board cut-out of himself if his life depended on it.
While stats are good an all…they don’t always translate into the NBA. Think Danny Ferry, JJ Redick, Adam Morrison…and you know where I am going with this. Kevin Love unfortunately is the next “White Hope” that the media has hyped up to a point where you guys are downing everything you read as if it were Kool-Aid. Kevin Love an All-Star. Absolutely Not. In the West? YOU MUST BE DREAMING.
Sincerely,
The Truth Hurts
hj
August 13, 2008
by far the worst article i ever read. foget basketball. this writing is terrible.
Adam T
August 13, 2008
Rob, i agree for the most part, but a little cynical about Love’s potential – he’s got some damn good skills…none of the ferry, morrison, redick bunch were big guys..Love has got some decent size and is definitely gonna get pretty strong in the future. Plus gonna be a great 3pt shooter when its said and done…
Just not gonna top OJ’s career, maybe coincide
Todd2
August 13, 2008
I have a feeling that Minnesota’s new “Big Three” are going to be a liability collectively on the defensive end. Teams need height, speed and depth to compete and I see them sorely lacking in the speed department. Unless they have quality depth (Telfair?) and can play with a collective effort a la’ Utah—controlling the tempo, executing and taking care of the ball, they’ll continue to struggle.
ilikeflowers
August 13, 2008
Adam T, the projections for Mayo and Love are based upon this.
ilikeflowers
August 13, 2008
Gentlemen, feel free to post the rest of your predictions for how the various players and teams will perform this coming season. Please stop by after the season is done and then we can compare your predictions to the model’s and determine which sources are accurate and which should be ‘foget’ due to being ‘ludicrous’.
TheOldLogo
August 13, 2008
I’m a Wolves fan, but in an objective view, the Clippers are the worst franchise in NBA history, and it’s not even close.
The Wolves have 1 division championship and 7 winning seasons in 19 years.
The Clippers have 0 division championships and 6 winning seasons in 38 years.
The Wolves are probably 5th worst on the list. Clippers, Grizzlies, Bobcats and debateably the Raptors are in the mix to be worse. Raptors and Wolves are probably tied, but at least the Wolves play in the West and came out gunning one time.
Patrick Minton
August 13, 2008
I know you guys are Wolves fans and everything, but mentioning Kevin Love and All-Star in the same sentence is absolutely ludicrous. I know you guys have been through hard times, but you guys just gave away a potential star for a guy (Love) who’s potential is AT BEST Andrew Bogut. He is undersized and lacks the physical tools to be of major significance in the league.
The author doesn’t say that Love will be an all-star. In fact, I think you will find that the author doesn’t really believe that being an all-star and being a productive NBA player have 100% overlap.
And Mike Miller? Albeit, he is a good shooter, but he is essentially a one-trick pony with ZERO upside. Have you seen the guy on defense? Guy can’t guard a card-board cut-out of himself if his life depended on it.
You are right, all he does is shoot. 7 boards a game is really bad for a SMALL FORWARD. And 4 assists a game is terrible. Too bad that ONE TRICK PONY can only shoot.
While stats are good an all…they don’t always translate into the NBA. Think Danny Ferry, JJ Redick, Adam Morrison…and you know where I am going with this.
No, actually, I don’t. Although you probably aren’t going to go to the place where NONE OF YOUR THREE PLAYERS HAD GOOD STATS IN COLLEGE. You are confusing “scoring totals” with “stats”. They are not equivalent.
Kevin Love unfortunately is the next “White Hope” that the media has hyped up to a point where you guys are downing everything you read as if it were Kool-Aid. Kevin Love an All-Star. Absolutely Not. In the West? YOU MUST BE DREAMING.
I don’t recall the media doing, well, any of these things. In fact, McHale’s move is surprising precisely because the media, in fact, has hyped Mayo so highly.
Mayo, by the way, will probably spend his career as the leading scorer on a losing team, and folks like you who think “stats are good and all” will probably never draw the correlation between his play and his team’s success (or lack thereof).
Sincerely,
The Truth Hurts
This might be true, but I am not sure how you would know.
By the way, when posting in such an arrogant “I know this is all wrong but I have no actual evidence to quote to refute you” manner, you should really be careful not to completely walk in to jokes like that one.
Dave
August 13, 2008
wait,the Raptors are worse than the WOLVES?
Barring Division Championships and other BS,the Raptors have consistently been a competitive team in the Eastern Conference,except for those couple seasons after VC left.
The TWolves have always had a mediocre image,and were only competitive for that one season KG won the MVP.
V
August 13, 2008
Note: it would be nice to point out that one should fill out all of the provided fields or the post they spent 15 minutes writing will be erased..
TheOldLogo
August 13, 2008
Just how competitive have the Raptors been? Am I missing something. Toronto has exactly 5 winning seasons and the east is awful. Three of those seasons were with VC.
Take a look at this:
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teampage.htm?tm=tor&lg=n
Yes, the Raptors blow historically. Admittedly, so do the Wolves, but do a little a homework.
Xand
August 13, 2008
I just don’t understand the argument that Mayo is a surefire star who blows away Love’s potential. What is it based on? Does Mayo have the size/strength to physically dominate his position? No, he’s smaller for his position than Love is at his. Did he put up ridiculous stats in the past? No, they were good, but far from great. Does he have tantalizing potential and just needs to polish his skills? No, he already has a developed skill set based around the outside shooting.
Let’s be realistic: he’s a 6’4 shooting (and I stress “shooting”) guard who isn’t a natural slasher and put up subpar athletic markers (steals/blocks/rebounds/FTA’s) and a poor A/T ratio/PPR/insert passing metric here. Sure, he could blow up, just like anyone could, but he’s no guarantee.
To ignore Love’s production and claim it won’t translate to the NBA while claiming Mayo will somehow magically get so much BETTER after making the leap is “ludicrous.” I have questions about Love’s ultimate fit next to Al, but I have no doubt that he’ll surprise people.
Nick
August 13, 2008
Perhaps, you could write a post about what makes Randy Foye “flashy” and Brandon Roy “solid?”
Better yet, I would love a post about how O.J. Mayo, whose best asset is his mid-range game, is “flashy?” Is it his diamond earrings? Because his game is as textbook as you can get.
Last, let’s also explain why Stephon Marbury is “flashy?” Because he dribbles through his legs? Do you just not like combo guards?
I mean, if you want to compare “solid” to “ineffective,” that’s a sensible evaluation of basketball ability. But when you start comparing “solid” to “flashy,” this sounds more like an irrelevant judgment about a player’s playing style or, much worse, social appearance, which is just, well, let’s say not cool.
So please explain your “flashy” because I wasn’t aware it was antithetical to “solid.”
The Leader
August 13, 2008
The Sixers trade gave the Wolves some salary cap room. Mike Miller gives them some perimeter shooting. Kevin Love is a huge question mark but at worst, he’ll be a serviceable big man.
Ninja Predictions for the upcoming season:
1. Mike Miller will average 17 points a game.
2. Kevin Love will be Andrew Bogut, minus the mean streak, and get about 12 and 8.
3. Al Jefferson will be a borderline All-Star and the best player on the team.
4. Randy Foye will end up a backup.
5. Timberwolves will be competing with the Raptors for the worse record in the NBA. (20 wins)
DNCworldwide.com
Rob
August 13, 2008
To Patrick Minton:
Here is the truth: The T-Wolves suck and McHale isn’t helping any. It may sound cliche to say “it starts at the top”, but it really does.
Mike Miller IMO is a one-trick pony. Lets be honest here. Why was Miller originally recruited to play for Team USA? His shooting. Plain and simple.
Condescending? The T-Wolves have sucked for a few years now…if you were a true Wolves fan, you would feel the pain. The fact that McHale is STILL running this organization continues to boggle my mind even after all his blunders (most recently and notably handing KG to Boston on a silver platter). If you aren’t hurting like I am, I don’t know what to say, maybe you are one of those people that are satisfied with craptacular play and head-scratching personnel decsi0ns.
Adam Morrison, Danny Ferry and JJ Redick didn’t have good stats? So, this would explain why they were EACH awarded some type of PLAYER OF THE YEAR award during their respective careers. You are going to tell me that these guys did jack squat and somehow managed to not only cop a few note-worthy accolades while duping their respective NBA teams into drafting them in the NBA lottery of their respective draft classes while sitting on the piles of millions they’ve “earned” by warming seats.
Sincerely,
Rob
p.s-Patrick, the truth hurts–the Wolves suck.
As for the stats, I was simply poitning out the fact that THE ARTICLE points to LOVE’S stats in an attempt to justify Love’s star potential. Oh and another thing, I just LOVE people like you who INFLATE stats to MANIPULATE THE TRUTH.
Here are last seasons stats:
Season Team G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
07-08 MEM 70 70 35.3 0.502 0.432 0.774 0.7 5.9 6.7 3.4 0.5 0.2 2.60 2.10 16.4
Career 565 431 32.3 0.460 0.403 0.771 0.7 4.1 4.8 3.0 0.7 0.2 1.88 2.40 14.4
According to you he averages 7 rebounds and 4 assists a game. Last year he averaged 6.7 rebounds and 3.4 assists. Last time I checked THOSE numbers are AVERAGE AT BEST for the SF position. Go check yourself, or do I need to POINT you int he right direction. FOR HIS CAREER, he averages LESS than 5 rebounds and a MERE 3 assists. You wanna argue the ONE TRICK PONY statement? Go Ahead, you sure as hell aren;t going to be able to convince me.
Rob
August 13, 2008
Almost forgot…
“Mayo, by the way, will probably spend his career as the leading scorer on a losing team, and folks like you who think “stats are good and all” will probably never draw the correlation between his play and his team’s success (or lack thereof).”
Already been done…his name was KEVIN GARNETT and I’m happy he has his ring now. You totally missed the point of my post. I specifically stated quite the contrary about stats. The only advice I have for you (Patrick) is that you read more carefully and….well, read some more.
IMPORTANT FACT:
So, people are under the impression that Love makes up for his lack of athleticism with his “size”. WRONG.
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=2007&sort2=ASC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=
Official Draft measurements.
Not only did he perform horrendously on the combine events he measured even more poorly. The guy that was listed in college at 7’0″ actually only measured at 6’7.75″ . THAT in itself should have people worried. Not only is he not athletic enough to front the FOURS (Duncan, Amare, KG) in the league, he is SEVERELY undersized. He’s gonna guard 3’s? You think that KEVIN LOVE is going to be able to keep up with the likes of Tracy McGrady, Carmelo’s. Lebron, or even the Rudy Gay’s of the league? Good luck. I’ll tell you this, he’ll have his face in a plethora of posters come next year.
Rob
Ryne Nelson
August 13, 2008
I agree you need to consider the amount of time the team has existed. The Clippers, for one, have seen only limited levels of success throughout their much longer existence.
Still, you make a very compelling argument…and it’s always tough to argue against the numbers. :-)
Nick
August 13, 2008
Rob,
Kevin Love did not perform “horrendously” on his pre-draft measurements in Orlando. In fact, he impressed most GMs with his athleticism, which came up better than advertised (though by no means freakish a la Joe Alexander).
But to put Love’s numbers in context, put them next to Al Horford’s from 2007, who certainly has sufficient athleticism and size for the NBA.
Height:
Horford: 6’8.75″ Love: 6’7.75″
Standing Reach
Horford: 8’11” Love: 8’10”
Max Vert:
Horford: 35.5″ Love: 35″
Bench Press:
Horford: 20 Love: 18
Lane Agility:
Horford: 12.15 Love: 11.17
3/4 Court Sprint:
Horford: 3.37 Love: 3.22
So as you can see Horford, who’s a solid NBA center, is only one inch taller than Love and has only half-inch better vertical. Love, however, is faster and more agile.
So I’m not sure how you’re getting your “horrendous” interpretation. It’s pretty far off.
Kent
August 13, 2008
Another good post. Thanks
jack
August 13, 2008
hey i read this article off of espn.com truehoop. im from cleveland and while ive always loved kg i could care less about the twolves. the point i do want to make is this: sportwriters suck and as their audience gets smaller (think national vs. local) they suck more. i dont want to dismiss all this writer has done, im not from minnesota so i dont know…but id like to point out how bullshit this column is…THE WHOLE COLUME IS BASED ON WINS PRODUCED NUMBERS…sounds nice doesnt it…ultimately the author makes a big mistake by linking readers to the wins produced column for teams “big 3” and it unfortunately proves that hes full of cow poop…to wit according to the very numbers that your columnist bases his article on the warriors, raptors, and 76ers (combined for 129 wins) were better than the pistons, cavs, and mavericks (combined for 155 wins). ha! some statistic that winning bullshit is…three mediocre teams rank ahead of three good to title contending teams…wonderful numbers…really representative of what a player means…why dont you respect your readers and look up what a statistic really means?
jack
August 13, 2008
to go another step…where do these win numbers come from? why are they such crappy stats? who came up with these and thought they worked? how the hell do the 76ers finish above the pistons? does this statistic HATE teamwork? wtf?
Louie
August 13, 2008
I think this is an article written because there was nothing else to think about in the NBA’s off-season…
Why? Well, in the style of the author…
1. It doesn’t take into account the intangibles; such as work ethic, managing the payroll and of course the degree of hustling (if you can measure THAT!)
2. It doesn’t rate and rank the front office staff – heck might as well do that, since you’re putting numbers to every player traded and acquired.
3. It’s claimed that bringing Miller to the T-wolves will strongly benefit them. Errr, like, HOW? Where’re his NUMBERS (for winning, since he’s so into it…)
4. While averaging 20 odd wins over the franchise history may be low, where’s the comparison with other under-performing teams?? For all you know, mebbe the Lakers, in the course of their franchise history, averages 20odd wins! Heck, mebbe it’s the league’s average! Then, it becomes the norm, doesn’t it? I mean, somebody’s gotta lose in the league…
Anon
August 13, 2008
Jack this blog is written by the author who the book “Wages of Wins,” in which he explains the stat “wins produced” which he developed.
And the “big 3” numbers you cite make perfect sense. For one thing cleveland was outscored by their opponents in the regular season last year, so ANY statistical analysis is going to say they weren’t that good. And the list of top threesomes is ordered by the wins produced by the top 3 players on the team. The raptors and sixers may have a better top 3 than dallas or detroit, but if you look closer, you’ll see that the “rest of team” actually says that dallas and detroit are better when you look at their entire team. So really it’s the fact that detroit has a number of good players (which dilutes statistics somewhat) and good teamwork that prevents the stats of their top 3 from being dominant.
And the author is not a wolves fan, he’s a pistons fan. A number of people seem to have made this mistake.
Rob
August 13, 2008
Nick,
His lack of athleticism is well-documented by many a sportswriters. Have you seen the guy play? He is purely finesse. Now, I’m not saying the guy doesn’t have any skills, but playing in the NBA is going to be a lot more demanding (both mentally and physically) for any player and the fact that he is smaller and not-so-quick on his feet is going to hurt. Sure, you can compare his combine stats to Al Horford, but Horford is not only going to play with his back to the basket, but he will take to rack with authority. His combine results are reflected in his “type” of play. Andre Igoudala who DID NOT fair that well in the combine and was actually rated one of the worst athletes in his draft is known now for his acrobatic plays and his unparalleled athleticism which benefit him on both ends of the court. Of course, combine results aren’t the be all, end all determinant of a basketball player, but Kevin Love will by no means be mistaken for KG out on the court. Simply put, he is NOT a very good athlete, though fundamentally sound, but severely lacking in size.
Nick
August 13, 2008
Rob,
I was simply saying that Love’s numbers at the predraft camp were not “horrendous.” They were good for a player his size.
And, once again, he is not severely lacking in size. His standing reach is 8’10,” which is the only measurement that matters as far as height is concerned.
Other players with similar standing reach? Joakim Noah, Al Horford, David Lee, and Ronny Turiaf. So Love is on the smaller side for a PF, but he is not “severely” undersized. Many players with similar measurements are able to excel at the same position or even center.
Rob
August 14, 2008
Nick,
Agreed. But this is Love we are talking about. Why compare him to Joakim Noah, David Lee or Ronny Turiaf? He is more highly touted than any of those guys you mentioned and he will be asked to deliver alot more than those guys deliver. Love has some rather lofty expectations to fulfill. I agree with your assessment and I respect your opinion. However, I am not quite as optimistic.
As for comparing him to OJ Mayo. Lets be honest here, the Grizzlies and the T-Wolves are BOTH going to be fighting to stay OUT of the doldrums of the NBA this year. Both teams are seemingly lottery bound. At the end of the day, people are going to pull up Mayo’s stats and Love’s stats and do one on one comparisons. While Mayo will have the ball in his hands about 60-70% of the time as the teams main play-maker (not named Rudy Gay), Love is going to have to fight Al Jefferson for numbers and in my opinion Jefferson is the better player at this point. So essentially you will have 2 players putting up numbers for DEAD-BEAT teams.
Rob
Simon
August 14, 2008
Rob,
Your “truth” is completely based on your own subjective evaluation plus picking on whatever comments made in media that parallels your opinion. At least there is some degree of systemic empirical evidence presented by the writer of this blog, what is yours? Have you actually spent time reading how the evaluations were made?
And you say Mike Miller is a one trick pony because he was picked up by the team USA for the shooting? How does that make him a one-trick pony? He’s a solid rebounder, and fairly decent assist creator, both backed up by real numbers. You could say he’s a poor defender, but that does not make him a one trick pony. Adam Morrison is a one trick pony, Miller isn’t. They are both white, but there is nothing alike in them based on their performance in the NBA.
Rob
August 14, 2008
Simon,
Here are your REAL numbers:
SEASON AVERAGES
Season Team G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
07-08 MEM 70 70 35.3 0.502 0.432 0.774 0.7 5.9 6.7 3.4 0.5 0.2 2.60 2.10 16.4
Career 565 431 32.3 0.460 0.403 0.771 0.7 4.1 4.8 3.0 0.7 0.2 1.88 2.40 14.4
His 6.7 rebounds last year are AVERAGE, his 3.4 assists…PEDESTRIAN at best. For his career he averages 4.8 rebounds and a MERE 3.0 assists. Those are BELOW average for a SF. If the 4.8 rebounds and his 3.0 assists are what you point to signify his “solid rebounding” and his being a “decent assist creator” (its called a distributor, facilitator), you should watch some more games.
As for Adam Morrison, I’m not even sure that guy has any sort of tricks….
Rob
Harris
August 14, 2008
Yes, the Timberwolves are definitely the worst franchise, although the trade for Miller and Love definitely gets them more talent.
If Corey Brewer doesn’t play like one of the worst NBA players again, the team can win 33 or so games.
Wins Produced and Win Shares are a pretty good determinant of how good a player is, but not very good at predicting wins for a team. I’m working on a formula at NBA Gauntlet that incorporates PER and defensive rating.
Nick
August 14, 2008
Rob,
First, Miller splits his playing time evenly between SF and SG, so to compare him only to SFs doesn’t quite work.
Second, he averaged 9.1 reb per 48 minutes last year. The average SF averaged 7.6 per 48 minutes and the average SG averaged 5.6 per 48 minutes. Clearly then, Miller rebounds far better than the average SF and SG. For his career, he has averaged 7.7 reb/48 which still makes him far above average for a SG and a competent, average reb. for a SF.
His assist numbers per 48 (4.6) are right on average with the average SG/48 (also 4.6) and better than average for a SF (3.6/48).
So your statement that his seasonal and career averages are “below average” for a SF are false. For his career, he is right on average as a rebounder and above average as a passer. Add to this, the fact that he plays half his time at SG, and you realize that Miller is, and always has been, a versatile and productive player.
Evan
August 14, 2008
Nick — that’s not fair to use REAL stats with Rob.
Rob
August 14, 2008
Nick,
Nobody in the NBA averages 48 minutes per game. The fact that you have to go THAT far in an attempt to prove that Miller is more than one-trick pony is absolutely ridiculous. Miller is listed as a SF which is why I compared him to SFs. Take for instance McGrady who is listed as G splits time between the 1,2, and 3. However, his stats will always be compared to that of other SGs. The simple fact of the matter is Miller averages 4.8 rebounds per game and 3.0 assists per game for his career. By trying to use the 48 minutes per game statistic is beyond retarded as players will not PRODUCE at the SAME RATE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME. In that case, you would have to factor in fatigue and obviously those numbers would drop as the game draws on.
Rob
ilikeflowers
August 14, 2008
‘By trying to use the 48 minutes per game statistic is beyond retarded as players will not PRODUCE at the SAME RATE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME.’
This statement needs TO go INTO the HALL of fame. THE stuPID IS delicious AND THE IRony present with the usage of RETarded is SUCculent. WHY am I YELLING?
Nick
August 14, 2008
Rob,
It doesn’t matter if you use per 48 minutes or per 1 minute statistics, Miller still comes out above average.
The whole point of using statistics on a per minute basis (whether it be 48, 40, 36, or 1) is because per game statistics do not compare well since players play different amounts of minutes. 48 is just a standard number to use, but it’s really just a way to scale per minute production which is the only fair way to compare players’ productivity.
But if you would like you can use per 36 minute statistics and you’ll notice that Mike Miller still comes out as a slightly above average rebounder for a SF (way above for a SG) and an above average passer.
There’s really no argument to this.
But if you insist on using per game numbers for some strange reason, note that Mike Miller had finished 2nd out of the 180 guards who played this season in rebounds, 28th out of the 188 forwards (including PFs) who played this year, and 51st out of the 451 players who played any position (even center).
Now I don’t think you can seriously say that a guy who finished in the top 12% of all forwards (SF AND PF) and the top 11% of all players in per game rebounding is a below average rebounder, especially when it’s also true that he well exceeded the per minute rebounding averages for his position.
Actually, no: say that and then tell me where you’re coming up with your definition of average rebounding.
And just to satisfy your curiousity if you insist on using his career average of 4.8 rebs (which makes little sense, since it’s not clear why statistics from seven years ago will tell us much about how Miller will play next year), you’d notice he’s still in the top third of all fowards SF and PF. And top third is above average.
Simon
August 14, 2008
I don’t have much to add to Nick’s excellent comments except that I must say some people have a very odd definition of one trick pony. It usually means the player cannot do much other than just one thing. Which means the player has to be below average in those other areas.
Being average doesn’t mean the person cannot do something, it just means he’s not exceptional. JJ Redick is a good example of one trick pony as shooting 3s is the only thing he does well; he’s below average in all other areas, and so is Danny Ferry. Miller doesn’t belong in that group except his skin color as he’s, as Nick has shown, at least average to above average in most other areas.
Adam Morrison, on the other hand, even though I’ve already said he’s a one trick pony, isn’t really a one trick pony as he doesn’t have that one trick. Unless you argue about his shot-creating ability, which I’m not quite sure of.
rt
August 16, 2008
so the first half of this article basically states that if the wolves subtract KG without adding anyone in his place for the 12 years he was in Minnesota they would have won 22 games a year. What would happen if the Lakers would have never added Kobe and added no one in his place but made the same roster moves, I think they may be a horrible franchise as well. The problem with this is that if we did not have Garnett the team would be completely different, chances of having any of the 12 players we have on the team right now are slim to none. So basically your whole argument is BS.
SB
August 17, 2008
To rt, your post was the most hilarious thing I’ve read in a long time. You know that the Lakers existed before Kobe, right? Do the names Shaq, Kareem, Johnson, Baylor, Chamberlain, West, Mikan ring any bells?
Kobe is great, but he doesn’t even rank in the top five best Lakers players.
TA
August 18, 2008
It seems like at least half of these comments have no idea how wages of wins works, you should really read more into it before criticizing the author of this article.
striae
September 11, 2008
If there were no Clippers, maybe.
mark root
October 21, 2009
1) how do you calculate an individual players wins?
2) why would you take away kg’s wins when he is apart of the franchise? That would be like saying the lakers are had team because they got Kobe and he makes up most of the teams wins, or the same for lebron.
3) it would make a franchise better because they could get a hold of a player that could produce that many wins.