Adrian Wojnarowski — of Yahoo! Sports – is reporting that the LA Clippers are interested in signing Allen Iverson. Why would The Answer be the answer for the Clippers? Here is what Wojnarowski said:
The answer is as simple as it’s flawed: box office over basketball. The worst owner in sports, Donald T. Sterling, believes A.I. can do what No. 1 pick Blake Griffin has been thus far unable – sell tickets.
It has been well-documented in this forum that Iverson doesn’t produce as many wins as is generally believed. For his career Iverson has produced 61.3 wins with a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.080. Average is 0.100, so Iverson has been generally a bit below average. That being said, he did post marks above the 0.100 mark in 2007-08 [0.130 WP48], 2005-06 [0.121 WP48], 2004-05 [0.124 WP48], 1998-99 [0.128 WP48], and 1997-98 [0.135 WP48]. But he has never been able to go very far beyond average, which suggests either
a. Wins Produced is wrong about Iverson.
b. What people think about Iverson is wrong.
Given what happened to the Sixers after he left (they got better), or to the Nuggets after he left (they got better if you consider the loss of Marcus Camby), or to the Pistons when he arrived (they clearly got worse); it seems like (b) is the right answer. But Iverson fans might think otherwise.
All that being said, at this point in time Iverson is 34 years old. So even if you thought he was great once upon a time, you probably can’t think that anymore. And that means the key reason to sign Iverson is that he might sell tickets. But is that true?
Selling Tickets in the NBA
Both Denver and Detroit have recently added Iverson to their respective teams. Here is what happened to home attendance before and after Iverson arrived (data taken from ESPN.com):
First, here is season home attendence for Denver:
2005-06: 702,645
2006-07: 706,437 (year Iverson arrived)
2007-08: 711, 962
2008-09: 706,165 (year Iverson departed)
And here is Detroit:
2007-08: 905, 116 (team is at capacity)
2008-09: 896, 971 (with Iverson team is not at capacity)
When we look at the attendance data we see a small increase when Iverson comes to Denver and a small decline when Iverson departs. But the changes are quite small.
For Detroit, the change is not very large either, although when a team stops selling out every game it’s hard to conclude Iverson helped. In other words, the Detroit experience suggests Iverson does not sell tickets (and it is hard to conclude he helped much in Denver).
Of course if you were to really look at the impact of a star player on a team’s performance at the gate you would have to do more than just stare at some numbers. When one actually looks at what determines a team’s gate revenue (via regression analysis), one can see that the home gate is driven by wins, not star power (as detailed in The Wages of Wins). Consequently, it seems likely that the reason given to sign Iverson (and this reason was given by both observers of the Clippers and the Memphis Grizzlies) is probably not very good.
By the way, Iverson probably does enhance a team’s road attendance. Both Denver and Detroit saw their road attendance go up with Iverson. And regression analysis does indicate that star power really matters on the road (as detailed in The Wages of Wins). Unfortunately, gate revenue goes entirely to the home team. So turning your team into a better attraction on the road is not a good financial decision either.
So Iverson is not that productive and he doesn’t really enhance a team’s gate revenue. So should the Clippers (or Grizzlies) look elsewhere?
A Reason to Sign Iverson
If we look at these two specific teams the answer is….. “maybe not.”
Here is what the guards the Clippers and Grizzlies have on their roster (this is the roster today) did last year [in terms of WP48].
The Clippers Guards
Mardy Collins: 0.027
Baron Davis: 0.051
Ricky Davis: -0.093
Eric Gordon: 0.048
Mike Taylor: -0.044
The Grizzlies Guards
Mike Conley: 0.154
Marko Jaric: -0.024
O.J. Mayo: 0.035
Quentin Richardson: 0.084
Of all these players, only Conley was above average last season. So maybe an aging Iverson can help somewhat. Of course he’s still old. And probably too expensive. But these teams don’t really have an abundance of more productive choices currently on the roster.
So it looks like I am saying…
1. Iverson is not as productive as most people think.
2. He really doesn’t enhance a team’s home gate revenue.
3. But if you don’t have many other options he might help some.
Of course I am avoiding the whole chemistry issue. In general I think “chemistry” is an over-used term in sports. Furthermore, does anyone really think the Clippers and Grizzlies would have great “chemistry” if Iverson wasn’t there? Let’s face it. These are both bad teams. Such teams tend to have bad “chemistry”. And that’s because “bad chemistry” is really just another way of saying “bad team.”
- 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.
30 responses so far ↓
mrparker // July 16, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Not to mention they drafted a 2guard who is bigger, younger and already surpassed anything Iverson has to offer(leaving steals out) in his rookie season.
Evan // July 16, 2009 at 4:23 pm
wasn’t baron davis pretty productive in the past?
Lior // July 16, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Given the “star externality” it seems that the rest of the league has a double incentive to subsidize Iverson’s hiring by the Clippers: one the one hand he would attract fans when visiting, and on the other hand he would impede his team from winning.
FanFeedr // July 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Another well-considered piece, Mr. Berri. Another point to consider is Iverson’s impact on Blake Griffin’s game, given his tendency to dominate the ball (despite the 7.7 assists logged last season.)
Another way of putting it: by dint of his “game”, will he impede the success of the rookie on his team markedly?
Anon // July 16, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I think Iverson is actually a bit underrated as a passer. Sure he dominates the ball a fair amount, but he will pass to the open man if there is one, and he’s willing to let other players get touches and looks (carmelo did, at least). His weakness is that he doesn’t run plays very well and tends to just sort of freestyle it, from what I’ve heard and seen.
I’ve always been a big fan of Iverson though, so maybe I’m biased. I do acknowledge he’s overrated.
Johnny Y. // July 17, 2009 at 2:22 am
I think you have a typo here:
a. Wins Produced is wrong about Iverson.
b. What people think about Iverson is wrong.
Given what happened to the Sixers after he left (they got better), or to the Nuggets after he left (they got better if you consider the loss of Marcus Camby), or to the Pistons when he arrived (they clearly got worse); it seems like (a) is the right answer. But Iverson fans might think otherwise.
I think you meant to say (b) not (a)
nick // July 17, 2009 at 5:02 am
Actually, I think you’re misrepresenting the statistics a bit on Iverson in Detroit. Season tickets sales were going to be down year over year before Iverson was traded to Detroit. There was actually a bump in ticket sales for Detroit when they signed Iverson….just not enough apparently to offset the total year-over-year decline.
Italian Stallion // July 17, 2009 at 6:02 am
Nick,
I think you are correct.
I think a better way of judging the impact of a player on ticket sales is to look at the short term sales action as soon as a deal is made. (did sales spike or not)
There are so many other factors that can impact aggregate sales, I do not believe it’s possible to seperate them very well, unless perhaps if you actually did a large survey of the fans.
I would say it’s almost certain that “winning” is the most important factor, but if the perception is that Iverson is going to make the team better (right or wrong), then he could sell more tickets in an initial burst until fans get to see the team play for awhile.
Italian Stallion // July 17, 2009 at 6:06 am
I would also ask about merchandise sales.
I have no idea how that money gets distributed and what the totals look like, but I could see some fans buying Iverson shirts etc…
Tball // July 17, 2009 at 6:06 am
Is LA different than most basketball venues? It has been written that is a town that pays to see stars, not outcomes, unlike blue collar cities like Detroit or Philly.
I don’t think chemistry matters, in most cases, but Iverson took his ball and went home last season because he couldn’t start. If mid-season, one of his team’s starters has a ’sore back’ and leaves, I think that is a chemistry issue. If Iverson is not starting, or should not be starting but is, I think players could stop showing up, either to practice or for games. Players can play well together without liking each other, but if they choose to stop playing, that is detrimental to the team.
Italian Stallion // July 17, 2009 at 6:24 am
IMO, evaluating Iverson as a player is very tricky because it gets into areas of disagreement (about scoring and efficiency) and even some areas where people are looking at different things for different reasons.
Even if we are to assume that Wins Produced is a perfect evaluation of Iverson’s contribution, I would argue it’s not a perfect evaluation of his talent as a ballplayer.
Some may argue that all we really care about is his contrtibution to WINS. I certainly understand that perspective. But very often GMs, coaches, players and fans are looking at skills, talents, and athletic ability etc… because they believe they can get more out of player that’s not using his gifts properly.
IMO, there’s no doubt that at his best AI was wildly talented. He just played the game VERY poorly.
Players not only have varying levels of talent and skills, they also apply those talents and skills differently.
To some degree that’s where the GM and coaching comes in. The idea is to maximize the player’s talents and skills by getting him on the court with the right complimentary pieces and convincing him to play a correct way.
I don’t think anyone ever got the most productive possible basketball out of Iverson, but it was mostly his fault because he insisted on being high volume low efficiency shooter. Had he been more slective and team oriented, I think his reputation would be worse, but his WINS total a lot higher.
Italian Stallion // July 17, 2009 at 6:33 am
I think “chemistry” is another of those terms that people disagree about because there is no clear cut definition of what they are talking about when they use the term.
There are the “personality issues” that can play a smart part in some situations but are generally not a major factor.
There are the “complimentary player” issues that are about putting the right pieces on the court together for a specific system in order to maximize each player’s productivity and thus the team’s winning.
That is much bigger factor, but “in general” GMs/Coaches identify their desires/needs well enough to not build silly teams. When they do, it’s obvious in the results. Some are just a little better at it than others.
dberri // July 17, 2009 at 6:38 am
Thanks Johnny Y. I fixed it.
Jason E. // July 17, 2009 at 10:03 am
Complimentary players are nice. It’s always good to have players who say nice things about each other.
Lior // July 17, 2009 at 10:37 am
“Team Chemistry” is the conventional name for what a team of volume shooters lacks. In more precise terms it means rebounding, defence, etc.
brgulker // July 17, 2009 at 10:45 am
@ nick and IS:
About ticket sales:
(I’m a Piston fan, just an FYI)
We have several consecutive seasons of sell-outs. That ended last season. Last season was also the first losing season we have had since the 90’s.
Detroit, as a case study, validates the general rule presented in WoW: that winning drives ticket sales.
The decline in season ticket sales is due to the economy in Detroit (they dropped 54% from a year ago, which was just released), but I can tell you as a Pistons fan:
Had we won 50+ games and been in the hunt in the Eastern Conference, the tickets would have sold. It’s just that simple. We love our Pistons. We love our Red Wings. We love our Tigers. And even the Lions …
But with the Wings winning and the Pistons losing, people chose not to spend money on ‘Stons tickets — even though we had the biggest “star” we’ve had since Grant Hill (and a star who didn’t help us produce wins, for that matter).
And @ IS – to your point about tickets spiking – it’s really hard to say in this case, because we were in the middle of a sell-out streak; there was no room for sales to spike.
But what we can say is that we started losing when AI arrived, and tickets stopped selling as a result.
Nick // July 17, 2009 at 11:16 am
Honest question:
Did Denver really get better this year without Iverson? I know they lost Camby but he was replaced with Andersen and Nene, who were both very productive and not available last year. Also Balkman and Smith played better and contributed more.
So was the differential between this year’s team that much better than last year’s?
Rob O'Malley // July 17, 2009 at 4:20 pm
For Berri from ESPN
“It’s believed that the Pistons, as of Thursday, have Rasho Nesterovic and Chris Wilcox ahead of Drew Gooden as their next free-agent targets, since it appears that they can’t assemble an offer sheet rich enough for Glen Davis to keep the Boston Celtics from matching.”
Ha, for some reason that last sentence makes me laugh.
Steele // July 18, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Italian Stallion is right on the mark in his examination of the semantic range of the term “chemistry” in sports. The second definition – building a team with productive complimentary players and productive “stars,” is really another way of summing up much of the debate on this site. Someone like Iverson can be fairly productive, but he is not some superstar that dras his team to the top. He is a high-usage scorer who, when he scores efficiently and is surrounded by several efficiant complimentary players, can be part of a winning team. This idea answers the frequently raised questions about how a team of 5 Cambys or Rodmans would do. The answer is, they wouldn’t be much good, just like the U.S. Olympic teams that were composed entirely of scorers (essentially, 5 Iversons). Any team needs a mixture of both to win.
Rob O'Malley // July 18, 2009 at 9:32 pm
^ And WoW concedes this point.
Jason E. // July 19, 2009 at 6:44 am
Those complimentary players are important for morale. I think that the infusion of foreign talent may have made things a bit more difficult, but if they bring translators, they should still be able to compliment each other and high fives are universal in all languages.
Ah, the 5 Camby argument, a ludicrous strawman that says that since the model would hypothetically fail in a ridiculous case outside of what the model was designed from or designed to do and explicitly says is not within the realm of what the model can or should address, then there must be a problem with the model.
mrparker // July 19, 2009 at 9:22 am
Jason E,
Thats a great way of putting that argument. However, I would have to argue that it is completely possible that some GM would field a team of “5 cambys”. I would say that because a GM managed to field a team of “5 Isiah Thomases”.
How good would a team of 5 cambys be. I guess we will have to wait for when he becomes a General Manager.
Jason E. // July 19, 2009 at 5:46 pm
In terms of 5 guys who are underappreciated by “conventional wisdom”, it is possible to field a team of such players. 5 Cambys or 5 Rodmans involves fielding 5 players with completely overlapping skills at the same position. That is clearly a violation of the logic that went into the model, namely the hypothesis that position matters.
Part of this reasoning is that players who rank highly at particular positions tend to have similar skills, but players at different positions do not. In this sense, unless a GM concluded that position does not matter, the “5 Cambys” is irrelevant.
No team of 5 “Isiah Thomases” has really be fielded, but 5 low wins produced, high volume scorers have been assembled (playing different positions) and the model was pretty good at saying that such a team did in fact suck.
Now how would a team of low usage, high wins produced players *at different positions* fare? That’s a different question, but seems to be one that fewer actually ask instead looking for the irrelevant question. I’d suggest that how the model performs in such a case isn’t terribly relevant here *either* as it’s not how teams are assembled and how a model behaves outside of the realm of observations used to formulate it is a terrible test of a model in real application.
Evan // July 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Perhaps an even better way to respond to this question is “how good would a team of 5 michael jordans be?”
mrparker // July 20, 2009 at 5:41 am
jason e,
My post was really a joke.
pennaguy // July 20, 2009 at 11:19 am
Prof. Berri: in assessing Iverson’s impact on attendence, shouldn’t you also look at the impact on the 76ers? Thanks.
Albert // July 22, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Question if he doesn’t sale tickets how many fans do you see at a 76ers game now? And if they got better how come they haven’t reached the nba finals yet and only had one season where they broke even with .500. And Detroit didn’t get worse because of Iverson it was because the entire team just broke down when billups left like they just lost there pet they had for growing up.
Mickey // July 22, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I see several problems with your approach to this research. First, the Pistons went from operating at capacity in 2007-08 without Iverson with a team what went to the ECF for six consecutive years to a below .500 team in one season; yet, saw a drop in attendance of less than 1 percent. This coming at a time where the global economy tanked with the state of Michigan being among the hardest hit. It really isn’t a situation where assuming all other things being equal should apply. Second, you are assuming all tickets sold are equal and it leads you to the false conclusion road attendance does not matter. The Clippers are seeing a near 30 percent drop in season ticket renewals for this coming season, which means far more tickets will be available to the single-game buyer. The season ticket buyer is made up largely of businesses, while single game buyers tend to be individuals. The game-to-game differences in attendance are based off the single game tickets. This is why adding a player like Iverson to a team with a large season ticket base like Chicago, New York, or Cleveland would have minimal benefits. The seats are already sold regardless of his presence. The appeal of Player X to a single game buyer is the same if he is on the home team as the away. The Nuggets had a smaller season ticket base, and thus his entrance and exit from the team had a more pronounced effect. Third, your wins produced per 48 minutes is a horrible gauge of effectiveness for an individual player. I’m sure all you would have to do is see the variance in the careers of Pau Gasol, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Michael Redd, and Baron Davis. If you compared them to a guy who chases the stars of stars like Robert Horry, they would fall short despite being much better players.
Vick // July 22, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I agree with Nick. There was a spike in both the Nuggets’ and Pistons’ ticket sales after Iverson’s arrival. There was also a huge increase in team merchandise sold (Iverson jerseys). I think the decrease in attendance after Iverson’s arrival cannot be blamed on him. Let’s not forget this was a time in which the auto companies in Detroit were firing people left and right and no NBA city was affected more by the economic downturn than Detroit was. Therefore, I think it is unfair to blame Iverson for the decline in attendance revenue.
The Memphis Lions Try and Roar « The Wages of Wins Journal // August 31, 2009 at 9:52 am
[...] to the back-court mix. Some have suggested that Iverson can substantially boost ticket sales. As I noted in July, I am skeptical of this story. If Iverson is going to help the Grizzlies he is going to have to [...]