Prior to the 2009-10 season I offered a review/preview of the Atlanta Hawks that was titled: Hoping for a Plan in Atlanta. During the summer of 2009 the Hawks made very few moves to improve their roster. So it was clear the Hawks were simply hoping that players already on the team would improve.
At the time I questioned how likely this plan would result in success. NBA players – relative to what we see in the football or baseball – are very consistent. Therefore, hoping that existing players would improve enough to dramatically change a team’s results seems unrealistic.
A few weeks after the 2009-10 season started, though, it was clear the Hawks “plan” had met with some success. Josh Smith – who has never posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] beyond 0.148 in five NBA seasons – was suddenly posted a mark beyond 0.200. Many thought this improvement was linked to Smith’s decision to stop launching three-pointers. More importantly, though, was Smith’s ability to grab more rebounds, get more steals and assists, and block more shots. In sum, Smith’s improvement can be traced to a number of statistics, and as a consequence, Smith produced 7.7 more wins than his 2008-09 performance would suggest he would offer last year.
It was primarily because of Smith’s improvement that the Hawks were able to advance from a 47 win team in 2008-09 to a 53 win team in 2009-10. The playoff results, though, were identical. In both 2009 and 2010 the Hawks were swept out of the playoffs in the second round.
This season the Hawks appear to be following the same plan implemented during the summer of 2009. As Michael Cunningham of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted a few days ago:
Re-signing free agent Joe Johnson was the Hawks’ only major move over the summer and there’s no indication they believe they can or should do more to keep pace in the Eastern Conference.
General manager Rick Sund is taking the same wait-and-see approach he did prior to the start of the season.
“We’ve improved every year; now we will see if we can get one step closer to a championship,” Sund said.
Cunningham goes on to note: With no indication the Hawks are looking to make trades, they have to hope the current group can improve enough to make them true East contenders.
The Hawks Decline
After 31 games in 2010-11 it seems like a good time to see how this plan is working out. The teams’ record is currently 19-12 and the team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) is 1.91. To put this in perspective, the team won 53 games last season (a record consistent with a 20-11 team after 31 games) and posted a 4.93 differential. So in terms of both wins and the efficiency marks, the Hawks have declined.
When we move from efficiency differential to Wins Produced we can see who specifically has declined.
Before we get to the declines, let’s mention briefly that Atlanta’s plan is working with respect to Al Horford. In his fourth season – and at the age of 24 – Horford is posting his best numbers yet. But despite Horford’s improvement, the Hawks have declined primarily because of the play of Maurice Evans, Joe Johnson, and Jamal Crawford.
The Joe Johnson Story
Okay, the plan is not working. Yes, Josh Smith did improve last year. And Horford improved this year. But just as some players can get better, others can actually get worse. And it is the decline of one particular player that I think illustrates two key issues in the NBA’s labor market— and also why the Hawks hope for title contention in the future will not be realized.
The particular player I am talking about is Joe Johnson. As noted, Johnson was re-signed in the off-season. Entering the 2010-11 season, Johnson had already played nine NBA seasons. And here are his career numbers:
Minutes: 25,794
Wins Produced: 57.0
WP48: 0.106 [average WP48 is 0.100]
Points per game: 17.6
Salary: $75 million
And here is what Johnson did last year at the age of 28:
Minutes: 2,886
Wins Produced: 10.0
WP48: 0.167
Points per game: 21.3
Salary: $15 million
Johnson’s most productive season was 2009-10. However, Johnson will turn 30 next June. And as I have noted in the past, NBA players age like milk. In other words, Johnson is likely to offer to less in the future (this is one key feature of the NBA’s labor market decision-makers need to consider).
But let’s assume that didn’t happen for Johnson. And let’s assume that Johnson could keep offering what he did last year across the next six years. That means Johnson would produce 60.2 wins from 2010-11 to 2015-16. How much should a team be willing to pay for this production?
If you said “nearly $124 million”, then you would be the Atlanta Hawks. And such an amount says that Johnson – if he could maintain his production from last year until he is 34 years of age – will receive more than $2 million for each win (the NBA average is around $1.7 million). So Johnson — if he didn’t really age — would still be overpaid.
So far this year, though, Johnson is only on pace to 3.7 wins. Now Johnson has missed nine games due to injury. If he was on pace to play as many minutes as he did last year –but still offered the same per-minute production as this year – then Johnson would be on pace to produce 5.1 wins. And for that production, he will be paid $16.3 million.
That annual salary figure will only increase going forward. In 2013-14, Johnson will be paid more than $21.5 million. And again, it seems unlikely Johnson will be that productive at the age of 32. But despite this expectation, Johnson is scheduled to receive $9 million more than Al Horford in 2013-14.
Beyond 2013-14 the story gets even worse for the Hawks. In 2015-16 – when Johnson is 34 years of age – he will be get paid more than $24 million. Again, if he offered 10 wins at that age – or what he did last year – he would still be overpaid. Given how players age, though, it is likely Johnson will actually offer much less.
So why did Johnson get this contract? As frequently reported before, the NBA labor market rewards players who score (this is second key feature the labor market I wish to emphasize). And since arriving in Atlanta, Johnson has consistently led the Hawks in points per game. Not coincidently, he has also led that Hawks in field goal attempts.
Once again, we see the same familiar story. Johnson has not been a particularly efficient scorer across his career. But he is willing to take shots. And when Johnson’s career is over his willingness to shoot will result in career earnings that approach $200 million.
As reported in Stumbling on Wins, though, field goal attempts are the easiest statistic for an NBA team to replace. In other words, if Johnson didn’t take all those shots, someone else on the Hawks probably would have been willing to shoot. In fact, given how much the NBA pays players to shoot, one imagines that almost everyone on the Hawks would love to take those shots.
Summarizing the Story
So let’s summarize the story. The Hawks plan is to hope existing players improve. That hope has been realized in the play of Josh Smith in 2009-10 and Al Horford this season. Despite this improvement, though, the Hawks are not a top team in the East because other players are offering less (yes, players can both improve and decline).
That suggests the Hawks will need to add better players if this team wishes to contend. The ability of the Hawks to substantially alter their roster has been hindered, though, by the Hawks promise to pay Joe Johnson more than $124 million. This promise is certainly driven by the logic of the NBA player’s market. Unfortunately for fans of Atlanta, scoring totals are not the best measure of a player’s contribution to wins. So although the Hawks were not “wrong” to give Johnson so much money, all that money going to a player who doesn’t produce that many wins is going to make it very hard for this team to contend for a title.
But that shouldn’t stop people from hoping (well it should, but let’s close on an optimistic note). After all, that is the plan in Atlanta.
– DJ
Italian Stallion
December 26, 2010
It’s going to be very difficult for the Hawks to win a championship from this position. They aren’t good enough to win as currently constructed, they are capped out for awhile, but they are way too good to get a really good pick. They are in the worst position a team can be in if the goal is to win it all. It’s going to take an extremely lucky draft to put them over the top .
Obviously, the big decision was Joe Johnson.
I haven’t looked at every deal in the NBA, but IMO JJ’s has to be among the worst in the league.
Sometimes it probably makes sense to overpay a player if you believe the team can contend for a championship if you keep it together. That must have been what the Hawks management thought. But I’m not sure how they could think that when there are still some glaring holes.
They should have let Joe Johnson go, moved Crawford into the starting lineup for one year, and more or less conceded the year. Then when Crawford came off the cap at the end of this year they would have had a lot of space to add to the excellent core of Horford and Smith. They also would have gotten a better draft pick this year.
One thing is clear, many team managements, fans, and local media are incapable of thinking past the next 5 minutes let alone laying out a long term plan.
Patrick
December 26, 2010
It is not entirely fair to blame Johnson’s contract exclusively on the Hawk’s front office. The current CBA structure (you can go over the cap re-signing your own players but can’t do the same signing free agents) provides a significant incentive to overpay your own players instead of pursuing improvements via free agency. Had the Hawks let Johnson walk, they would have been roughly $7 million dollars under the cap, and it’s very unlikely they could have found someone to replicate his production at that figure.
That said, I still think the Johnson contract is a disaster and will likely end up wasting the prime of Horford and Smith. But the Johnson contract might not be exclusively a function of the Hawk’s front office overvaluing Johnson’s production.
-Patrick
Italian Stallion
December 26, 2010
Patrick,
“Had the Hawks let Johnson walk, they would have been roughly $7 million dollars under the cap, and it’s very unlikely they could have found someone to replicate his production at that figure.”
I agree with you, but with Crawford’s money coming off after this year, they would have had another 10m. That’s a lot of room and flexibility going forward to add to Horford and Smith.
I think it’s highly likely they could have created a much better team either for the 2011 season (or soon after) by sacrificing 2010 . It wouldn’t have even been a big sacrifice. They still would have made the playoffs in 2010 with just Crawford and a 1 year rental replacing JJ. So far, the best basketball The Hawks have played came when JJ was out.
It comes down to long term thinking vs. short term thinking. And like I said, few owners, management, fans etc… can think past 5 minutes let alone across multiple seasons. IMO the impatience of the fans and media often contribute to bad decisions.
A lot of the debate among fans and in the NY media about the Knicks is borderline preposterous and clueless. Half these idiots wouldn’t make make it until the second half of the season before they totally destroyed all the good Donnie Walsh has done over two years.
Leroy Smith
December 27, 2010
IS, the production they get from JJ could easily be replaced with a mid level exception player. He has not been more productive than John Salmons over the last 3 years. JJ just takes many more shots and plays many more minutes.
I live in Atlanta, so I’m glad they suck just bad enough for me to get cheap tickets to watch Blake “the poster child” Griffin and other players I want to see.
Daniel
December 27, 2010
Better optimistic note to end the article: “If the Wizards could trade Gilbert Arenas, then the Hawks can dump Johnson’s salary.”
J. Scott
December 27, 2010
The Hawks actually already had the rights to a player who could have slipped pretty seamlessly into Johnson’s role…Josh Childress. Hey, they didn’t HAVE to trade him to Phoenix. He’d have been younger, and cheaper, and probably as (if not more) productive.
stephanieg
December 27, 2010
I’m not sure if it’s realistic to believe a market like Atlanta could be or is planning towards being a title contender. I imagine that getting to the 2nd round every year would be a nice success for them.
Of course, if they were planning on finals appearances it would have helped if they drafted Chris Paul instead of Marvin Williams in the ’05 draft. I bet they wouldn’t have blown all their cash on JJ if that had happened.
Patrick
December 27, 2010
IS–
It’s also possible that Atlanta is planning on the new CBA offering an amnesty to one contract or a flat reduction in player salary. The J.J. contract is pretty reasonable as a one year rental.
-Patrick
Italian Stallion
December 28, 2010
I have a slightly higher opinion of JJ than many here. Not much higher, but higher.