Who was the second best team in the Western Conference in 2008-09? For many NBA fans, the answer to this question would take a bit of thought. It’s well understood that the Cleveland Cavaliers, Boston Celtics, and Orlando Magic dominated in the East. And the Lakers led the West. But after the Lakers, who would be next in the West?
If we focus on won-loss record, second best is a three-way tie between the Denver Nuggets, San Antonio Spurs, and Portland Trail Blazers. Each of these teams won 54 games. In evaluating teams, though, we tend to think (at least, this is what I think) that efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) is what matters most. And when it comes to efficiency differential, the Portland Trail Blazers mark of 5.9 trumps what we saw from San Antonio (4.1 differential) and Denver (3.5 differential). In sum, despite what happened in the playoffs, Portland was the second best team in the Western Conference during the 2008-09 regular season.
Portland’s objective this summer was to close the gap between them and the Lakers. It appears, though, that this gap has actually gotten bigger. The Lakers were essentially able to exchange Trevor Ariza (a former second round pick of the Knicks) for All-Star Ron Artest (yes, he did make an appearance in this game in 2004). Meanwhile, the Blazers made every effort to sign Hedo Turkoglu, only to have Turkoglu sign with Toronto at the last moment. Then the Blazers turned to Paul Millsap, only to see the Utah Jazz match Portland’s offer. Finally, in an apparent act of desperation, the Blazers finally got Andre Miller to accept their money. This sequence of events had led Ken Berger of CBS Sportline to list the Blazers as one of the NBA’s losers in the 2009 off-season.
But did the Blazers really fail this summer?
To answer this question, let’s start with where the Lakers and Blazers finished the 2008-09 regular season.
The Lakers in 2008-09
Here are the top 10 players – in minutes played – for the Lakers last season (WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes):
Pau Gasol: 2,999 min., 15.6 Wins Produced, 0.250 WP48
Kobe Bryant: 2,960 min., 15.0 Wins Produced, 0.244 WP48
Derek Fisher: 2,441 min., 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48
Lamar Odom: 2,316 min., 10.6 Wins Produced, 0.220 WP48
Trevor Ariza: 1,998 min., 8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48
Andrew Bynum: 1,446 min., 4.8 Wins Produced, 0.158 WP48
Sasha Vujacic: 1,293 min., 2.7 Wins Produced, 0.099 WP48
Jordan Farmer: 1,192 min., -0.9 Wins Produced, -0.035 WP48
Luke Walton: 1,166 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.091 WP48
Vladimir Radmanovic: 771 min., 1.5 Wins Produced, 0.094 WP48
Totals for Top 10: 18,582 min., 62.2 Wins Produced, 0.161 WP48
The Lakers won 65 games. But their efficiency differential of 7.8 (and correspondingly, the team’s Wins Produced) was consistent with a team that won 61 games (wins that can essentially be connected to the ten players listed above). So the Lakers were not quite as good as their won-loss record indicated.
The Blazers in 2008-09
LaMarcus Aldridge: 3,004 min., 6.7 Wins Produced, 0.107 WP48
Brandon Roy: 2,903 min., 15.3 Wins Produced, 0.253 WP48
Travis Outlaw: 2,246 min., 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.055 WP48
Steve Blake: 2,188 min., 5.3 Wins Produced, 0.117 WP48
Rudy Fernandez: 1,993 min., 6.9 Wins Produced, 0.167 WP48
Joel Przybilla: 1,952 min., 11.7 Wins Produced, 0.288 WP48
Nicolas Batum: 1,454 min., 3.7 Wins Produced, 0.123 WP48
Greg Oden: 1,314 min., 4.2 Wins Produced, 0.154 WP48
Sergio Rodriguez: 1,225 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48
Channing Frye: 746 min., -2.3 Wins Produced, -0.146 WP48
Totals for Top 10: 19,025 min., 56.4 Wins Produced, 0.142 WP48
Again, Portland’s Wins Produced for the entire team was 55.1; so the Blazers were about six wins off the pace set by the Lakers.
Evaluating the Changes
Now let’s consider the changes made to each team’s top 10.
First the Lakers:
The Lakers lose…
Trevor Ariza: 1,998 min., 8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48
Vladimir Radmanovic: 771 min., 1.5 Wins Produced, 0.094 WP48
Total Loss: 2,769 min., 9.5 Wins Produced, 0.162 WP48
The Lakers add to their top 10…
Ron Artest: 2,452 min., 4.6 Wins Produced, 0.089 WP48
Josh Powell: 703 min., -0.6 Wins Produced, -0.040 WP48 or
D.J. Mbenga: 181 min., -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.066 WP48
Total Gain: 3,155 min., 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.060 WP48 (with Artest and Powell)
Overall Direction: The Lakers appear to be worse. Artest is simply not as productive as Ariza. And whether Powell or Mbenga takes the 10th slot, the team is really not helped.
Now the Blazers:
The Blazers lose:
Sergio Rodriguez: 1,225 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48
Channing Frye: 746 min., -2.3 Wins Produced, -0.146 WP48
Total Loss: 1,971 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.001 WP48
The Blazers gain:
Andre Miller: 2,976 min., 11.1 Wins Produced, 0.178 WP48
Jerryd Bayless: 655 min., -1.4 Wins Produced, -0.104 WP48
Total Gain: 3,631 min., 9.6 Wins Produced, 0.127 WP48
Overall Direction: The Blazers appear to be better. Miller is clearly an upgrade over Sergio Rodriguez at point guard. It also helps that Channing Frye went away.
Once again…when we compare each team’s efficiency differential (and Wins Produced), it appeared the Lakers were only about six wins better than the Blazers in 2008-09. With the moves each team has made, this gap seems to have vanished. In sum, if all we look at is what the veteran players on each team did last year, the Blazers are at least as good as the Lakers.
On the other hand…
Of course, all good economists have “the other hand” to look at.
It’s important to note that the Lakers did not have services of Andrew Bynum for much of the 2008-09 season. If Bynum is healthy, he could substantially improve the Lakers.
On the other hand… the same story could be told about Greg Oden.
Then again, on the other hand… Phil Jackson does appear to be one of those coaches who can change a player’s productivity. Maybe he can make Ron Artest better.
Then again, on the other hand…. Artest will be 30 years of age in November, so his production is probably going to slip.
Then again, on the other hand… Andre Miller is already 33 years of age. So how many more years can he be productive?
Then again, on the other hand… we are completely ignoring the changes made by the Mavericks, Spurs, and Nuggets. These teams, like the Blazers, might also be better.
Wow, that’s quite a few hands. Let me try and summarize. Contrary to what Berger argued, I think the moves the Lakers and Blazers have made have actually closed the gap between the two teams. The Lakers were clearly the best team in the West last year. It doesn’t appear to me, though, that the Lakers are clearly the best in 2009-10. So although we can’t guarantee the Blazers will make it to the NBA Finals in 2010 (remember what we found on the other hands), I think Portland fans shouldn’t think their team ranked among the losers this summer. As for fans of the Lakers… well, Phil Jackson really is a good coach so maybe it will still work out.
– 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 
Cloudy
August 6, 2009
Long, long time reader, so thank you for the great blog Prof. Berri!
You pretty much wrote everything I thought you would. What would the differences have been if Hedo didn’t listen to his wife plus $3 million? Or the Jazz didn’t decide to send the other owners millions in luxury tax by matching Millsaps offer?
dberri
August 6, 2009
Cloudy,
Hedo was only slightly above average last year, so Miller is an upgrade over Hedo. As for Millsap… I am not sure he would have played much. The Blazers already have Aldridge at PF. Would Millsap get more than 20 minutes a night?
Adam
August 6, 2009
Andre Miller produced 11.1 wins by playing 2,976 minutes; i think we can safely say that he will not produce that many wins next season without taking minutes away from his also productive teammates.
Having said that, the “addition” of Artest has really closed the gap between these teams!
Italian Stallion
August 6, 2009
This accuracy of this analysis is obviously contingent on the values given to Artest and Ariza and the assumptions you make about what they will do for their new teams.
It will be interesting to see how Artest performs on a team where there are elite scoring options like Bryant and Gasol drawing double teams and other efficient scorers like Odom and Bynum ahead of him.
IMO, “at the margin” that should result in Artest’s usage dropping and his shot selection improving (of course that also assumes he’s not a knucklehead which is a lot to ask of Artest)
Personally, while I understand and agree that Ariza was the superior player statistically, I think Arest was actually still the more skilled player as of last year. The difference being their roles on their respective teams.
Long term, Houston obviously got the best of this swap because Ariza is young and improving and Artest is probably past his peak. But for one or two years I think it’s highly unlikely the Lakers will be any worse no matter what the stats say. Jackson will assure that Artest is used properly (and stays on his meds).
The Lakers have more important things to worry about…..like the fact that several of the other elite teams in the league improved.
It might also be interesting to see what Ariza can do on a much weaker offensive teams when he’s asked to play a much bigger role. I assume given his age, he could easily “break out” and eventually become an all star. Then again, he may prove to be nothing more than a role player that needs a few stars around him in order to be a smart and valuable low usage efficient scorer.
Scottwood
August 6, 2009
This is a great site. I am big on the advanced metrics provided by you, Fan Graphs, The Hardball Times, Stat Corner, the Prospectus sites and Football Outsiders. Traditionalists don’t like them, but I like winning arguments against them and eventually being proved right.
Tom
August 6, 2009
I think that your WP48 measurement is very flawed. As an approximate linear ranking for comparison between players ON THE SAME team it’s ok. But, it’s a very poor metric for comparing players on separate teams. Take Paul Gasol’s WP48 pre-Kobe and cum-Kobe. Did something really magically snap on in his brain or his body? No. Your metric just fails to adequately factor in team specific effects.
Seriously improved league normalization needs to be done in your next metric for me to take it seriously.
Blake
August 6, 2009
Tom,
In 2006-2007, Gasol’s last full season in Memphis, he had a PAWSmin of .118. In 2008-2009, his PAWSmin was .120. That’s about the same on different teams.
TRad
August 7, 2009
Same thing with Ariza. In Orlando (2006-07) his WP48 was .215. Last season, in Lakers, .192. It seems that he is .200 player no matter whom he’s playing with.
lcdscreencleaner
August 7, 2009
I was wondering if it was possible to apply a metric like dberri’s in a sport like soccer? I always wanted to ask that.
Anyway, I have the feeling that ariza may not play as hard as well on a team without championship goals ( no yao), while artest will play harder on the lakers. Also, wasn’t ariza a knucklehead on the magic?
Peter
August 7, 2009
Another factor that hasn’t been talked about is how the dynamic of the minutes will change with each team’s additions.
Last year, Lamar Odom took a significant hit in minutes played while he adjusted to a bench role, while Artest was a starter in Houston. It’s unlikely that, given the rotation already in place, both will sustain those averages.
That being said, if we temporarily disregard position, then Odom was significantly more productive last year on a per-minute basis than his average in all other seasons combined (when he was a starter more often than not) Artest has always been a starter, so it will be interesting to see how his productivity changes if he gets fewer minutes.
Meanwhile, in Portland, Miller, who has started consistently since his second NBA season, will continue that role with the Blazers (surprise, surprise). He’ll take minutes from Blake, the usual starter.
Italian Stallion
August 7, 2009
IMO, switching teams is not a major factor in efficiency and productivity IMO, it’s more about your role on the team because of the other players.
The thing is, not many players have a major role change just because they switch teams. Teams are usually looking to add them specifically because they need what that player already brings to the table. Prior coaches have also already evaluated and used that player the best they could.
This specific Arest/Ariza swap could be a little more interesting because one player could be asked to do a lot less offensively while getting better opportunities to do it. The other may be asked to do lot more with a lot less help. So the scoring and efficiency stats for each could vary enough to notice. I don’t see much of a reason for anything to change a lot per 48.
ilikeflowers
August 7, 2009
Lamar Odom WP48:
05-06 0.210 in 3k min
06-07 0.161 in 2k min
07-08 0.253 in 3k min
08-09 0.181 in 2k min
brgulker
August 7, 2009
Then again, on the other hand…. Artest will be 30 years of age in November, so his production is probably going to slip.
Wouldn’t it be fairly safe to assume that Artest will shoot less next season than he did last season? Assuming the shot attempts he loses are some of the really poor shots he has chosen to take in the past, we could perhaps assume that his scoring efficiency (and hence his overall production) would go up, right?
Even so, I’d rather have Ariza …
Still really anxious to hear what you have to say about Dallas.
DSMok1
August 7, 2009
Italian Stallion:
Check out this research:
It pretty well demonstrates why it is possible to neglect usage percentage when calculation player valuation. In a nutshell, the most effective distribution of shots is close to equal for each, even if one player is far more efficient than the others (and the efficiency decreases linearly with increasing usage).
2Cleva
August 7, 2009
Anything to hate on LA I guess.
A key factor is the equation doesn’t take into account roster improvements or changes within.
Case in point – Adding Powell and MBenga into LA’s top 10 when they won’t be in the rotation when Shannon Brown will
And isn’t that making it 11 to trump things for Portland.
BTW – Any system that takes wins away is fallacy from the start.
todd2
August 7, 2009
Fisher and Bryant are sieves defensively. Artest is definitely a downgrade. If Odom improves they should give LA a run—too many young legs.
ilikeflowers
August 7, 2009
Let me paraphrase:
Posted: ‘LA is probably still the best of the west but maybe not by as much as they were last year (depending upon Bynum’s and Oden’s health).’
NotCleva: Hater! Fallacy! Whargarbl!
The Dude Abides
August 7, 2009
The writer obviously has not watched the Lakers play very much. By the end of the regular season, Shannon Brown had moved into that 10th spot in terms of playing time, not Josh Powell, who only played in garbage time or when Bynum, Gasol, and Odom got into early foul trouble. Brown actually was more like the 9th guy on the team ahead of Sasha, and depending on the size of the opposing PG, was even slotted into the 8th spot ahead of the smaller Farmar.
todd2
August 7, 2009
2Cleva—good point with Brown…WP48 of .202 in 18 games with LA. He’s got some upside if he and Phil are on the same page.
Firewalker
August 7, 2009
Here’s the thing: these wins produced are not portable. Trevor produced 8 wins for the Lakers. I have no real problem with the conclusion that he produced between 2 and 3 times the value of Fisher. That was self-evident. I love Trevor.
BUT
He produced that in the context of the Lakers system. Playing in the triangle with Gasol and Bryant, he was able to focus on shooting wide open threes, getting put-backs off of rebounds, taking unguarded alley-oops, and running the break. Not to mention playing the passing lanes on the Lakers strong-side zone.
To be clear, he did that really well, without saying and doing a bunch of crazy stuff. But that does not mean that Ron Aretest would not have produced 8 wins in the same circumstances. Artest is a much better shooter than Ariza, despite the amazing strides he made since the Lakers stole him from Orlando. He’s better at hitting wide-open thres, and he’s better at shooting mid-range, pull-up jumpers (which Ariza is completely incapable of doing).
ON THE OTHER HAND
More other hands. Artest makes bad decisions. He hogs the ball, jacks up a lot of shots, and goes to the rim when it ain’t open. Trevor Ariza doesn’t do those things. At least not with the Lakers. So the real questions when evaluating this “trade” are:
Will Artest make better decisions in the Triangle?
and
Will Ariza be able to score with somebody actually guarding him?
The answers would need another post.
TRad
August 7, 2009
Firewalker
Ariza produced at the same level while he was in Orlando. His WP48 wasn’t an effect of Kobe, Jax, triangle, whatever. Ariza is very efficient player, period.
Firewalker
August 7, 2009
What’s your confidence level for that Orlando statistic? You can’t say for certain that the ability was the same, just that your WP48 statistic identified no difference. Those aren’t the same thing.
Basketball statistics are not baseball statistics. There are way fewer data points and almost no discrete events outside of free throws. I commend organizations for using their resources to try to identify more meaningful stats, but this sport truly lends itself to observation.
Firewalker
August 7, 2009
Speaking of observation, I will offer my take on why losing Ariza, even if it meant gaining Artest, will hurt. Find a recording of a Laker game last season. Now fast-forward to the play where Trevor grabs a rebound and dunks it without coming down. Now back up 30 frames or so. Watch the play frame-by-frame. (I did this a lot last year). What you will see is amazing: Trevor is running after the rebound while every other player in frame is standing and staring. Astounding. This is a repeatable experiment. Watch some Rockets games next year for proof that this, at least, is definitely not context dependent.
Firewalker
August 7, 2009
Thread looks dead, but I’ll ask anyway: can anyone point me to an article showing the predicted wins by team made ex ante for last season?
Firewalker
August 7, 2009
Using these stats, I mean.
kooguy
August 7, 2009
doesn’t adding A. Miller subsequently reduce the Wins Produced and WP value of S. Blake do to the pending decrease in playing time when Blake comes off the bench?
Sam Cohen
August 7, 2009
Firewalker- because a prediction requires deciding how many minutes each player will be given (and Prof. Berri has indicated that he doesn’t want to go through the hassle of making those minute predictions for each team), Prof. Berri tends to give general ranges, so start of the year predictions probably won’t be as specific as you’re looking for. That said, there are preseason predictions floating around this site somewhere.
I’ve used WP to make predictions for the Sixers each of the last two years. Two years ago was very good from my recollection. I don’t remember how last year’s prediction turned out, but obviously my beginning of year prediction didn’t take into account Brand being hurt for most of the year (I think I did, however, make different projections based on whether Brand was fully recovered from his previous injury or not.).
TRad
August 7, 2009
Firewalker
It’s you who used “mine WP48 statistics”. Let me quote your post:
“Trevor produced 8 wins for the Lakers. I have no real problem with the conclusion that he produced between 2 and 3 times the value of Fisher. That was self-evident. I love Trevor.
BUT
He produced that in the context of the Lakers system”.
Those “wins produced” are calculated by multiplicating WP48 by minutes (divided by 48). You can’t use the stats (and explain: yeah, Ariza’s good, but only because of Kobe and Pau) and then protest somebody else is using them to falsify your thesis. You can’t say Ariza’s WP48 with Lakers is a valid stats, but his WP48 with Magic isn’t.
As for including Powell/Mbanga and not decreasing Blake’s WP – you’re right, Berri’s “projected wins” from this post are rather poor estimation. But he showed that beyond any reasonable doubt the distance between Lakers and Blazers is smaller than it was last season. In short words: Blazers are better (than they were), Lakers are worse (than they were).
Of course there is still chance for Bynum discovering his inner Jabbar and then all bets are off. OTOH Oden wasn’t playing at his full strength either.
BTW you shouldn’t use “Laker-hater” argument (I’m afraid you were ready to do it) – Berri’s called Lakers ’09 championship just after they lost finals to Celtics in June 2008. You may check it yourself.
I think Lakers blundered by signing Artest, not because of chemistry or chance of imploding, but because of how good Ariza fit to Lakers system. He was a perfect role player for LAL. Artest isn’t. He might be more talented, but he hasn’t shown yet he could use his talent as well as Ariza.
Italian Stallion
August 7, 2009
DSMok1,
I loved the article, but I’m not sure if it’s applicable in this case. Then again, we’ll have to wait and see. It wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong ;)
IMHO, there is a close to 0% probability that Artest will be used as often on these Lakers (with Bryant, Gasol, Bynum, and Odom ahead of him) as he was on a depleted Houston team last year UNLESS he is getting a lot of easy looks because he’s the 3rd or 4th scoring option.
When watching him play last year, I would often see him take what I considered to be a suspect shot.
IMO, if still he’s taking as many mediocre shots per all shots with the Lakers, then Jackson is not a very good coach or Artest not coachable .
On the flip side, I often saw Ariza getting wide open looks because the defense was not convinced he could knock those shots down and preferred to double another player. Artest may get some of those also.
At the margin, I can’t see how Artest doesn’t on average either get a few extra better looks or a few less mediocre shots.
The net of all that will probably not amount to a significantly higher eFG% or TS%. It may even get masked by other factors that contribute to him having either a good or bad year. However, I’m going to be shocked if he’s not a mildly more efficient player next year.
TRad
August 8, 2009
IS
The problem is Artest’s perception what makes bad/good look. To be more efficient he would have to change his habits. Completely. Stay in system. Make the extra pass. Don’t break the play to hold the ball extra second (or two). In short words: he would have to play just like Ariza was playing last season.
Artest have skills to do so, but in his many seasons he’s never shown he wants to play that way. Could Jax teach an old dog new tricks? We’ll see. But no matter what I can’t see how Artest could be improvement over Ariza.
TOTD
August 8, 2009
While I would agree that Artest will likely have an insignificant effect on the number of regular season wins, the playoffs are all about matchups, and Artest matches up better with the small forwards the Lakers are likely to face; Roy, Melo, Lebron, or Pierce.
Ariza was great at playing the pass lanes, but as Melo exposed in the Denver series, he still lacks the strength to battle with more physical SFs. I keep hearing that he is a “lock down” defender, but that’s just hype. Other than Melo, the Lakers simply did not see a dominant SF last year in the playoffs. And Melo lit up the Lakers before getting sick and tiring out.
Jason
August 9, 2009
It is well and good to think that Portland was the second best team in the West by point differential. But that’s no reason to gauge yourselves only against the Lakers. Denver might be better next season. The Spurs definitely got better. Utah may get healthy for once. Any of these teams could easily finish ahead of the Blazers in the regular season.
tshipman44
August 9, 2009
These predictions seem to be either intentionally or unintentionally misleading. Since they have no weighting for playing time, and are discussing counting stats, it seems very problematic to discuss Andre Miller’s addition without the context of reduced playing time for Steve Blake.
This is also separate from the analysis of Artest vs. Ariza, which I think is problematic to discuss outside of the context of their offensive systems.
Oh Yeah
August 9, 2009
People seem to forget that Ariza’s efficiency blew up in the playoffs as his 3P% went up to the high 40s.
It will be much more of a shame for the Lakers to lose playoff Ariza than regular season Ariza.
chiwan
August 10, 2009
“despite what happened in the playoffs, Portland was the second best team in the Western Conference during the 2008-09 regular season”
this is the problem. that’s a HUGE “despite.”
it’s like listening to the Nuggets last year saying they were “better” than the Lakers DESPITE the fact they lost. lot of boxers say this too.
the fact is: Blazers LOST to the Rockets…who had Artest.
Blazer Ish
August 10, 2009
Something that seems to have been forgotten on here is the return of Martell Webster this year for the Blazers. He should be in the top 10 rotation instead of Bayless.
Chiwan: The Blazers lost because of Yao Ming and clutch shooting by Battier, not anything Artest did in particular. Artest actually chucked up a lot of bad shots (hence his low efficiency scores), helping Portland stay in some of those games.
Midwest Division Champs
August 10, 2009
I guess Dr. Silly Face forgot to mention that the only reason the aforementioned teams tied is because Denver already won the NW before they played at the end of the season………..oops
Dan Tran
August 11, 2009
You are a complete buffoon.
juegos como ogame
August 11, 2009
thats why all coachs loves Pau!
Chris
August 13, 2009
Stats can be used to rationalize anything. The numbers for Ariza and Artest are misleading because Ariza played on the championship team where a number of guys took the pressure off him and he was able to excel (giving him better stats), while Artest was a primary guy on a team without its superstars and he was stretched thin in every way.
Now, with the tables turned, Ariza will be forced to make his own offense in Houston and his stats will drop. Artest will have a much easier time in LA and his stats will go up.
Chris
August 13, 2009
I’m a Laker fan, but I will give the Blazers credit for being a great, young team with the odds of becoming an incredible, mature team in the near future. Frankly, you guys scare me more than the Spurs, Nuggets, or Jazz. I see WC Finals and NBA Finals for you down the road.
I won’t claim to understand the nuances of your growth, chemistry, and acquisitions. I will say that most of the comments here show a lack of understanding of ours. Yes, Artest is a big chemistry question mark, but not a defensive one. That’s why we brought him over. (We would have kept Ariza, but his agent royally screwed that up and that’s a whole different topic.) Artest will truly be a lock-down defender. We don’t need him to score from the outside and not make layups, we need him to defend all-stars like Roy.
Sam
August 13, 2009
Chris
“Ariza played on the championship team where a number of guys took the pressure off him and he was able to excel (giving him better stats”)
Better in comparison to when?
Trevor Ariza:
2008-09: 8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48
2007-08: 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.225 WP48
2006-07: 5.8 Wins Produced, 0.217 WP48
Ron Artest:
2008-09: 4.2 Wins Produced, 0.083 WP48
2007-08: 4.5 Wins Produced, 0.100 WP48
2006-07: 8.9 Wins Produced, 0.161 WP48
“while Artest was a primary guy on a team without its superstars and he was stretched thin in every way.”
The Kings weren’t better but he somehow was while playing there.
Trevor Ariza:
2008-09: 8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48
2007-08: 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.225 WP48
2006-07: 5.8 Wins Produced, 0.217 WP48
Ron Artest:
2008-09: 4.2 Wins Produced, 0.083 WP48
2007-08: 4.5 Wins Produced, 0.100 WP48
2006-07: 8.9 Wins Produced, 0.161 WP48
————————————————————
Steve O.
August 13, 2009
No way the Blazers are as good as the Lakers next year. They may be comparable in the regular season, but in the playoffs, experience is what matters. Your statistical analysis completely ignores intangibles such as that. Lakers in six, with or without home court ad. Also, Vegas thinks you are wrong.