There are 29 cities who currently host at least one NBA team. Of these, only 15 have ever witnessed an NBA title. And if we focus on life in the NBA since 1980, we see only eight teams winning an NBA title (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, and Heat). Such a record suggests that the NBA is not competitively balanced (which is true). It also suggests that fans of most NBA teams don’t have much hope of seeing playoff glory in the near future.
Despite this record, though, hope does spring eternal in July. Fans look at the players their favorite team has drafted, and the veteran “stars” the team has acquired, and suddenly dreams of playoff glory spring to life.
And then some cynical economist has to come along and dash the whole dream to hell. Well, at least that’s going to be true today for fans of the Toronto Raptors.
The Raptors Set a Record
In terms of efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency), the 2007-08 edition of the Toronto Raptors was the best in franchise history (really). The team’s differential of 3.1 translated into a 48.9 Wins Produced. The team, though, only won 41 games. Consequently the Raptors didn’t appear to be as good as their differential suggested.
As a result, changes to the roster were made. The primary departures included Carlos Delfino [6.6 Wins Produced, 0.165 Wins Produced per 48 minutes or WP48], T.J. Ford [4.0 Wins Produced, 0.160 WP48], and Rasho Nesterovic [3.2 Wins Produced, 0.104 WP48]. These players combined to produce 13.8 wins in 2007-08. So if the team just wanted to maintain what we saw two years ago – assuming the returning players maintained their production (and overall they came close) — it needed to find players who could produce nearly 14 wins.
Unfortunately when we look at the eleven players added to the Raptors for the 2008-09 season, all we see are 1.5 wins. Of these eleven, only five – Shawn Marion [3.3 Wins Produced, 0.168 WP48], Jermaine O’Neal [0.6 Wins Produced, 0.023 WP48], Pops Mensah-Bonsu [0.4 Wins Produced, 0.071 WP48], Will Solomon [0.3 Wins Produced, 0.028 WP48], and Quincy Douby [0.3 Wins Produced, 0.172 WP48] – managed to finish with a Wins Produced mark in the positive range. And yes, that means six new players were in the negative range.
Because the Raptors failed to replace the productivity of their departing talent, the team’s fortunes fell. When the 2008-09 season ended, the Raptors had only won 33 games and their team’s efficiency differential was a -3.0. When we turn to Wins Produced, we see a team mark of 33.5. Most of these, though, could be linked to the play of the following four individuals: Jose Calderon [12.4 Wins Produced, 0.255 WP48], Chris Bosh (10.9 Wins Produced, 0.179 WP48], Jamario Moon [6.0 Wins Produced, 0.210 WP48], and Anthony Parker [5.4 Wins Produced, 0.097 WP48].
Moon departed in the trade that brought the team Shawn Marion. And Parker has now departed in the trade that cost the team Shawn Marion. This means that the only significant producers of wins the Raptors are retaining from the 2007-08 and 2008-09 teams are Calderon and Bosh. And these players only produced 23.3 wins last season.
Obviously to be a playoff contender you need more than 23.3 wins. But who else is going to produce wins?
Rebuilding the Raptors?
Here are the primary players the team has added so far (with what the player did last year reported):
Hedo Turkoglu [6.7 Wins Produced, 0.115 WP48]
Antoine Wright [-2.7 Wins Produced, -0.083 WP48]
Reggie Evans [2.6 Wins Produced, 0.108 WP48]
Of these, Wright is the least helpful and Turkoglu the most famous. In a move that dashed some hope in Portland, Toronto “stole” Turkoglu with a contract that will pay the former Magic player more than $10 million per season (and one wonders if the NBA Finals impacted that contract). For his career, Turkoglu has produced 41.4 wins with a 0.105 WP48. Average WP48 is 0.100. So Turkoglu has been essentially average across his career. And now he is 30 years of age (not a good age for an NBA player) and will turn 31 before the next season ends (an even worse age for an NBA player). The career production of Evans is similar (41.9 Wins Produced) to Turkoglu, but because he has played fewer minutes his career WP48 is 0.200. But Evans was not nearly that good last year, and he is still just a reserve in the frontcourt (so his minutes will be limited).
The starters in the frontcourt will be Bosh and Bargnani. The latter just signed a lucrative extension, despite the fact he is the least productive number one pick in the lottery era. Bargnani did improve last season, but he still hasn’t had a season with a Win Produced mark in the positive range. The odd incentives of the NBA, though, mean that Bargnani’s inability to produce did help the Raptors land another lottery pick in 2009 draft. DeMar DeRozan, though, was not very productive in college last season. So it’s not likely (although certainly possible) he will help much in 2009-10.
Not a Pretty Picture in Toronto
When we put the whole picture together, it appears the Raptors will employ the following starting line-up in 2009-10: Calderon (PG), Wright and/or DeRozan (SG), Turkoglu (SF), Bosh (PF), Bargnani [C]. Last season the NBA veterans in this line-up combined to produce fewer than 30 wins. So unless these players improve dramatically, or the team finds very productive players off the bench, it’s hard to see how this team improves dramatically. And that’s true even if Delfino returns to Toronto (although if Evans returns to what we saw in the past there might be some hope this team can get past 40 wins).
All of this means that
- Turkoglu will be seeing much more money in 2009-10, but probably far fewer wins.
- Bargnani will also see much more money, but it seems unlikely he is ever going to produce many wins.
- Bosh will see even more money after this next season, but if the Raptors don’t approach 45 or 50 wins (which seems likely) then it seems unlikely that the money Bosh is paid in the future is going to be paid by the Raptors.
- So it looks likely the Raptors record performance in 2007-08 will stand for awhile. In other words, if Bosh departs this team in 2010, then rebuilding will probably continue beyond 2009-10.
- And this means — assuming the Raptors don’t make any major change to this team — the fans of the Raptors will keep paying money to see a team that’s not contending for a title.
Of course, a similar story can be told for many of the teams and cities that have yet to win an NBA title. And I suspect – given my cynical nature – similar posts will be written about a few of these teams in the coming weeks and months.
- 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.
64 responses so far ↓
Evan // July 13, 2009 at 12:04 am
Does anyone have an explanation for why the NBA is a very inefficient market? For example, football (soccer) is way more imprecise statistically, but there is a level of stability largely explained by income.
The NFL redistributes heavily, of course. MLB is clearly less efficient.
Morning Coffee – July 13 - Raptors Republic - Raptors Blog for the ESPN True Hoop Network // July 13, 2009 at 5:03 am
[...] Wages Of Wins Journal When we put the whole picture together, it appears the Raptors will employ the following starting line-up in 2009-10: Calderon (PG), Wright and/or DeRozan (SG), Turkoglu (SF), Bosh (PF), Bargnani [C]. Last season the NBA veterans in this line-up combined to produce fewer than 30 wins. So unless these players improve dramatically, or the team finds very productive players off the bench, it’s hard to see how this team improves dramatically. And that’s true even if Delfino returns to Toronto (although if Evans returns to what we saw in the past there might be some hope this team can get past 40 wins). [...]
Tball // July 13, 2009 at 5:42 am
Evan,
What are you referencing when you call the NBA an inefficient market? I thought you might be referencing Bargnani’s contract or competitive imbalance, but I really wasn’t sure.
If you are talking about competitive imbalance, I think you have to bear in mind that the NBA and MLB are very different. MLB has had 8 different champions the last 9 years. Last year, a team with one of the five lowest payrolls played in the World Series. Teams with high payrolls have more opportunity for success, but increased efforts at revenue sharing and use of a luxury tax have improved the status.
In the NBA, I think the issue is that there is a shortage of top tier talent. Players like Shaq, Duncan, KG, LeBron, Dwight Howard have a long peak period and the NBA has created economic disincentives for free agent movement. If you can get one of these stars, along with a competent GM (sorry Mr. McHale), you can field a competitive team for years. If you can pair the top echelon star with a second excellent player, you can field a championship contending team for years. And with only five players on the court, a top player on an NBA team can influence the play of his team more than a top player in baseball or football.
brgulker // July 13, 2009 at 8:31 am
I’m not sure which is more depressing for me:
1) That this seems to be the same thing my Pistons have done, OR
2) That a lot of Pistons fans are holding out hopes that we will someday retain the services of Chris Bosh as savior of the franchise.
I mean, Bosh is good, but he will command a max salary. Unfortunately, he’s not great, and his salary will cripple efforts to put quality players around him. So, his future employer will end up paying max money for a good player, but not a great player, and his salary will cripple the employment of the other very good players they will need in order to compete.
Evan // July 13, 2009 at 8:53 am
if you go by WoW, general managers have no idea what they are doing. that’s what i meant by inefficient market.
Raps Fan // July 13, 2009 at 8:54 am
brgulker: Bosh is an elite player in the NBA. He is not the prototypical franchise player, but through team defense, rebounding and keeping his check away from the basket, he can be VERY effective if paired with a player like Joe Johnson who can alleviate some of the offensive burden (although he does drop 20+ ppg).
If you added Bosh to a core of Gordon and Villanueva and Stuckey, you would have the makings of a very good team for years to come, and a payroll of only $30 million or so between 4 of your starting 5. Not too bad a situation…
Raps Fan // July 13, 2009 at 8:55 am
Sorry, that number should read $40 mill, and it doesn’t look as good as $30mill, but you still would have $17mill or so to round out a very competitive team.
SWaN // July 13, 2009 at 9:46 am
Rap’s GM does not seem to appreciate WoW. After 50 million for Bargnani, he’s offered 20 million to J. Jack.
Possibly return of Delfino and Nesterovic will help. But championship dreams for Toronto fans will have to wait.
Hopefully Bargnani becomes more efficient scorer as it seems unlikely his rebounding will improve.
Daniel // July 13, 2009 at 9:52 am
Gordon, Villanueva, and Stuckey are all below average players. Just because they have started and have scored some points doesn’t mean they do anything else well that leads to winning. And indeed that is the case. All they do is score.
That’s what the Wages of Wins is about.
Italian Stallion // July 13, 2009 at 10:00 am
“Hopefully Bargnani becomes more efficient scorer as it seems unlikely his rebounding will improve”
I think neither is likely to happen because that’s not his game. He spends more time away from the basket on offense than the typical big man.
I think it IS possible for Bargnani to be an important piece on a very good team with only mild improvement, but that will require the GM/Coach to not think of him as a C.
Because of his unique set of talents (and lack of other talents) for such a tall man, they have to put him on the court with a PF and SF that are good in the paint and that rebound well for their positions. That way they can make up for his weaknesses and he can use his outside game to draw big men away from the basket and make it easier on them.
Al // July 13, 2009 at 10:18 am
How the hell do you figure Andrea Bargnani is the least productive number one pick in the lottery era? Hello Michael Olowonkandi. You have no credibility.
Al // July 13, 2009 at 10:20 am
oh and your stupid table has left out the last two years in the NBA. So don’t give me that statistical bull.
enoss // July 13, 2009 at 10:21 am
huge raptor fan (season ticket holder) and longtime bill james disciple.
I have always struggled with performance models in basketball versus baseball. in basketball they have simply seemed less persuasive or less accurate to me. in my mind, I have always attributed this to the fact that baseball models better due to no clock.
this article in particular holds the two examples that are hardest to digest for me, andrea bargnani and jamario moon.
andrea bargnani certainly was very worrisome until january of this year. until that time his completely abysmal performance by any blended statistical measure (PER, wins produced, etc) was digestible. BUT, his performance from january of this year was simply solid. he was an efficient scorer, his man defense was mostly solid, he blocked shots. I looked forward to his statistical results reflecting this. nope!
and jamario. for his first year in toronto he was a revelation. he is such a nice guy and was such a feel good story that it was fun to enjoy him and his HUGE measures (again PER, wins produced, etc). but this year ANYONE watching him had to admit that he was not only not a big contributor, but was a clear liability.
my working theory currently is that in attempting to value more than scoring (a noble and desired result) that current measures have instead undervalued it and overvalued some other stats (like rebounding). is this enough? I do not know.
I do know to my naked eye it felt like jamario led the league in rebounding missed second-foul shots!
I would love to hear your thoughts dave.
Raps Fan // July 13, 2009 at 10:43 am
Daniel: Gordon and Villanueva are not below average. Granted they are not elite, but they are above average players in the league. IMHO anyways.
axl // July 13, 2009 at 11:06 am
BC has pretty much built the team, around guys (hopefully) “about to turn the corner”, if that’s a real thing. Bargnani, derezon at least fall into that category. Two guys I wish were still on our bench though, moon and AP and rasho.
I’m still amazed that JO didn’t replace the production of rasho. I guess he just missed too many games.
brgulker // July 13, 2009 at 11:16 am
@ Raps fan:
With respect to payroll: The big problem right now is Rip’s contract.
As it stands currently, we will be paying over 22 million dollars to both Rip and Gordon next year and the year after. The scariest part of that is that the cap is projected to shrink to 50-53 million in 10-11. So, we’d have nearly 50% of our cap space invested in the SG slot.
In short, there’s no way we could go after a guy like Bosh, i.e., a max contract player, because we literally do not have the cap space to do so.
With respect to Gordon and CV, they actually are quite a bit below average when judged by wins produced, especially Gordon. Ironically, Gordon and Rip are nearly identical, which means we’ve invested all that money into two players who won’t contribute an awful lot to winning, in spite of their scoring.
The upside is that I think Stuckey and CV can still improve their games. There’s no question that CV will become a more high-usage player this season; if he can become a better rebounder and improve his shooting efficiency a bit, he could become a productive player.
The Franchise // July 13, 2009 at 11:22 am
enoss- WP does what you’re wanting. The model is derived from results and has the predictive power it should have, both from year to year, as well as team to team. Without more data than just the box score, it’s not going to be *perfect*, but it is as good as a model can be without more data than what is currently available.
There are several people that think that rebounding is over-emphasized in WP, especially vis-a-vis scoring. I’m going to use an anecdote to disagree. Whenever I’ve played pickup basketball, rebounding has been particularly important. When I’m on a team that rebounds well, we always have the ball and we’re winning. When the other team rebounds better, we never have enough opportunities to shoot, and we’re losing, even if a couple guys are shooting relatively well.
Winning basketball games is about relative performance in two categories: possessions, and scoring efficiency.
brgulker // July 13, 2009 at 11:35 am
Whenever I’ve played pickup basketball, rebounding has been particularly important. When I’m on a team that rebounds well, we always have the ball and we’re winning. When the other team rebounds better, we never have enough opportunities to shoot, and we’re losing, even if a couple guys are shooting relatively well.
Which is why teams like San Antonio and Detroit have been so successful over the past handful of years (not counting this one), even when it seems counter-intuitive that they would be.
If you can score efficiently and give yourself more possessions than the opposing team, you will win a lot of ball games.
Palamida // July 13, 2009 at 1:37 pm
The Franchise – I’m completely on the WoW bandwagon, don’t get me wrong But I feel it’s important to say that the knock on WoW rebounding wise isn’t that a rebound isn’t important or as important as a basket ; The argument is that when a player rebounds (especially defensive Rebs which incidentally constitute roughly 75% of total Rebs) in the WoW metric he gets credited for the rebound whereas allegedly in reality rebounding is a team effort to a certain degree: I.E other inside players boxing out, and allowing\insuring that the big man will grab the board. What if for example we would find that a random SF say…. Caron Butler always keeps his man in check and does not allow him to roam free and “hunt” for offensive boards, whereas other SF’s do not perform this feat at all times. In such a team, the big man would get more uncontested, easy rebounds in those situations (when theoretically the Opp. SF might have better position if it weren’t for Butler’s superb off the ball defense).
In summation the the argument isn’t that Rebs aren’t important only that it’s misleading and wrong to give full credit to the guy who actually caught the ball when in fact that could have been the end result of a team effort.
Personally I disagree with this view entirely but don’t have the time to go into my perspective right now, just a clarification.
Keep it up, Prof. With the Gm’s seemingly doing their jobs worse than ever, there’s just to many topic to right about than there is time :p.
Boozer for Prince shot down by the Pistons, really? after the Rondo saga? they’re really losing it in Detroit.
RapthoseLeafs // July 13, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“And dats the fact, ma’m.”
Whichever way a perspective goes, Stats can always be skewed to back an argument.
I always get a chuckle when Bargnani (based on eff. numbers or whatever) is surpassed by guys like Moon, or Pops, or whatever Development league player these BS numbers choose.
Then I hear some moron blog from another city (and that includes the professional types), going on about someone like Joey, and how the Raptors are “losing” an energy guy off the bench … blah blah blah. I can’t help thinking, maybe these blind souls need to watch a GAME, and stop making profound judgments based on God knows what.
With the exception of those MAX guys who have that ability to carry a team (like LeBron, Wade, Howard – NOT Bosh), basketball teams need the group to gel in order to take that team to the next level.
As they say, the sum of the parts does not make a whole – so to add up statistical data like some bookkeeping process, is not really a fair way to assess the potential.
I like where T.O. is going. I think we moved from a barely play-off team, to one that should make it into the 2nd round. If it doesn’t, then we can take those individuals stats and assess it all then — in hindsight, of course.
ilikeflowers // July 13, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Palamida,
“In summation the the argument isn’t that Rebs aren’t important only that it’s misleading and wrong to give full credit to the guy who actually caught the ball when in fact that could have been the end result of a team effort.”
The same can be said of scoring or of any other stat really. Given this, how can one conclude that defensive rebounding should be singled out as the stat that is most incorrectly biased towards the individual based on anecdotes?
Anon // July 13, 2009 at 4:37 pm
What would be really interesting, and might solve some of the issues that are frequently addressed, would be to find the average WP48 of people playing against you at the same position. So maybe Jason Kidd has a WP48 of .300, but since he can’t move laterally, opposing point guards have an average WP48 of .200, which lessens his value. On the other hand, Bruce Bowen might have a WP48 of .002, but opposing SFs have a WP48 of .020 or something would show how valuable he is on defense. If caron butler is doing a great job boxing out so that his guy doesn’t get the rebound, then that guy’s WP48 would be lower, so that would reflect well on Butler. It would be a lot of work to figure that out probably, and there’s some obvious wrinkles, but I’d be interested to see the results of such research.
Anon // July 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm
in case it isn’t totally clear, I mean that you would measure the WP48 of people in JUST the games they’re against those players.
Top Posts « WordPress.com // July 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm
[...] Dashing Hope in Toronto There are 29 cities who currently host at least one NBA team. Of these, only 15 have ever witnessed an NBA title. [...] [...]
Rob O'Malley // July 13, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I like Anons idea, and I wouldn’t be surprised if those numbers were gathered somewhere.
Italian Stallion // July 13, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Anon,
I think you couldbe hitting an important nail on the head. I’ve given the same idea some thought when it comes to measuring defense.
If I was someone trying to make my living off basketball gambling or selling statistical research, I would definitely monitor matchups like that to the greatest extent possible.
I think it would give us a some very good insights into defensive and other player abilities that are currently somewhat cloudy because of the lack of information.
The major problem I can think of is when teams play “zone” defense (among others), but even then it might be possible to monitor the scoring etc.. of opponents in specific zones.
Palamida // July 13, 2009 at 10:28 pm
IlikeFlowers, First of all as I have pointed out I was only presenting the common argument regarding Over valuation of Rebs. Personally I think it’s Bull.
Anon, and IS I don’t know if you’re familiar with Ty’s work over at bucks diary: http://mvn.com/bucksdiary/
What you’re both proposing is exactly what he’s doing i.e measuring a player’s counterpart production, and I find his work an improvement over Berri’s in three respects:
Firstly it makes perfect common sense.
Secondly the way it was derived (you’ll have to refer to his blog for details) demonstrates the problem in the basic WoW method whilst offering a solution.
Lastly and subjectively his findings coincide better with what the eyes “see” (at least mine).
It’s biggest problems in my mind are that for one, it’s dependent upon the “counterpart by position” stat from 82games. Their method is to determine position by a logical order – meaning they rank each team’s player from the “most” PG to the “most” C and then determine who played what according to who played in a specific five man unit. That’s arbitrary and has obvious flaws but since there’s nothing better publicly available, you have to live with it.
Secondly the “Zone” arguments sure are valid to a certain degree so are certain theoretical cases such as when a player loses track of his man off the dribble, defense collapses, and the big man counterpart gets the ball for an easy 2 which would “count” against him when he was only trying to recover from a teammate’s mistake. I for one do not consider this a big issue.
Lastly: As Ty himself recognizes, the “defense” part of the contribution tends to be far less consistent be it season to season or comparing different situations such as players switching teams or positions; As such it holds less predictive power.
Nonetheless at the very least it’s worth closer examination.
I hope i’m not stepping on anyone’s toes here (I apologize if I am, Prof.) that is not my intention but as to the matter the two of you are bringing up I suggest you take a look at Ty’s work.
Have a nice day, everyone.
P.S Orlando matched the offer for Gortat so I guess we’re not gonna have the chance to examine some of the “usage” issues brought up in the matter of the renovated Mavs.
Linkage for Jul 12 2pm to Jul 14 7am - Raptors Republic - Raptors Blog for the ESPN True Hoop Network // July 14, 2009 at 5:02 am
[...] Dashing Hope in Toronto « The Wages of Wins Journal When we put the whole picture together, it appears the Raptors will employ the following starting line-up in 2009-10: Calderon (PG), Wright and/or DeRozan (SG), Turkoglu (SF), Bosh (PF), Bargnani [C]. Last season the NBA veterans in this line-up combined to produce fewer than 30 wins. So unless these players improve dramatically, or the team finds very productive players off the bench, it’s hard to see how this team improves dramatically. And that’s true even if Delfino returns to Toronto (although if Evans returns to what we saw in the past there might be some hope this team can get past 40 wins). [...]
brgulker // July 14, 2009 at 5:58 am
@ Palamida:
n summation the the argument isn’t that Rebs aren’t important only that it’s misleading and wrong to give full credit to the guy who actually caught the ball when in fact that could have been the end result of a team effort.
First of all as I have pointed out I was only presenting the common argument regarding Over valuation of Rebs. Personally I think it’s Bull.
Well, I guess I’ll just respond to the common argument then
I see a very significant flaw in that argument, namely, that players tend to get the same amount of rebounds season after season (until they start declining due to age). In other words, players tend to get rebounds regardless of who they’re paired with.
So, we could expect a guy like Brenden Heywood to get basically the same number of rebounds on a per minute basis if he were traded to Detroit and played alongside Prince as when he played with Butler.
Obviously, there’s some variance (Marion might be an example, but that’s probably more attributable to SF/PF), but for the most part, guys who rebound well tend to rebound well.
John // July 14, 2009 at 6:42 am
This is the stupidest aticle void of any facts and severly flawed data.
mrparker // July 14, 2009 at 7:40 am
Why do we keep going over the same arguments? Choose a letter and move on brothers. As far as the counterpart production…how then do you explain the accuracy of the model. If Jason Kidd’s wp48 is incorrect due to his defensive liabilities then is Dallas’ wp also over estimated. My guess is that its not.
DSMok1 // July 14, 2009 at 9:15 am
@John
Actually, when you look back over the years this model has proven to be excellent, and quite predictive. You don’t happen to be a Toronto fan, do you?
honeyelize // July 14, 2009 at 10:16 am
hi, I’m from Vietnam. Nice to visit your blog
jeri // July 14, 2009 at 10:23 am
While I don’t think the Raptors have much hope this year, listing Jamario Moon as more effective than Shawn Marion, let alone twice as effective, proves the serious limitations of this stat.
brgulker // July 14, 2009 at 10:25 am
proves the serious limitations of this stat.
Describing Dr. Berri’s work as “this stat” has seriously limited your credibility as a poster
mark // July 14, 2009 at 10:35 am
Bargnani was 19.1ppg(45%), 6.1rpg, 1.3blk after joing the starting lineup as a full-time starter for the first time on December 31, and produced this consistently as a starter for almost 4 months.
That’s quite likely a line similar to the one we’ll see this year.
I’m not going to run the calculations for you, but I’d be a little bit shocked if that kind of line could possibly fail to produce a positive win production numbers, and if it did, I’d have to question the worth of that created number.
DR // July 14, 2009 at 10:40 am
Bustnani’s rebounding is too godawful for him to have a good WP48. Or a good PER for that matter.
If you take Bosh & Calderon’s average production over the last 3 years and put it with a team full of nothing but average WP .100 players, I suspect that team would have a better record than any of Colangelo’s Raptor teams.
brgulker // July 14, 2009 at 10:44 am
+1 to DR @ mark
Bargnani is a horrible rebounder for his position, which is why he’s not a productive player. And his shooting percentage is also considerably below average for his position as well.
Interestingly, if he were a SG, he would be below-average with respect to scoring, but his shooting percentage would look relatively better, and his rebounding and blocks would be great.
But as it stands, he’s just not that good.
mark // July 14, 2009 at 11:25 am
I guess the problem here is that the stats simply can’t properly measure a centre who plays the game so differently from other centres. His rebounding percentage can’t be as good as other centres given that he spends so much time out in 3 point land, for example (this is particularly noticeable at the offensive end, where he’s obviously not in rebounding percentage a good chunk of the time because he can rain threes – do the numbers account for the fact that he forces one of the opponent’s reboudners to come out and guard him and get out of rebounding position himself?)
and his field goal percentage is also skewed hugely by the fact that he takes so many three point shots.
Again, from when he became a full-time starter for the first time on december 31 (47 games):
Total FG%: 46.9% (323/689)
2-Pt FG%: 48.3% (236/489)
3-Pt FG%: 43.5% (87/200)
F-T FG%: 82.1% (165/201)
Now that 48.3% 2-pt fg% number is not exactly great for a centre, but it’s far from awful (I mean duncan shoots just over 50%).
Is it really proper to punish Bargnani over his field goal percentage when he actually shoots comparably well from 2-point land as other centres, but then adds to that a 43.5% three-point shooting ability as a centre (not to mention a very good 82% mark from the charity stripe, also very good for a centre)?
Is it really proper to punish the guy because even though he’s a guy who can shoot near 50% on 2-point attempts, also has the unique ability for a C to be able to shoot the 3 at a lethal rate?
enoss // July 14, 2009 at 11:30 am
mark’s comment is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to ensue.
I would love to hear dave weigh in on bargnani and moon. and to be clear(er), I am a big fan of things like wins produced and PER but I see more exceptions in basketball than baseball with similar measures.
I believe an analysis of players who seem anomalous will likely yield some insights that may either improve the model(s) or our understanding of what makes a good player.
Steve // July 14, 2009 at 11:45 am
I like stat’s. As an engineer/finance guy, big on math, I find stat’s interesting – often misleading, but interesting.
What the models don’t take into account are things like Jose playing through a hamstring pull at the same time as CB4 playing through a sore knee.
Last year’s team seriously underperformed because the 2 most important players on the team played over 1/2 a season through injuries that greatly reduced their ability to defend anyone.
Remarkably, many players seem to be able to put up offensive stats when playing hurt but can’t do the same at the other end.
Sure the Raps weren’t as good as 2 seasons ago, you don’t need a statistical model to figure that one out. But if CB4 and JC hadn’t been hurt, the record probably wouldn’t have reflected the team’s glaring deficiencies. The Raps traded depth for a single player with an injury history (they thought he had recovered – NOT) No depth, injured stars = disaster.
And stat’s can’t tell the impact coaching has on players. In Bargs’ rookie season, Mitchell was told to play Bargs and he responded by becoming the 2nd best rookie in the league. After getting his new contract, Mitchell stopped supporting Bargs and his play fell off. BCo finally fires Mitchell for refusing to develop his young players, hires Jay and Bargs starts playing well again. Where’s the stat for that!
And only a handful of teams win championships – Why? Most teams refuse to go into luxury tax territory so if they are lucky enough to start accumulating some real talent, THEY TRADE IT AWAY. LA Lakers had no business being in the finals 2 seasons ago or winning last year except for the fact a poorer team, the Grizz, dumped their expensive star in LA’s lap for an expiring contract. LA Lakers are willing to spend what it takes to win – only the salary cap rules hold them back. Teams unwilling to risk paying into the luxury tax revenue stream shared by teams below the Tax put themselves at a huge disadvantage – AND that is most of teams in the league!
IF Toronto wants to “win it all”, it’ll have to be either “blind luck” – unlikely – or at some point the team will have to risk losing money and go deep into luxury tax territory. There is really no other way to get good and stay good enough to contend on a regular basis.
Even the Cavs with arguably the best player in the world realizes they have no chance of winning without going deep into luxury tax territory!
Oh – there is another way. Have your superstar player go down for the season, grab the first overall pick (ie. Timmy D.) Have your star come back to play with the dirt cheap all-star rookie next season!
Just get out the team’s check book and hope!
Oren // July 14, 2009 at 11:58 am
“Is it really proper to punish the guy because even though he’s a guy who can shoot near 50% on 2-point attempts, also has the unique ability for a C to be able to shoot the 3 at a lethal rate?”
But the average center, while he can’t hit the three point shot, is able to score at the same rate as Bargnani. In addition, the average center is also able to grab 4 more rebounds a game, .6 more assists, more blocks and steals etc.
While there is some value to being able to hit a three pointer, it seems clear from the model that there is more value in being able to grab rebounds. As such, it’s perfectly proper to punish the guy.
Now if he was able to shoot two-pointers as effectively as the average center, and was able to hit three pointers and free throws at his current rate, then he’d have value as a scorer.
enoss // July 14, 2009 at 12:03 pm
@oren, after jan 1, bargnani’s 19.1 would be fourth at center behind howard (20.6) yao (19.7, may never play again) and duncan (19.3, on the decline, bargs may outscore him next year).
doesn’t look like he scores at the same rate as the average center.
Leon // July 14, 2009 at 12:13 pm
@ Mark.
I think you have a solid argument there but then as a counter-argument you could point to the numbers of troy murphy (similar amount of minutes and 3 point shots but double the no. of rebounds at both ends) , matt bonner (more rebounds and 3pt shots in significantly less minutes) or even dirk (considering Bargnani is a no. 1 pick). He comes up well short against his contemporaries, players who play a similar style to his. I don’t watch as much bball as you guys do because I live in the uk but of the half dozen or so times i’ve seen bargnani play he just looks a bit lazy and a bit slow.
@ Anon, I think you’re right in your way of thought, I think I might have posted something along your lines a while back on here (can’t remember when).
+ thanks for the link pala
mark // July 14, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I think if you compare Bargnani’s numbers last year from when he first became a full-time starter on Dec.31, they compare pretty darn well with Nowitzki’s 1st year as a full-time starter numbers. Although granted Dirk was 21 that year while Bargs was 23 this past season….
Bargs: 35.6mpg, 19.1ppg (46.9%), 6.1rpg
Dirk: 35.8mpg, 17.5ppg (46.1%), 6.4rpg
Now granted, I’m putting a fair amount of weight on just Bargs’ numbers after becoming a full-time starting C on december 31 this year, and pretty much ignoring his first half and his very dissappointing 2nd season, but there is a distinct possibility that Bargs was simply being misused by Smitchy, and the immediate change in his game upon becoming the fulltime starting C, and the consistency with which he maintained that level of play over nearly 2/3 of the season, was pretty convincing to me that he had turned a corner.
Oren // July 14, 2009 at 12:54 pm
@enoss,
I should have been clearer. When I said he shoots at the same rate as the average center, I meant points per shot and not points per game. It’s very true that he takes more shots then the average center.
khandor // July 15, 2009 at 10:08 am
It is simply hilarious to listen to some other Raptors fans attempt to justify the their claim that Andrea Bargnani is a 1st class Center in the NBA.
These people need to stop talking the type of offense which Bargnani plays and instead develop a more comprehensive understanding of just how much his lack of Rebounding at the Center position and his terrible defense overall hurt the Raptors as a team, considering the points HE GIVES UP TO THE OTHER TEAM.
As I’ve said before … Simple hilarity.
Nick // July 15, 2009 at 11:14 am
“These people need to stop talking the type of offense which Bargnani plays and instead develop a more comprehensive understanding of just how much his lack of Rebounding at the Center position and his terrible defense overall hurt the Raptors as a team, considering the points HE GIVES UP TO THE OTHER TEAM.”
I think this is a simple problem.
It’s hard to see a rebound that a player misses, or loses to the other team. It isn’t often that you see a player have a rebound stolen by the other team. It’s sort of a quiet stat. Even when a player grabs a rebound, it’s not really the focal point of the play.
I still see Bargnani turning around his FG% a little bit, and probably adding a couple rebounds to his average, but I think after all his developing is done, his best case scenario, is a player in the .100 range. Which is under my assumption, that it clicks for him one day, and he becomes a 8 RPG kinda big guy.
@Mark
There is a huge difference between a players age 21 and age 23 season.
khandor // July 16, 2009 at 12:51 am
Nick,
My comment did NOT focus only on the Rebounds which Bargnani gives up to the opposition.
From a Rebounding AND a Defensive perspective, the number of points which Bargnani is responsible for giving up far outweighs his points scored contribution.
Cameron // July 16, 2009 at 8:48 am
I have a question regarding Bargnani. It was mentioned previously (and frequently) that his numbers for a center are abysmal, especially shooting % and rebounds.
Many Raptors fans have complained about this rating insisting that his game is different than other centers (typically further away from the basket) , and stressing his unique skill-set.
What struck me though was how Bargnani compares quite well vs shooting guards.
So here is the question, assume (as I do) that on defense Bargnani plays the role of center, and guards the teams opposing 5, but what happens if on offense he is moved primarily into the role of a shooting guard (with Bosh or Evans moving over to assume the center position on offense)?
Are we properly evaluating his game as a pivot if on offense that isn’t actually the role he is playing?
Nick // July 16, 2009 at 9:13 am
@Cameron
Great question.
I’ve always thought of him as a tall SF offensively.
And given his rebounding flaw, Marion was the perfect SF for Bargnani, since he rebounded at such a high rate. I thought they worked well. Replacing him with Turkoglu is gonna be harmful I think to the Raptors.
I think the fact is that absolutely, Bargnani is costing teh Raptors wins, because of his position. However, relatively, in a different role he may be a lot more effective.
khandor // July 16, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Cameron & Nick,
Unfortunately, Bargnani does NOT adequately fulfil that specific OG role offensively either.
He is NOT a player that can move with quickness and agility when it comes to cutting, moving, curling and flaring while shooting with the benefit of a screen; nor does he create his own jumpshot fairly well by playing off the bounce.
He is a stand still quick-release 3PT-shooting artist that depends on spot-up opportunites generated by his teammates and in Pick & Pop scenarios initiating by a “little” on his team.
When he puts the ball down on the floor vs a Big who he has a quickness advantage over … what he can do somewhat effectively is drive the ball to his Right [i.e. he is very much one-handed, at this point in his career] for a straight line dunk attempt, providing that there is NO HELP defender in position to cut off his direct path to the basket. When that happens or when he tries to drive to his Left, bad things tend to happen for the Raptors [e.g. turnovers, forced shots, wasted possessions, poor passes, etc.].
Bargnani is a perimeter shooting #5/C who struggles with his:
1 Team Defensive responsibilities [e.g. he is among the very worse Big Man defenders in the entire NBA when it comes to dealing with Pick & Roll Situations, especially when asked to contain his new check in any type of "Switching/Help/Show & Recover" situation];
2 Rebounding; and,
3 Defensive Transition responsibilities.
The number of points that he is personally responsible for giving up to the opposition cannot be overcome by his own scoring exploits … unless he improves dramatically in the next few seasons.
IMO, it was/is Bargnani’s deficiencies in these specific areas of the game that often led his former coach, Sam Mitchell, to sit Andrea’s rear end on the bench for long stretches of time.
sunil // July 16, 2009 at 10:56 pm
In your analysis of the Raptors, you overlooked the changes of the Bench. As noted, we lost Rasho, t.J Ford, and delfino from the most productive year. We are getting back Rasho, and delfino (who actually shot less than 40% that year you are saying he was so important to the Raptors) and Jarret Jack. Jarret Jack fufills a role similar to T.J. ford and should put up similar numbers (shoot first point guard), and he actually took away T.J. ford’s pg job in Indiana. He can also play back-up sg. How many wins do these additional bench players add? Let’s approximate them using the loss from the most efficient year. Using your estimate of 30 wins for the starters, adding the 14 back for delfino, rasho, and jack, and then 2.6 more for Reggie Evans, I see 47 wins. How is that bad? Then factor in the growth of young players improving, and the improved health of Calderon, I see 50 wins. How is that disappointing?
Also, DeRozan picked up in the end of the scholastic year. ( Regardless, how effective are college stats are predicting pro wages of win scores?) If you are looking at only the previous year’s data to make an estimate of the following year, it is likely the last half of the year is more indicative than the first half, particularly when dealing with young players (and, in the case of Toronto, a coaching change). Bargnani is another example of this.
How does a coaching change affect your model? For instance, now we have a full season of Jay Triano, rather than an interim coach trying to change a systerm? How many more wins will that lead to. There is also an effect that the longer a core of a team plays together, the better the team becomes. How many wins will that add to the Toronto total?
I need to look at your model further before I comment on many other issues, but I would like to make the point that usually mismatches determine series results in the playoffs. Why do coaches like Phil Jackson try to exploit mismatches that players like Bargnani and Turkgolu cause rather than wins produced mismatches? Are the same players who produce high regular season scores the ones who produce in the play-offs? I presume the lesser lights produce less because the stars get more minutes.
khandor // July 17, 2009 at 12:21 am
sunil,
The latest reports have Delfino not signing with the Raptors. He is looking for the sort of money associated with the MLE & he also wants the chance to be a for-definite rotation player, neither of which are available for him right now with the mix of players on the Raptors existing roster.
The Pacers are still deciding if they are going to match the offer which Toronto made to Jarrett Jack. Until Indiana makes their decision it would be prudent for you to leave him out of the Wins Produced equation for the Raptors this season.
The Nesterovic who played in Toronto 2 seasons should not be expected to produce at the same rate he did then, as he is two years older now and that much closer to the end of his NBA career.
As David Berri’s article suggests, if there is going to be an increase in the overall WP number for the players on this team, this season, in all likelihood it is going to have to come as a result of dramatic improvement from either Bargnani or DeRozan.
sunil // July 17, 2009 at 12:36 am
Further criticisms of your model now that I have had a chance to peruse your website.
Note that Reggie Evans has a 0.108 wp48, while Hedo Turkoglu has a 0.115 WP48. Both apparently average. Does your model suggest that these two players are roughly equivalent then, in basketball terms If not, what is the point of comparing wp48 scores However, Turkgolu produces 6.7 wins, while Reggie Evans produces 2.6 wins. I am assuming that 0.108 is statistically significantly equal to 0.115 at a confidence interval where 6.7 is not equal to 2.6. Why is that
If a player makes his counterpart worse, statistically, or his counterpart`s team worse, how does that show up in your econometric evaluation. For example, Bruce Bowen. Or Shane Battier. According to Hollinger`s PER ranking, Shane Battier is equivalent to Quincy Douby of last year. I am assuming the criticism holds for your model, based on the statistics you are using. Furthermore, speaking of Hollinger,based on the whole year totals, (including the shitty first half), Bargnani`s PER was 14.7. Turkgolu was 14.8. Yet, under your system, Turkgolu produced over 6 wins, while Bargnani is useless. Clearly, Hollinger`s evaluation of Bargnani is very different than yours. So, it is not uniformly agreed by statistical analysis that Bargnani is useless.
There are also correlations between players. Chris Bosh got more rebounds when Andrea Bargnani was on the floor than when Jermaine O`Neal was on the floor. Defensive rebounds that somebody will get go to Bosh instead of Bargnani, and Bosh gets more offensive rebounds because the opposing center is off guarding Andrea.
Let us try and use these criticism of your model to explain why it Andrea Bargnani is a better player than your model suggests.
The primary defence of Andrea Bargnani is that he makes the opposing center play out of his comfort zone by being able to make the 3 point shot at a VERY high rate (over 40%). This has the effect of impairing opposing team defences. He also spaces the floor for Bosh, which a conventional center doesn`t do (improving Bosh`s offence). As such, he makes Bosh a better player.
Khander, when you are criticizing Nick and Cameron, you say he is not quick for a sg. But he is quick relative to a 7 ft center. He is not being defended by a sg, but by a center (think andrew bynum) As such, your criticisms of him focus on his defence, not his offense. As was pointed out,
@oren, after jan 1, bargnani’s 19.1 would be fourth at center behind howard (20.6) yao (19.7, may never play again) and duncan (19.3,)
Since, as I discussed in my last post, the raptor team is considerably better (at least according to the arguments advanced by the blogger, contrary to his initial assertion that the raptors hadn`t improved, although when the article was written the bench moves weren`t made by the raptors yet. But it does show the genius of the 4-team trade as it added 14 wins to the lineup) when the bench is considered, and calderon is healthy, and the team is together for one more year, and the coach has more time to institute his plan, and Bargnani is one year better, it seems plausible that he will add 2 points and 1 rebound to his total. That would make him the highest scoring center in the league. 5 years from now when he is in his prime, we could still be paying only 10 million dollars for the highest scoring center in the league. Would you still call him a bust Bargnani is not a max player, and yet is scoring more than max contract centers.
I am more a believer in moneyball than wages of win as a way of building a champion. When you are comparing dwight howard to bargnani, you should be comparing dwight to bargnani, plus 9 million dollars of other players. Five years from now, you are comparing dwight to bargnani plus 15 million dollars of other players. For instance, you can have dwight howard, or you can have bargnani and calderon. Bargnani`s production only cost 6.5 million this year.
The advantage of bargnani on offence is that he makes it easier for his teammates, by spreading the floor, and removing the opposing team`s center from their comfort zone. That does not show up in your model. Did you find when looking for statistically significant variables that plus-minus was insignificant These defensive factors are difficult to quantify given typical basketball statistics, in particular how your particular match-up opponent did, but are definitely a weakness of your model.
Bargnani needs to work on his defence, but he has good foot speed for a 7 footer. Note he was still the leading shot-blocker on Toronto. He is still only in his 3rd year, and his second year was a step back. Next year, his defence will be better. Young players improve over time.
Finally, any forecasting model has outliers. There are some players who will rank higher with your estimator than their actual value, and there are some players who will rank lower. What are the common characteristics of the former and what are the former characteristics of the latter. I think the common denominator is rebounding. People who rebound relatively well will be over-ranked, and people who rebound poorly for their position will rank lower. Look at Reggie Evans vs. Turkgolu. According to wp48, they are equally valuable. Can you find one GM in the league who wouldn`t give up Reggie Evans to get Turkgolu. What team in the league would start Reggie Evans, even though you call him an above average player. Either your statistical model is smarter than every GM and coach, or, like any model, it has flaws. I could make up a team of super-rebounders which according to your wp48 system should be a winner, but any student of the game would know would fail. Imagine Marcus Camby at Center, Reggie Evans at pf, Shawn Marion at sf, etc.
If rebounding is not what determines outliers, can you give me example of players who do not fit your system well.
I think Bargnani is an example of an outlier, and the beauty of sports is that we get to watch it unfold.
sunil // July 17, 2009 at 12:51 am
khandor:
You have great sources about Delfino`s intentions. Havent heard anything on espn.com, tsn.com, rotoworld, si.com, etc. What is your source, anyhow. The internet, I assume. He may want to get a MLE, but do your sources tell you where he is going to get it If you said he was going to stay in Europe, I would understand. I am actually not a big delfino fan (stunned he had a high rating given his lousy shooting percentage)
We can wait until Indiana doesn`t match Jarret Jack`s contract. Will you then give me the 4 wins
Rasho, was 3.2 wins. Let`s say he is only good for one. He is also not starting.
I also listed a number of other reasons why our win total should rise. Berri in his book cited that teams which stay together improve, so I don`t think I am being radical for siting that as one of the reasons. Calderon healthy is probably the biggest thing, because his assists also increase other people`s ratings. A permanent coaching staff is another.
30+12 (rasho only counts for 1) + 2.6 reggie evans = 45. Any of the other factors could easily add to 50 (keeping in mind Berri`s projections for bargnani should be based on his second-half stats, which they weren`t). Chris Bosh is also in a contract year, which should boost his numbers. Using Berri`s own calculations, if we get Delfino and Jack (giving you your assertion that Nesterovic adds only 1 win. I think having Nesterovic as a back-up as opposed to O“Bryant would add more than 1 win to the Raptors next year. ), and given a reasonable level of improvement from the other players given the factors mentioned, 50 games is reasonable.
As such, do you agree that if we get Delfino (who is apparently a better player now) and Jarret Jack, that my original point that using Berri`s own data (remember, he didn`t have the bench information)
sunil // July 17, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Just so you know my background, I studied econometrics at the University of Toronto. I became a consultant, and used my econometrics to earn a rather nice living (admitedly over 10 years ago, so my econometrics is rusty, and amateur.) . If Prof. Berri were that good an econometrician, he wouldn’t be a prof AND he would be a consultant. Does industry hire him for his general econometrics? ( I know a little bit about how much money a tenured Stanford professor makes, as my brother became one at 35. I have been to stanford. I have a number of professor friends, and last corresponded with an MIT economics professor who capitulated to my argument. He was on CNN with his analysis). You make a lot more money analyzing foreign direct investment inflows into china during the 90s, and predicting flows after HK rejoins the mainland, than you do analyzing sports results with a simple linear regression.
Actually, if Prof. Berri is so confident in his results, he make money from his econometrics, and so can you. It is called gambling. If he believes his model is anything more than an academic curiosity, he should be gambling on the upcoming season (remember, he can make an accurate prediction about the raptor season without looking at the bench, and the impact of a rookie is trivial, according to him, because otherwise DeRozan adds 2 or more wins to the season, which throws his estimate of Toronto wins off. ) If you believe in his model, then you should gamble, too.
He can bet on the outcome of all the upcoming nba games, before the season starts. He should mortgage his house. You should do same, if you believe his Toronto Raptor projection. Bet in Vegas for the Raptors to make less than 33 odds. Naturally, he won’t do this, which demonstrates he believes in his model for fun, but not when real (his own) money is involved. How many of you in support of Berri’s position, and critics of Bargnani will bet at least 20 dollars that we get less than 33 wins? I have been a successful small-time gambler, so I do put my money where my mouth is. Do you? Vegas disagrees with Profesor Berri, and that is enough proof of the limitations of his results.
The concept of using econometrics for sports is not new or original at all. At the University of Toronto, back in the 90s, you had to take econometrics if you wanted an economics degree. As part of the course, you did a project that used econometrics. Roland Lee, this being Canada, used stats to come up with hockey wins produced. This was in 1994. Every year one student did a sports econometrics paper. Now Roland works at the NHLPA as a lawyer, and a couple of years ago was listed as one of the top ten most influential people under 40 in hockey.
Prof. Berri attempts to show how good his model by %of actual results forecast (e.g. 52. wins as opposed to expected 53). If he tried to justify econometrics in a real economics journal ,they would laugh. What is the r-squared? (Let alone the auto-correlation results. If you get an additional assist, there will be a necessary increase in field goals. With high autocorrelation is possible to achieve very high r-squares, and if your r-squared is suspiciously high, it is probably from autocorrelation.) Nowwhere on the website is there any r-squared information (degree of results explained ) for a team as a whole, let alone for individual players. Furthermore, he doesn’t discuss variances.
I can explain why variance matters. You know when they talk about a political poll, they give you the % support for a party, then discuss the plus/minus (up or down from that number) (let alone the 19 times in 20 that the result is accurate). Prof. Berri doesn’t discuss variance, which is very important. When you give a point estimator in econometrics, you almost always list the variance, to know how accurate the estimator is. He just adds up the “wins produced” by starter to come up with an estimate of Raptor wins, but does not discuss the variance of the total (which also goes up proportately the more players you add). If he told you the starter expected win total was 30, plus or minus 5, expecting a win total of 25-35, then we throw in the variance from the bench, maybe 14 plus or minus 5, so now the win total varies from 34 to 54. Saying that the Toronto raptors will get somewhere from 34 to 54 wins is not much of a useful projection.
Hollinger has also critcized Berri’s model elsewhere, so it is not perfect.
I am just discussing it on the basis of econometrics, not a criticism of what the results are.
The most interesting thing for me is that the 4-team trade to arrange the exit of marion contributes far more wins to the raptors than the actual acquisition of hedo. It explains why I was not that enthused when we got him (I didn’t think we got much better) particularly because we had to gut our bench (I thought). However, with the additional and imminent bench signings, I have been feeling good. Also, if the team wins more, we have a better chance of keeping bosh the next year.
As such, the paper basically summed up my initial feelings. But the summer wasn’t done, which was Berri’s mistake. Even if Delfino gets another (mandatory 3 year, because is restricted) offer from somewhere else , we can match . If we don’t sign Jack with the MLE, we can get someone else who can produce 4.4 wins per game. What is the average wins per game for a max MLE player? If our GM turns a 33 win team into a 47 win team switching only parts and not the core, he should be eligible for executive of the year award.
Tony // July 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Sunil-
If the world worked the way you do then why would ANYONE be a profesor? How do you know why he’s not using his knowledge to make more money, maybe he’s making enough money as a professor and doesn’t feel taking on the stress of another job.
Also although his journal sometimes gives off the impression that his system is infallible, DBerri has on several occasions acknowledged that it is not perfect, and even if it was as close as possible to perfect, that’s no reason to go out and start gambling your money away. Sure everything could turn out great and you win a lot of money beacuse the Raptors didn’t have any injuries or and trades or any line-up changes throughout the season but who knows, maybe they trade for another All-Star mid-season end up with 50 wins, and the money you bet 6 months before then is lost.
What I do know is that DB has predicted the Champion each year that I’ve followed his journal and placed highly in a couple of Geek Smackdowns(although I believe that was only based on Efficiency Diff).
In addition to that, variances shouldn’t matter, he based this seasons predictions for the Raptors on last years results(like he does for every team every summer), so if every player produces the same way they did last year, then this is what the Raptors will look like(not accounting for the 4 team trade). Thats why he usually notes several times that sure this player could improve or that one could play injured but if things stay consistent as they usually do this will be your result.
sunil // July 18, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Actually, my brother is a good example of a professor who should consult, but doesn’t. Professor Krugman at Stanford (who’s blog I read) also doesn’t care about consulting. However, the quality of the journals you have been published in is a measure of the reputation of a professor amongst their peers. As is the age you got tenured. You’ve got to expect some trash talking when sports are involved. Particularly when you put down my team.
Prof Berri’ system is not perfect. However, the insight it gives you into basketball is not enough to give you an edge gambling. If his system is so good at predicting winners, it would be so useful. I just took it to the extreme (reductio ad infinitum, or something) Wouldn’t it make sense to bet on his prediction for the upcoming year, if he is more accurate than vegas? Professor Berri could, and then he would be a professor for fun or humanity. You should bet the 20 dollars–gambling makes sports more fun. Amongst my circle of friends, if you believe in your sports opinion so strongly, you put your money where your mouth is. We hang out amongst different types, I guess.
I would like to correct on your defence of Berri’s model. Unfortunately for your argument, the ability to have predicted 5 or even 10 of the last winners is not how you evaluate an econometric model. Nor is the fact that he estimated 52.1 wins, when the team got 53. One thing that is important is r-squared (which is NOWHERE near the 95% he implied for you by how close the estimate of the wins was to true wins). Also, I am sorry, but variance of an estimate matters a great deal when evaluating an econometric model. Just as much as the actual estimate. This has nothing to do with sports, but is just economics. Your argument that last year’s results are the best estimate of this year’s may be correct, but to what extent? It is possible that the variances are small. I will not bring up auto-correlation again, but the variables he is using for the linear regression are not linearly independent (they are supposed to have nothing to do with each other, but they are related. An assist often results from an additional basket).
As you point out, not counting the 4 team trade, as Berri said, the raptors starters will get 30 wins. However, by this analysis, fans should only care how good their starters are. That is also why no basketball fan in Toronto I know was that excited about Hedo signing, because of our then weak bench.
Calderon’s recovery from injury should be statistically significant. Basing Bargnani’s performance this year on the whole of last year is very misleading, because his results once he became a starter are very different (3rd highest scoring center in the league, with slight reasonable improvement the highest scorer). Finally, you shouldn’t evaluate a team’s prospect before the off-season is done. WITH the 4 player team deal, and imminent signings addressing the EXACT deficiencies (to the point of the actual players) Berri cited in his explanation of our worse season last year, now Raptor fans SHOULD be euphoric. Which is the opposite of the original journal article.
That is how you trash talk an economist. Make fun of his R-squared.
sunil // July 18, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Prof Berri does burn Toronto. Toronto takes TJ Ford and Rasho Nesterovic, a combined 8 wins, trades them, with a number one draft pick, who turns into Hibbert, a starting centre, to Indiana, for Jermaine O’Neal. A negligible contributor according to Berri. Then, O’Neal is flipped to Miami, along with Moon, who could and is a contributor, along with ANOTHER draft pick, for shawn marion AND marcus banks (who is a salary-cap buster)….shawn marion is traded for…..salary cap room, at the cost of another draft pick.
simon // July 19, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Wow sunil, no offense but your name brought a smile to my face as I look back in my university intramural days where we played against a team named “Suneel Joshi’s Poshes.” As a Toronto fan, I hated Joshi as a broadcaster but that team name was golden.
Italian Stallion // August 4, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I agree with everyone that classified Bargnani as kind of outlier that should not be compared to Cs. He’s a player with unique skills for a 7 footer that lacks some of the traditional skills of big men.
Therefore, in order to for him to be effective he must be teamed with players that fill the gaps in his game and also allow him to use his unique skills to their greatest possible advantage.
Basically that’s no different than acknowledging that GMs and coaches build teams with rebounders, outside shooters, ball handlers, shot blockers, passers etc… and use a variety of player types to find the correct balance. We classify them PGs, SGs, SFs, PFs, and Cs.
Bargnani simply doesn’t fit into any of those neat packages. That’s all.
I think Marion was an excellent companion player and Hedo is probably the worst possible companion player, but either way Bargnani is better than he appears based on comparisons to Cs. He simply not a traditional C and I don’t understand why this isn’t obvioius to everyone.
Can Toronto Build a Winner Around Bosh? « The Wages of Wins Journal // October 22, 2009 at 9:17 am
[...] And then there is the Hedo Turkoglu acquisition. Here is what I said about this move last July: [...]
The Franchise // October 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Living in Utah, a pretty good comparison is to say Bargnani is Okur Jr. Officially a center, but does some things that 5s don’t (outside shooting), and don’t do other things most 5s do (e.g. interior defense and rebounds).
That’s fine, as long as there is someone else on the team that can compensate. That isn’t true for either team. This keeps Utah from being the favorite in the West and Toronto in the 5-11 range in the East instead of close to the big three.