So far the history of the Oklahoma City Thunder consists of ten games, and exactly one win. For those keeping score, that’s exactly one more win than the Seattle Super Sonics have managed this season. And obviously Seattle – thanks to Oklahoma – doesn’t have a team anymore.
For Kevin Durant – the supposed star of the Thunder – it’s not clear why Oklahoma’s new team is not getting much better results.
Locating the Problem
So the problem is team defense? Really?
After ten games the Thunder have surrendered 100.4 points per 100 possessions. Last year only four teams – Boston, Houston, San Antonio, and Detroit – had a better defensive efficiency. In sum, the Thunder seem to be pretty good on defense.
On offense, though, it’s a very different story. So far Oklahoma is only scoring 90.0 points per 100 possessions. To find a team that had this much trouble scoring one has to go back to the 2002-03 Denver Nuggets.
So the problem is on offense, not defense. And to see why this team struggles so much on offense, one only has to look at the five players who lead this team in shot attempts.
- Kevin Durant: 172 FGA, 43.9% adjusted field goal percentage
- Russell Westbrook: 117 FGA, 33.3% adjusted field goal percentage
- Jeff Green: 132 FGA, 46.6% adjusted field goal percentage
- Earl Watson: 98 FGA, 36.2% adjusted field goal percentage
- Desmond Mason: FGA, 40.0% adjusted field goal percentage
It appears that the players on the Thunder have figured out how to take shots. But getting the shots to go in the basket appears to be a problem. Unfortunately, scoring is really about getting the shots to go in the basket. It’s this lesson that Durant – who again, seems to think playing even better defense would solve the problem – doesn’t seem to understand.
Durant Declines Further
Speaking of Durant, much has been made of his rookie performance. According to the coaches and the media, Durant was the top rookie in 2007-08. According to the Wages of Wins metrics, though, he was well below average. Although Durant did not play well last season, there was hope he would get better. After 10 games, though, that hope has not been realized.
Table One: Kevin Durant after 10 games in 2008-09
Last season Durant was above average with respect to taking shots, blocking shots, hitting free throws, and avoiding personal fouls. He was also a little bit above average on the boards. With respect to all other stats, though, he was below average.
After 10 games this season Durant has the same profile. But now he has declined further with respect to every statistic except for shot attempts and personal fouls. Yes, Durant went from bad to really bad (and yet, his Player Efficiency Rating is still above average).
In addition to reporting Durant’s performance, Table One also reports what George Gervin did in the NBA. This comparison is made because of the following statement in Yahoo! Sports Thunder team report.
G Kevin Durant has often been compared to Hall of Famer George Gervin. It’s an easy comparison considering Durant’s build and scoring acumen.
When we look at the stats, we do see many similarities. But the comparison breaks down with respect to one important facet of the game. Gervin’s shots tended to go in the basket. In other words, at the end of his famous finger rolls, the ball went through the net. For Durant’s shots -as noted – this is not the common ending when he heaves the ball in the direction of the basket.
The Oklahoma Divide
Although Durant has played badly this year, it would be incorrect to say he’s the only problem in Oklahoma. An average player will post a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.100. The following players have posted marks in the negative range (yes, that’s bad): Damien Wilkins, Earl Watson, Chris Wilcox, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, and Desmond Mason. In sum, the inability of the Thunder to win can be linked to many players.
Table Two: Oklahoma City Thunder after 10 games in 2008-09
Despite a plethora of bad players, there are some bright spots on this team. The first is Jeff Green. Although his shooting efficiency has been below average, his overall player – as measured by WP48 – has been above average. In fact, he leads this team in Wins Produced.
And he’s not the only above average player. Joe Smith, Johan Petro, and Robert Swift (in limited minutes) have also been above average. One should note that the Thunder’s above average players tend to play in the frontcourt while the below average players are in the backcourt. Perhaps this team’s big guys should have a heart-to-heart talk with the little guys, who are literally throwing the wins away.
Let me close this post with a simple question. Are we supposed to call this team the Oklahoma City Thunder, or the Oklahoma Thunder? I vote for the latter. After all, we don’t refer to the New York City Knicks or the New York City Yankees.
– 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 
slowjoe66
November 16, 2008
Wow, we wrote our posts on the same day, and made a lot of the same points. Interesting. BTW, I think you made an error. The Thunder are allowing 104.4 pts. per 100, not 100.4. Makes a big difference.
My post is here: http://thunderguru.com/?p=541
I wrote it early Sunday afternoon. :O)
dberri
November 16, 2008
slowjoe,
By my calculation, the Thunder have 99.84 possessions per game and are giving up 100.3 points. So that works out to 100.4 points per 100 possessions. There are, though, different ways to calculate possessions.
It is important to note that the conclusions are still the same regardless. Oklahoma’s problems are on offense, not defense. And the offensive problems begin with Kevin Durant.
slowjoe66
November 17, 2008
I used basketball reference’s defensive rating. Is that that far off???
Lior
November 17, 2008
Taking a ratio of ratios is not a good way to go: you should divide the total points scored by the total number of possessions. The difference isn’t going to be large, but a few percent wouldn’t be surprising.
Anon
November 17, 2008
I get the Thunder confused with the Hornets when I’m looking at box scores. Like 5 times I’ve looked at one of their games and thought “holy crap the hornets are losing by 20 that’s odd” only to realize that it’s the thunder and it makes perfect sense that they’re down by 20. I hope I’m not the only person who does this.
How does someone like durant go from being so good in college to being so horrible in the pros? Is it because of his horrible lack of strength?
slowjoe66
November 17, 2008
I think your confusing not efficient with “horrible”. He’s not horrible, he is on a poor team, is still only 20, still learning about shot selection and has to take on too much of the load. I don’t think anybody would call him horrible is he and Rip Hamilton traded places.
Daniel
November 17, 2008
Lior– Professor Berri is not taking a ratio of ratios, but rather a ratio of averages.
You get exactly the same number either way. (Total Points/Number of Games)/(Total Possessions/Number of Games) x 100 = Average Points/Average Possessions x 100 = Average Points/ 100 Possessions. To find the average points and possessions, you divide both by the number of games, which means that the number of games shows up in both the numerator and denominator and cancels out.
A few percent difference would most definitely be surprising.
Anon
November 17, 2008
In addition to being inefficient, he doesn’t seem to be very adept at passing, and is an average rebounder despite being half a foot taller than most of the people around him.
And anyways I’d say expectations were that he’d be far better than rip hamilton even on a bad team, not that he might be as good as rip hamilton if he was put in the same favorable place as rip hamilton.
John W. Davis
November 17, 2008
I believe Durant is in De-(fence)nial.
His team is just bad and he is not really good.
I guess we are seeing Jonathan Bender 2.0.
mrparker
November 17, 2008
More minutes for Kyle Weaver please.
When is anyone going to start giving the Fasekesases and Weavers some run. I thought Spencer Nelson would get a decent shot but never has. The same goes for Mike Green out of Butler who I don’t think was picked up by anyone.
Dick Campbell
November 17, 2008
Oklahoma City Thunder is the appropriate moniker.
“New York City” is used colloquially to differentiate the city and the state, but the city’s name is New York. Hence New York Knicks.
Oklahoma City is the actual name of the capital of Oklahoma. Hence, Oklahoma City Thunder.
I guess you will have strike those four extra keys.
Leroy
November 17, 2008
I miss the sonics =(
http://www.breakindownthegame.com
Mike G
November 17, 2008
You’re being a little bit uncharitable to KD with your “seems to think playing even better defense would solve the (low-scoring) problem” remark, no?
His quote in the article doesn’t line up with the question you posed here. Generally, there are plenty of dumb NBA player remarks to go around. No need for you to manufacture extra ones.
boink
November 17, 2008
i think yall are stretching a little … to compare kd to bender is absurd. keep in mind he is only the 3rd teenager to avg 20ppg. that puts him in good company. when you say he cant pass, go back to the article & look at the percentages of the guys he’s passing to! dont forget collisons 43%, petros 44%, & masons 40% … then, recall that in 2 games last week thunder big men allowed 59, 38 & 10+ blocks by howard & curry.
& remember he’s out-of-position.
what do you want from him???
& like mike g said, because he said they should focus on defense, doesnt mean he said that was the reason they suck!
Ethan
November 17, 2008
Man, this is a pretty weak condemnation of Kevin Durant. He is only 20, is playing on a bad team, and is being asked to shoulder almost the entire burden on offense. Very few young players could match his production given the situation he is playing in. Matter of fact, on raw talent, I’d say he’s easily the best rookie we’ve seen since Chris Paul.
And let’s save the statistical comparisons to Iceman till a bit later in his career. Right now, the comparison hinges entirely upon style and talent, and I gotta say, most people who actually watch NBA games rather than just reading stat sheets would say the comparison is pretty apt.
The Thunder are a mess, but it isn’t Durant’s fault. He’s the only player on the team that merits a double on offense, and defenses key on him. So even when the passes aren’t coming from him, he’s making his teammates better and putting them in a better position to score. Unfortunately, they tend to struggle with the scoring part.
Ethan
November 17, 2008
And just to make sure it’s clear, I am aware that Durant is no longer a rookie. Should have said “was the best rookie” rather than “is”.
boink
November 17, 2008
co sign ethan …
you got a team full of 2nd & 3rd stringers (at best)…
its kind of mind boggling that durant is able to have the success he has …
he does have a lot to improve on, but is already very good for a 2nd year player …
& personally, i don’t think carlesimo does him any favors with his rotation, match-ups & system …
but like you said, most just read box scores & follow obscure statistical formulas
kevin durant
November 17, 2008
“Honestly I don’t know what the critics want me to do. I mean do they want me to average 30 points a game in this league as a rookie? On a new team? I don’t see how I can do that. But I think I’m getting better and helping this team out as much as possible.”
Translation: “Please. I’m still Kevin Durant. In two years, I’ll get a feel for the pro game and you’ll be calling me Jesus again. Right now, I’ve got no team, no city, no fans, no real coach, and no direction. And I’m only nineteen. I deserve an award for not shooting myself, and you’re giving me shit for scoring 20ppg?”
courtesy of shoals!
Jason E
November 18, 2008
The evaluation of Durant has nothing to do with him ‘playing out of position’ or putting him in the context of age. It simply says that he’s not helping his team win, that his play is detrimental to winning basketball. This is simply true. It doesn’t say anything about his “talent”. It doesn’t care that he’s scoring 20 points per game. “Talent” without execution doesn’t win games. Averaging 20 points per game through terribly inefficient shooting doesn’t win many games either.
It seems there are innumerable excuses for why he is performing poorly (and he is performing poorly). The one ‘excuse’ that seems to be avoided is owning up to that he’s playing poorly.
I’m curious too why so many who are critical of statistical analysis jump to the conclusion that people who understand how to use numbers do not watch games. This conclusion seems common, though it is false.
Jason E
November 18, 2008
“Boink”, the point of the article was that Durant *hasn’t* had much success. To find his success ‘mind boggling’ requires a rather peculiar definition of ‘success’, one that can be divorced entirely from those things that are common to actually winning. He has a high scoring average. While it’s common to regard this as a sign of ‘success’, it’s a flawed, unreliable marker for success as it correlates with winning.
If you decide that winning and success have nothing to do with each other, perhaps Durant has had ‘mind boggling success.’ If real results are important, he has not.
Tball
November 18, 2008
The 20ppg is a natural result of taking more than 26 shots per game. Most NBA players would average 20ppg if they were allowed to take 26 shots per game. That stat is not a compliment to Durant, but an indictment of the former Sonics.
He’s now taken more than 2000 shot attempts in the NBA and he has yet to discern which ones are unlikely to go in.
Honestly, I think the shooting percentage issue could be endured, particularly on a lousy shooting team. His rebounding is poor and, even on a lousy team, he is seventh in rebounds per game. His rebounding is below average for a shooting guard and he has talent and natural attributes that should make him a better rebounder than the average shooting guard. He is tied for third on the team in assists per game despite the fact he handles the ball more than anyone else and attracts double teams that leave teammates wide open (And Weaver and his 4m/gm are about to pass Durant’s a/gm mark). And he is 9th on the team in a/to.
Other than his points per game, Durant really doesn’t do anything to make him stand out as a better player than his teammates – on a really bad team.
Ethan
November 18, 2008
JasonE, when someone says “you aren’t watching the games”, what they are pointing out is that, especially with regard to rookies and young players, stats don’t tell the whole story. And TBall, for a stat maven your knowledge of actual NBA statistics is pathetic. In his rookie season, Durant averaged 17.1 fg attempts per game. This year, he is averaging 19.5, and so far he has slightly increased his shooting percentage. That’s a far cry from 26 shots per game, and very few rookies or second year players could average 20+ on that many shot attempts. Almost none could do it given the circumstances Durant is forced to play with.
And as I said, if you watch Sonics games, there is simply no question that Durant is far, far better than any of his teammates, just as there was no question he was the most talented rookie last year. NBA coaches aren’t stupid. They double team Durant and design defensive schemes around him because otherwise he will just go off. Just look at the way he started and ended his season last year. Coaches adjust though, and throw defensive wrinkles at the best players to disrupt their offensive game. Durant is still learning to respond to that, and because his team is so bad he doesn’t have the luxury of turning to an established veteran that can draw some coverage off of him. If you had watched any Sonics games,or paid attention to the way young players develop, then I wouldn’t have had to tell you this.
dustin
November 18, 2008
Kevin Garnett was surrounded by horrible teammates for the majority if his career and he still managed to put up some decent numbers.
Al Jefferson was surrounded by horrible teammates last year and still managed to put up some decent numbers.
Italian Stallion
November 18, 2008
>I’m curious too why so many who are critical of statistical analysis jump to the conclusion that people who understand how to use numbers do not watch games. This conclusion seems common, though it is false.<
I’m in the middle on this particular debate, but whenever I do get into a debate and find myself on the side of the more visually oriented, it seems to me that many of the stats oriented people seem so delusional about the game itself, you really have to wonder if they ever picked up a ball or watched a game in their life.
Durant is clearly not contributing as much as his reputation warrants, but it’s also clearly not all his fault.
Why both sides can’t understand that is pretty remarkable to me.
Stats tell you what happened. They don’t tell you why. The latter requires that you actually watch the games AND understand them WELL.
Tball
November 18, 2008
Ethan,
I should have listed the shots/gm as shots/48min (I used the number from DJ’s link). The point of the statement stands. Durant is averaging 19.5 shots/gm and 21.9 points/gm. Here is the list of players averaging more shots and their scoring average:
Lebron (29.8 points)
Dirk (24.0 points)
There are ten other players averaging more points than Durant and none of them take the number of shots that Durant takes. And the problem is not just FG%. Durant is taking 18.3 2pt FGs per game, which is leading the league (Al Jefferson is next at 18.2). Two pointers are easier shots and regularly result in free throws, but of the top 40 players in PPG, only Jefferson and LaMarcus Aldridge average fewer FTA/2pt attempt.
Thus, there are not many useful outcomes when Durant attempts a shot beyond recording the 2pt fg. To illustrate this point, I charted the top 50 ppg scorers and looked at their points per FGM. They ranged from 2.27 P/FGM for Kevin Garnett to 3.83 P/FGM for Devin Harris. Durant sat seventh at 2.52 P/FGM. Of the top ten on this list, on Michael Beasley shot worse than Devin Harris.
Durant combines the ability to shoot at a below average percentage with below average results for made baskets (specifically 3pt’ers and fts) in unique fashion. In fact, he has cut down on points/FGM (by taking half as many 3pt shots) this season enough to offset his improved FG%.
And yes, I think if you handed his shot attempts to Michael Beasley, Derrick Rose, Rudy Gay, Ray Allen, Danny Granger, Stephen Jackson, Kevin Martin, or even Jeff Green, surrounded by the same talent as Durant, you’d get more points.
But on the plus side, at least he is a lot of fun for you to watch, so you’ve got that going for you.
Tball
November 18, 2008
Italian Stallion,
When you watch the game, you tend to get the impression that the best players on the floor are the ones that most frequently have the ball in their hands and who make amazing moves. It becomes deceptive, though. The statistics show you things that your eyes may not have registered. Then you can take them back to the game to try to understand why things happened. Maybe a player is shooting at a low percentage because he is taking too many contested shots or shooting too far from the basket.
A good example would be Durant’s rebounding. I don’t care how many games you watch, you probably wouldn’t notice that Durant does not collect as many rebounds as an average shooting guard. His size and atheticism would lead you to believe the opposite would be true. You can take it back to the game and watch where he is playing and where he moves to when a shot goes up. Maybe regularly takes off down the court when a shot goes up. Maybe he stands and watches the shot. I haven’t followed the Sonics or the Thunder.
The point is, in areas where he was above average in college, he is below average in the NBA. And these rate statistics do not tend to change with a change in teammates (e.g., when players are traded or become free agents), so blaming teammates is a waste of time. Paul Pierce had a better FG%, more rebounds/gm, and more assists/gm three years ago playing for a lottery bound team than he did last year for the champs.
If Durant’s team had better players, they would win more, but Durant would not perform better. I suspect his shooting problem has more to do with taking too many 15-18 foot shot, which do not lead to free throws and are low percentage opportunities. I’d have to watch to confirm, but it is adequate at this point to say the Thunder are getting inadequate return on the FGA Durant takes.
I don’t have a theory on the rebounds, but I’d love to hear an explanation from those that watch him. Remember, he’s below average for shoot guard, so playing out of position is an inadequate explanation.
Tony Allen is a player on the Celtics that likes to drive to the basket, but when a second defender pops out, if he can avoid taking the shot, Tony will make a pass that basically requires the offense to reset (e.g., a pass to big who has stepped away from the paint to give Tony room to drive). If you don’t make passes to players in position to make plays, you don’t get assists. His assist numbers are similar to Durant. I don’t know where Durant passes to when he chooses not to shoot, but I’d suspect it is to a teammate not in a good position to make an immediate play.
Ethan
November 18, 2008
His lack of rebounding is, I think, one of the fairest criticisms that can be made. He simply is not strong enough yet to fight for rebounds effectively, and he has not yet learned to use his length and athleticism as effectively as he did in college. I believe that he will be a superior rebounder someday, and we have already seen games were he showed flashes of this. But first he has to develop new techniques to translate his physical gifts to the NBA level, he needs to become smarter about the way he approaches rebounding, and he also just needs to get bigger.
As for assists, all you need to do is watch some games and you’ll see that Durant is actually a decent passer, he just doesn’t have many people to pass to. The problem is, the Thunder may be the worst 3pt shooting team in the league. They take only 7.8 threes a game, and make just 2.6. Other than Durant and Green, they don’t have anybody that can hit a three, so defenses collapse inside. This makes every shot harder, and Durants teammates are bad so they just miss every damn thing they throw up there. I mean, the team is shooting 40 percent! Combine these problems with Durant needing to create most of the shots, and it shouldn’t be suprising that Durant and Green fail to pick up many assists.
As for scoring, all I can say is that you still severely understimate just how good Durant is, and the stats really don’t tell it. The only reason I’m taking this much time to write this response is because of how totally wrong the analysis has been on that particular point.
For the last two and a half months of last season he just tore everything up. And once he shakes off some summer rust, we’ll see that again this year. He already had a 37 point game against Indy, and we’ll see plenty more as the year goes on.
All you need to do is read Ron Artests quote about Durant, and you’ll have a sense of how good he is. He said “Sometimes you have to treat him like he’s Michael Jordan.” Artest isn’t one to compliment opponents lightly, and that’s about the highest praise you can give. Nobody is saying Durant is an offensive force like Jordan yet, but he’s already the focus of every defense he faces, and the leagues best defenders respect him.
He doesn’t have the personnel, or, frankly, the basketball acumen, to punish opponents for paying so much attention to him yet. But he will, and once he does he will go down as one of the greatest scorers the game has ever seen.
Simon
November 18, 2008
Ethan, what you’ve written so far actually doesn’t disagree at all with what dberri says. What you claim is basically “Durant is a wonderfully talented player and you can see it when you watch him play,” and what dberri says about him is “Durant hasn’t been very productive player. ” Those two aren’t exclusive. He probably is an extremely talented player, but so far he hasn’t figured out how to use his talents properly to benefit his team.
Also I don’t know a defender’s comment or “one of greatest scorers” means much . Some players can be extremely difficult to guard as they can go off even with defenders on their face, but it doesn’t mean they are particularly efficient over the course of a full season. Stackhouse and Jalen Rose are two of most immediate examples that come to my mind.
boink
November 18, 2008
im gonna leave you with this …
tball says he hasnt followed the sonics or thunder … so how can one make an assessment without observation …
do you know that kd shoots 45% ??…
if thats below average for a 2guard, you better stop naming players like stephen jackson (38%) or rudy gay (40%) …
in fact of all the players you claimed would do better with durants shot output, only derrick rose is clearly a higher % guy at 47% … martin & granger are only hundredths of a point better … the rest are equal or lower …
matter of fact, i challenge you to find me any current all-star guards who shot better than 45% in their second season … & i will guarantee that they will not outnumber the all stars who didnt …
in criticism of durant, i give you rebounding. he should average more boards, no question …
period …
you cant be condemned for a low assist average when your team shoots 40% … only 4 thunder players shoot better than durant… joe smith & 4 guys who have combined to shoot 29 times all season …
#s dont tell the entire story … the reality is the kid is on a horrible team with a coach who is mediocre at best …
lastly
November 18, 2008
oh yeah …
he’s 13th in the league in scoring …
only 1 of the 12 in front of him averages less minutes (kobe bryant) …
& he just turned 20 six weeks ago.
& the best players on his team are a 2nd year player & a rookie.
Owen
November 19, 2008
Boink-Lastly – No one is saying Durant won’t be good in the future. What is being said is that he isn’t good now. He hasn’t been productive. And most great players in the league have put up great stats whether they were on bad teams or not.
Personally, I think Durant is physically immature and I think next year or the year after that you may see the guy really blossom.
But right now, there just isnt any question about it, he simply isn’t an effective basketball player.
Re shooting guards – Look, you are missing something really important here. FG% isn’t a very good statistic. Granger’s True Shooting Percentage, which measures shooting efficiency on 2pt and 3pt field goals and ft’s, is at 58.5. Kevin Martin, who hasn’t played very well so far this year, is at 57.2. Durant is at 52%, basically league average. That’ a huge difference.
How many ft’s you take and how many three pointers you make really matters. Durant is trying to make a living off of mid range jumpshots. Very difficult thing to do in the NBA.
Anon
November 19, 2008
plus a lot of those other guards are helping their teams in ways that durant is not. Granger for instance is good in just about every statistical category. If durant isn’t making shots he’s not helping his team.
I agree that stephen jackson is terrible. He’s very overrated and that contract they gave him was abysmal.
sage
November 19, 2008
If everybody is going to rip Kevin Durant, as has been the case on this site since his first pro game, everybody better be prepared to rip Kevin Love. Every stat-head here was all over him as the best or second best rookie. And nobody really like OJ Mayo or Derrick Rose that much. So while everybody thought they have the draft figured out to an exact science withe WOW, i think everybody needs to take a step back and stop evaluating players on a daily basis, and give players like Durant and Love time to develop. All this talk about their play is premature and worthless. If Durant is still not producing in year 3 and 4 at all, and showing no improvement, than we can talk about how awful he is.
dustin
November 19, 2008
I think db or someone will probably do a post on love and durant, as WoW was very high on these players in college, and so far they have not panned out in the NBA (extremely small sample size for love though).
Owen
November 19, 2008
Sage – I don’t think anyone is saying that WS is a perfect evaluation tool for college prospects. It/s definitely not an exact science, and neither Erich nor DB have ever claimed it was.
I do think it’s quite helpful. Someone who was bad in college is unlikely to be good in the pros, so it helps you sift out some people. And a lot of players have brought their stats with them to the NBA, especially the low usage types, like say Balkman or Millsap.
But certainly when it comes to players who were great or good in college you don’t always know how that will translate to the NBA, especially in their rookie year. Even Lebron was below average his rookie year. I will say that you have to be encouraged by some parts of Love’s box score, especially the fact he is averaging 4.4 offensive boards per 36.
lastly
November 19, 2008
true … durant does not have as much impact on games as one would like to see.. you’d like him to do more things to help the team win besides avg points …
otherwise, it seems the criticism is often extreme … someone had the audacity to mention him in the same sentence as johnathan bender, a great guy – http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=JonathanBender-080923&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos2 …
but hardly any factor ever in the league … someone also said they dont follow the team, yet comment on a players ineffectiveness! …
i go back to the 80s, & there were no pers or true shot %s or efficiency ratings … i’m no scientist or mathematician, just a fan – who watches a whole lot of basketball …
#s can always be countered with other #s …
like its absurd to say that a player who avg’d 21, 6 & 6 as a rookie was below average …
in other words, we can agree to disagree. …
Andrew
November 20, 2008
This site’s analysis suffers from two general problems. First, while it may be true that teammates tend not to dictate rate stats, shot attempts (per minute) certainly do. I have long suspected, and the stats seem to indicate, that players have an efficient baseline of shots that they can take.
This is pretty easily illustrated by Allen Iverson’s increased TS% in Denver, Garnett’s increased TS% in Boston, etc. When a player takes fewer shots per minute because he has better teammates, the shots that are eliminated first are the worst ones.
This makes intuitive sense too; a player responsible for a high percentage of his team’s shots is going to be the focus of the opponent’s defense, and the increased offensive burden is going to lead that player to take shots that he wouldn’t if say, Paul Pierce or Rip Hamilton were there to shoulder some of the load. By simple economics this makes a ton of sense; we would expect there to be diminishing marginal returns from each additional shot, and at a certain point, there exists an equilibrium where it’s not worth it to shoot.
But what we need to realize is that this equilibrium point isn’t the same for every player, and it is highly dependent on team context. Durant has lots of terrible teammates, so a missed shot is less detrimental to his team than it would be to say, the Pistons, if he were magically swapped with Rip Hamilton.
Let’s say Durant would shoot a palatable 48% if he took 14 shots per game (like our buddy Rip did last year). Well, why doesn’t he just shoot 14 times a game for the Thunder, then, instead of shooting 45% on 19 shots? It’s pretty simple. Those 5 extra shots are coming from somewhere. If they’re coming from Jeff Green, Russell Westbrook, and Desmond Mason (remember, their shooting percentage will go down with increased shots too), it’s not going to be pretty. Durant may be shooting something like 37% on marginal shots between 14 and 19, but he’s actually helping his team by taking those shots, even if he’s hurting his rate stats.
The second problem with stats from this site is that they undervalue the ability to get shots in general. If you’re going to have a stat that purports to rank both paint players and exterior players, you’re going to have to figure out some way to solve the problem of having Carl Landry ranked higher than Tracy McGrady (or in this case, Joe Smith over Kevin Durant). One might look at the stats and claim that Smith is indeed more valuable because of his rebounding rates and high shooting percentage. But this not only goes against our intuitive sense of player value, it wrongly assumes that all shots are created equally. We know this to be false.
One of the things that makes Durant valuable is that he can get his own shot. The numbers bear out that unassisted buckets are harder to make than assisted ones. On a team with few distributors (they’re averaging a paltry 16.9 assists per game, nearly five fewer than they’re allowing), this can’t be ignored. One can’t simply say “Durant should stop taking unassisted shots because they don’t go in as much as assisted ones.” His teammates are chronically unable to provide him and others with open looks.
We also can’t ignore the fact that the outside shot is part of what allows players like Joe Smith to be valuable; there can be no offensive rebound and subsequent high-percentage shot without a missed shot in the first place.
This is not to say that Durant is a hyper-valuable player, or that he should have license to jack up more shots than he already does. We’re talking about a guy who would likely have a Rip Hamilton type contribution in a role in which he could be an efficient contributor on a quality team. But that’s a lot better than what he’s portrayed as in this flawed analysis. And when you consider that he’s only 20, as many have pointed out, that portends a much brighter future (with a much shallower necessary growth curve!) than Dave Berri would have you imagine.
Jason E
November 20, 2008
“The numbers bear out that unassisted buckets are harder to make than assisted ones. ”
What numbers are you referring to that “bear this out?
The FG% on assisted baskets is, by definition, 100%, else an assist could not be rewarded. Similarly the FG% on unassisted buckets is 100%.
I think we can ignore that the missed shots make that Durant misses are somehow more valuable than the misses someone else would have. If he’s contributing to Smith’s value by *missing*, that’s something pretty much anyone in the league can do. The notion that getting a bad shot off is difficult for an NBA player has dreadfully little to support it.
Andrew
November 21, 2008
Take a look at the shooting percentages on long twos and threes of players who are primarily assisted and players who primarily take their own shots. There is a striking contrast. This is one of the reasons that Steve Nash is an insane talent; he can get his own shot 85% of the time (or whatever it is) and still shoot 45% from three. From an intuitive point of view, it makes a ton of sense that players who are set up for open shots with assists are more likely to make those shots.
Also, it is completely uncharitable to assume that I nonsensically meant that there is some difference between shots that are by definition, made. What I’m (clearly) talking about are shots for which there is an opportunity for one player to make an assist if the bucket is made.
The second half of your argument did nothing to address what I’m saying. If the Thunder get 89 shots a game, well, someone needs to take all those shots. If we say that Durant’s “efficient baseline” is 14 shots, but there are still five shots out there that someone needs to take, it’s actually more valuable to the team for Durant to take those shots, because even if he has a mere 37% chance of making marginal shots from 14-19, that’s still a hell of a lot better than their other options.
My argument is not that Durant’s misses are more valuable than anyone else’s, it’s simply that Durant’s shots are more valuable than those of his teammates because they are more likely to go in the basket than his teammates’ are. So it’s pretty clear why he’s shooting 19 times a game, even when that drags his numbers below league average efficiency.
Finally, you’re misinterpreting my argument about the difference between post players and perimeter players. The main difference is that for many post players who have great rate stats, their shot opportunities are largely dictated by the play of their perimeter players. In other words, part of the reason that Carl Landry can shoot 58% is because of what Tracy McGrady does (whether that’s shooting, opening up the middle with the threat of a dribble drive, or passing to an open man in the post). Any system of stats that assumes that Carl Landry (or Joe Smith, etc) shoots 55%+ in a vacuum is naive. Dave Berri’s stats systematically undervalue the contributions of perimeter players because they assume that all shot opportunities are equal. They are not, and one main difference is that the opportunities of post players are often created by what the perimeter players do.
Dave Berri’s stats attempt to say that Kevin Durant’s 19 shots per game are why the Thunder are bad. I am saying that there is no reason to take that at face value; in fact, I hold the opposite: the Thunder are bad, which causes Kevin Durant to have the incentive to shoot 19 times per game.
Jason E
November 21, 2008
Andrew, it was not clear what you were “(clearly) talking about”. You said that the number bore something out. You supplied neither numbers nor reference to such numbers. You still have not.
j
November 21, 2008
There’s nothing wrong with what Kevin Love is doing right now. The major problem for him is that he’s very similar to their two other power fowards in Jefferson and Craig Smith. Love and Jefferson are both planted to the floor and Smith is undersized, but Love’s already as good a rebounder as Jefferson, and he’s already reasonably skilled at getting fouled, and he’s a way above average passer for his position. His shooting percentages will go up and his turnovers will go down, as long with his fouls. He’s absolutely okay. The most underrated stats tend to be fouls and getting fouled. Really good teams tend to get fouled a lot while fouling very little. Ultimately Love will be a player that helps a team do those things while doing a number of other things very well as well. And it’ll likely be sooner than later.
Beasley’s lack of rebounding is a little disturbing though, as is Durant’s.
Anyone who didn’t think Derrick Rose was going to be a good player is crazy. Athleticism and skill together. No one’s going to play a triangle and two on you in the NBA (because your teammates tend to be able to shoot), and your teammates are going to be ready for the passes you make that should be dunks but go through their hands (ie. Joey Dorsey) or are caught but not handled cleanly and so the play has to be reset. John Calipari’s offensive system is also awful.
j
November 21, 2008
There was a study on 82 games that had many people collect data on shots that were taken after a pass and shots that weren’t, and the shots other than dunks and lay-ups (also higher) that were assisted (taken after a pass) had something like an 8-12% higher chance of going in. Very significant. Also goes a long way in showing why these secondary scorers tend to seem much more significant statistically from an efficiency standpoint, ala Josh Childress. Players who generate their own offense and shoot high percentages are very rare. Players who do that and consistently generate offense for others, even more rare than that. Wade, Lebron, Nash, Paul and Williams. And only three of those guys defend at extremely high levels, who perhaps not coincidentally happen to be the three who consistently draw fouls on the opposition at high rates.
Mountain
November 21, 2008
If Durant is going to be very high usage it would seem straightforward to me that you would want a pure PG setting him up, lots of 3 point shooters and strong rebounders and defenders. They don’t have the first two and are only average on the later two are best right now.
If you are concerned about the ability to move a few shots from Durant to others then it calls into question the commitment to running. Reduce the pace by 5 and you don’t have to give 5 shots to anybody.
Mountain
November 21, 2008
Lowering pace- if it is accompanied by a significant reduction in his shots- will change usage rate and will give more time to find the right shots by him or others. If not now, later with presumably better teammates. But I see no reason why Joe Smith can’t handle 1=2 more shots. Same for wilcox. And I’d give the new Swift more of a try. Westbrook gets almost a 28% usage rating and Swift gets less than 9%? That is a tremendous imbalance especially given Westbrook’s shooting performance. But Westbrook is Presti’s pick and gets the favored treatment and Swift is a holdover.
Ethan
November 22, 2008
Jason, what Andrew was talking about was clear, and you still have not responded to the excellent points he has made. He should not have referenced numbers, though, because he clearly didn’t have statistical evidence to back up the intuitive and logical arguments he was making.
His argument, though, references the biggest problem that people who have played and watched a ton of basketball have with people who use statistical analysis too religiously. What he said about numbers being used in a “vacuum” is right on, and one of the things I appreciate about an analyst like John Hollinger is that he will often concede the contextual problems that numbers cannot reconcile.
The reality is that, in certain circumstances, numbers just flat-out lie. Or, they at least demand a different kind of analysis. The degree of awfulness of Durant’s teammates can’t really be overstated, and the importance of Durant’s ability to “get his own shot” cannot be understated. That ability is, in fact, one of the reasons executives around the league are so high on him. A prime example of the importance of this ability is Shawn Marion. Look at what has happened to him since he left Phoenix. Without someone to create for him, he is a shadow of himself. With Nash, he’s an all-star talent.
That’s why we value assists so much, because they increase the likelihood of a made shot and create a flow condusive to offensive success. In short, having a distributor is really, really important to most players. Durant already has demonstrated, though, that he can do it on his own, and as he gets better and stronger that will matter more and more. When he gets help that can spread the floor out and give him some easier shots, we can expect to see a dramatic improvement in his true shooting percentage and a big drop in his turnover rate.
I could keep on going here, cause there are many other reasons to be excited about his offensive performance and potential at this point. Durant is doing all this playing out of position, he’s handling the massive disruption of switching cities in his second season, he’s so young and will fill out, etc. etc. etc. The bottomline is, stats gurus trying to attack him as an ineffective offensive player are pissing in the wind. If you’ve watched him play, you know that he’s going to be one of the greatest scorers in the league for a long time, so this whole thing is just funny and annoying at the same time.
His defense and rebounding are another matter. Given his competitive nature, I expect both to be stellar someday, but there are much better arguments to be made about his disappointing performance in those areas. We’ll see what happens, but I think physical maturity and experience will bring those both along.
Ethan
November 22, 2008
Also, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that Berri’s identical evaluation of paint vs. perimeter/unassisted shots is one of the biggest weaknesses in his statistical breakdowns. Andrew was right on there. As he said, Carl Landry doesn’t get those shots if TMac isn’t on the floor. Same is true for a guy like Tyson Chandler playing with Chris Paul. It doesn’t even matter if TMac or Paul makes the pass, it’s their presence that creates the opportunity. Durant will do that for a lot of players over the course of his career.
Tyson
November 23, 2008
Jason E, you have not responded to any of Andrew’s points. What he said made perfect sense.
There seems to be something terribly wrong with this analysis. Although Durant is not nearly as efficient as his fans would like him to be, it seems highly unlikely that he has actually taken wins away from his team, and it is even more unlikely that the legendary Robert Swift has been playing at a superstar-caliber level (even with the small sample size of 81 minutes).
Someone on the Thunder has to take those shots. Who would you have shooting other than Durant? Look at the top 5 players in shot attempts for the Thunder. 3 of them are less efficient than Durant taking a significantly smaller amount of shots. Green is the only one with a better Adjusted FG%, and he’s taken 40 less shots. Durant is not taking shots away from players that are league average; he is taking shots away from bad, inefficient players. Berrri’s system makes no allowance for Durant’s team context, leading his system to make really strange conclusions.
P.S. I believe Desmond Mason took more than one shot this season.
j
November 24, 2008
Referencing Shawn Marion is not really a positive comparison for Durant. Shawn Marion’s best offensively as a tertiary scorer on a good team, but he’s an above average, if also slightly overrated, defender at a couple of positions, average at a couple of others (that is he allows you to switch screens without losing much) and he’s an exceptional rebounder if he’s playing power forward and a good one if he’s playing more on the perimeter. Sure he’s inefficient without Nash and Stoudemire (both are important to all the Suns opportunities) but both those guys can create for themselves and shoot around 50% from the field, and with Nash between 40 and 50% from three. If he’s no better than Marion then Durant cannot do that, plus he doesn’t rebound (that’s not because of strength, that’s because he and/or his coaches don’t feel it important for him to rebound, it’s about desire), doesn’t get fouled (all great players who can create their own shots draw lots of fouls) and doesn’t really make any of his teammates better, no matter how bad they are. Perhaps he’s playing out of position and that’s part of it (isn’t part of the advantage of playing him at 2 guard that you could post him up, why doesn’t this happen in OKC games? he was pretty effective post player in college), but almost any super elite NBA player would have had a better start to their career than he has. The good thing is that he’s young and PJ just got fired.
Ethan
November 24, 2008
Wasn’t saying Durant and Marion were similar, I actually think Durant will be far, far better. I wasn’t comparing Marion and Durant’s defensive or rebounding games, just the ways that they can score. I believe that Durant will one day possess a defensive and rebounding game that is at least on par with Marion’s, but that is a long way off. My point was that Marion can’t create his own shot, while Durant can, and that that is a very underrated ability. It was a response to Jason E and Berri’s failure to appreciate the importance of capable teammates and assists as a means of creating efficient scoring, and the relative success that Durant has had in the absence of those factors.
Erich
November 25, 2008
Good news for OKC fans, Durant may be on the verge of rediscovering his rebounding prowess. The new coach is moving him to forward. My name links to the news.
Lngnstrt
December 8, 2008
First of all I’ve got to admit my bias. I’m a Longhorn fan. I saw probably 75% of his games in person during the season he was here. I also know how hard the kid works. 6:00 am lifting sessions, every morning, during this past off-season when he came back to go to school. Barring injury, he’ll end up in the HOF.
There are many things I could add about his game but most of them have been said. A couple of things I will say. When he’s in position to rebound, he does. He has great hands and timing. As he gets stronger, and if they decided to play him closer to the basket, he’ll put up good rebounding numbers. Second, he changes the geometry of the game. As he gets more comfortable, you’ll notice that he knocks away passes that guys just don’t expect to be contended. You can almost see the look on their face. They’ve been throwing a certain pass all their lives and all of the sudden a guy gets his hand on it.
Now, I do think he has weaknesses. Should get to line more often. There is no reason he shouldn’t take advantage of almost any player down low. Either with quickness or size. He should demand the ball down low in almost any situation.
But, he’s only 20. I think he’ll be all right.
spike
December 29, 2008
Care to re-evaluate Durant based on his performance during the month of December ?
The arrogance with which you distribute your simple-minded analysis is ridiculous.
Lngnstrt
January 28, 2009
“Care to re-evaluate Durant based on his performance during the month of December ?
The arrogance with which you distribute your simple-minded analysis is ridiculous.”
Or January
Lngnstrt
December 3, 2009
Lookin’ pretty good.
Lngnstrt
February 3, 2010
Not that ya needed it, but I had your back KD.
Hook ‘Em