The last team to lose a game in the Western Conference in 2007-08 was the LA Clippers. After four games the lowly Clippers were the only 4-0 team. Had the Clippers won four straight in the playoffs their team would have been remembered forever (or at least for a few weeks).  But when you have to play 78 more games - and you only win 19 more of these contests - the 4-0 start gets forgotten. 

Given how infrequently the Clippers win, we should take notice when it happens.  When this franchise was in Buffalo (as the Braves), it posted three winning seasons in eight years.  In the team’s first season in San Diego (1978-79) it again posted a winning season.  Since that inaugural California campaign, this franchise has only won more than it lost twice (1991-92 and 2005-06).

Consequently, when the 2007-08 season was another losing effort, we were not surprised.  Of course, it was not just the history of this team that led us to believe the Clippers would struggle. Elton Brand, who has led this team in Wins Produced each season played from 2001-02 to 2006-07, was not going to be available to the Clippers until the very end of the 2007-08.  Without the team’s most productive player, people were pretty sure the Clippers were going to struggle.

Meeting Expectations in 2007-08

And as Table One indicates, this team met our expectations.

Table One: The LA Clippers in 2007-08

Given how many minutes each player played in 2007-08, and what these players did in 2006-07, we would have expected the Clippers to win about 17 games.  With Chris Kaman improving dramatically over his 2006-07 numbers (less dramatically if we consider his 2005-06 numbers), the Clippers managed a team Wins Produced of 21.6. 

Although the Clippers were dismal, there were a few bright spots.  As noted, Kaman improved.  In 2005-06 his WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] was 0.160.  Last year he was below average - and as I noted last September - the primary reason the Clippers declined in 2006-07.  This season Kaman posted a 0.233 WP48, and as I noted in November, was the primary reason the Clippers started 4-0.

Although the record indicates otherwise, Kaman was not the only above average talent employed by the Clippers last season. Corey Maggette - with a WP48 of 0.132 - and Brevin Knight - with a mark of 0.112 - both turned in above average performances.  Neither performance was much of a surprise.  Entering the 07-08 campaign, Maggette had a career WP48 of 0.139.  Knight, who is now 32 years old (old for a point guard), has a career mark of 0.166.   

After Kaman, Maggette, and Knight, the cupboard was pretty bare.  The only players with an above average WP48 were Sam Cassell, Nick Fazekas, and Andre Barrett. Cassell was allowed to depart for Boston before the season ended.  And Fazekas (referred to earlier as the Fabulous Fazekas) and Barrett barely played.

The rest of the roster, consisting of ten players who played more minutes than Fazekas, was all below average. 

Included in this gang of ten were Quinton Ross, Tim Thomas, and Al Thornton.  Each of these players posted WP48 marks in the negative range. Entering the season, Ross had a 0.007 WP48 while Thomas had a mark of -0.012.  Thornton was expected to help at small forward, but the loss of Brand often forced him into duty at power forward (where he obviously didn’t help much). 

A Look to the Future

When you combine a few above average players with many below average performers, it’s not surprising when your team fails to win many games.  Now that this season is over, though, we begin to wonder if there is anything the Clippers can do to return to the glory that was 2005-06.

If Elton Brand and Corey Maggette each depart in free agency (see the updated free agency list at ESPN.com HERE), then the immediate future looks bleak.  Again, until this season, Brand was the team’s most productive player each year he played in LA.  And Maggette has generally been above average in his career.  If these players walk, this team is reduced to Chris Kaman and not much else.  Such a team would have serious problems.

Assuming Brand and Maggette come back (a giant assumption), how much help will he have? Kaman looks like they can help. So the starters at center, power forward, and small forward - assuming the stars return — look solid. 

After these three, though, the Clippers just have problems.  At point guard, Knight is old and a replacement is probably needed. Dan Dickau has been close to average whenever he has received consistent minutes in his career.  But he is now 29 and a free agent, so his probably not the answer at this position.  Shaun Livingston was above average in 2006-07, but he needs to recover from a devastating injury (and is also a restricted free agent). So the lead guard spot is full of uncertainty.

At shooting guard the Clippers have Cuttino Mobley.  Mobley, like Knight, is 32 years old.  Unlike Knight, Mobley has been consistently below average in his career.  Behind Mobley is Ross, who we have already seen doesn’t help much.  Given such production, perhaps the Clippers could look at shooting guard with their next lottery pick.

And then we have the issue of depth in the front-court.  Behind Kaman, Brand, and Maggette are Josh Powell, Tim Thomas, and Al Thornton.  Each of the latter three is below average. Yes, the Clippers could turn to Fazekas (a restricted free agent).  But we really don’t know yet if Fazekas can be productive across significant minutes (and I would be surprised if he gets the minutes necessary for us to find out). 

In sum, the Clippers do not have much in the back-court.  They also don’t have much depth in the front-court. Obviously they need Brand (and probably Maggette) to return to have any hope.  But for Brand to have any desire to return, this team is going to need to find productive players to supplement the frontcourt.  Until that happens, the Clippers will continue to perform badly, just as the history of this franchise has led us to expect.

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.

Now that the NBA regular season is concluded I will be posting comments on each team.  These columns will be collected in a page - listed on the right - titled NBA Team Reviews: 2007-08.  So far columns examining the Denver Nuggets, New Jersey Nets, and Atlanta Hawks have been posted.  There is no particular order to how these will be discussed, but eventually every team will be examined (hopefully before the end of July).

The NBA Team Reviews page will also post links to the table reviewing each player’s Wins Produced [and WP48]. In addition, I have noticed that occasionally fan websites devoted to specific teams will link to the corresponding WoW Journal team column.  If I see this I will post a link to that discussion (no guarantee, though, on the quality of that discussion).

In addition to offering columns on each team, I have also posted columns examining the entire league (for example, efficiency differential rankings) as well as comments on each post-season award (as they are announced).

One last note on fan websites…you will note that I have linked to the following five NBA team websites that I think rank among the best. 

Denver Stiffs [Denver Nuggets]

Hornets247 [New Orleans Hornets]

Pistonscast [Detroit Pistons]

Shades of Blue [Memphis Grizzlies]

The Bucks Diary [Milwaukee Bucks]

I have found the work posted at each of these sites to be consistently good.

- DJ

The NBA has announced the media’s selection of the league’s Most Valuable Player as well as the members of the All-NBA First, Second, and Third teams.  With voting complete and reported, we can now evaluate the media’s choices.

Table One reports the Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of the 42 players who received consideration for the MVP and/or All-NBA teams.

Table One: Evaluating the Candidates for MVP and All-NBA in 2008

Here are some quick thoughts I had when looking over this table.

• Kobe Bryant - the league MVP and top choice in voting for the All-NBA team - ranks 9th in the league in Wins Produced.  Because he ranked 6th in the league in minutes played, his Wins Produced is a bit inflated.  If we consider WP48, we see that he is only the 14th most productive player listed in Table One.
• Among shooting guards, only Manu Ginobili posted a higher WP48 than Kobe.  So Kobe is one of the very best shooting guards.
• If we consider all guards, Chris Paul is easily the most productive. And that is the same story if we consider all players.
• Four players received first place votes for MVP (Kobe, Paul, Kevin Garnett, and LeBron James).  Of these four, Kobe was the least productive.  In terms of WP48, only Paul and Dwight Howard did more than KG.
• The most over-looked player in the league was Jose Calderon.  Calderon posted a WP48 of 0.309 and produced 16.0 wins.  That mark ranks 12th in the league.  Despite this production, Calderon received no consideration in MVP voting or voting for the All-NBA teams.
• When we look at players for Denver, the media ranked Denver’s players in this order: Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Marcus Camby.  WP48 offers an exactly opposite ranking.
• Four players who were quite close to league average received consideration for the All-NBA team: Tracy McGrady [0.107 WP48], David West [0.105 WP48], Joe Johnson [0.100 WP48], and Michael Redd [0.087 WP48].  McGrady - as has been noted in this forum in the past - is not the player he once was.  The other three have never really been as productive as some people seem to believe.  
• Not a single rookie received any consideration for these awards.  Al Horford - the most productive rookie in Wins Produced - produced more wins than 12 players who received consideration for the All-NBA team.  Of course, Kevin Durant did not.

Okay, those are some quick thoughts.  Previously I posted the top 15 at each position.  Below these lists are re-posted.

Top 15 Point Guards

Top 15 Shooting Guards

Top 15 Small Forwards

Top 15 Power Forwards

Top 15 Centers

Again, the MVP and All-NBA teams are selected by the media.  As I have noted in the past, the MVP vote is dominated by scorers from winning teams.  

Hopefully next week we will see the All-Rookie teams.  These teams are selected by the coaches.  I will be most interested in seeing how the coaches reward (or penalize) the production offered by Kevin Durant this season.

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.

If you follow the link you will hear Dan Patrick - now of Sports Illustrated - interview George Karl (hat tip to Andy Feinstein of Denver Stiffs - formally FireGeorgeKarl.com).  In the course of this conversation Dan Patrick re-iterated a common critique of the Denver Nuggets: Denver doesn’t play defense.

Denver allowed 107 points per game, a mark that ranked 29^th in a 30 team league.  So it’s easy to see why people think Denver has problems on defense.

Denver is a “Good” Defensive Team

At least, it would be easy to see if you didn’t know one basic fact about basketball.  Some teams play at a fast pace while others take it slow.  This one basic fact means that to properly evaluate a team’s offense and defense we need to consider points scored and allowed per possession.  In other words, we have to consider offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency.

The Nuggets average 103.1 possessions per game, which is the fastest pace in the NBA. Given this quantity of possessions, the Nuggets had a 103.7 defensive efficiency [(107.0 / 103.1)*100].  This mark ranks 12^th in the 30 team NBA.  In sum, Denver was actually an above average defensive team  in 2007-08.

If you have read The Wages of Wins you have seen the argument that teams should be evaluated in terms of offensive and defensive efficiency.  And such an argument is not unique to The Wages of Wins.  It can be also found in the writings of John Hollinger and Dean Oliver.  And I believe Oliver notes that this idea goes back decades.  Yet apparently, it’s completely lost on Patrick.

Okay, Patrick is a sportswriter.  Sometimes (as is often noted here), sportswriters get it wrong (see the vote for Kevin Durant for Rookies of the Year or Kobe Bryant for MVP). But what is truly amazing about the Patrick-Karl interview, is that after Patrick asserts that Denver is “bad” defensive team (where “bad” is defined as below average), Karl doesn’t disagree.  One would think that Karl, who has to have heard that teams play at different speeds, would have quickly told Patrick that he was wrong.  Once you adjust for pace, Denver is a “good” defensive team (where “good” is defined as above average).  This, though, doesn’t happen.  Is it possible that Karl doesn’t understand offensive and defensive efficiency?

Karl stated in the interview that Denver is beginning the process of preparing for next season.  That process involves an evaluation of where this team is at, and what needs to be done to make it better.  If you start such a process, though, with a distorted view of what is “good” and “bad”, it seems unlikely that you are going to end the process with an improved product.

Introducing the Distortion Score

To be fair to both Patrick and Karl, NBA observers do commonly refer to points score and allowed, rather than offensive and defensive efficiency.  And as has been noted in many places (including The Wages of Wins), this common practice does distort our view of a team.

How much of a distortion do the common metrics create?  To answer this question, I ranked each NBA team according to the following metrics:

• Points Allowed
• Points Scored
• Defensive Efficiency
• Offensive Efficiency

I then calculated the difference (labeled Defensive Difference) between the team’s defensive efficiency rank and its points allowed rank. Likewise, I also calculated the difference (labeled Offensive Difference) between the team’s offensive efficiency and points scored ranking.   With these differences in hand, I calculated the team’s Distortion Score.  This is determined as follows:

Distortion Score = Absolute Value of Defensive Difference  + Absolute Value of Offensive Difference

The results for 2007-08 are reported in Table One

Table One: 2007-08 Distortion Score Rankings

As Table One reports, the team with the largest Distortion Score is the Denver Nuggets.  As noted, the team is ranked 29^th in points allowed but 12^th in defensive efficiency. So Denver’s defense is very underrated.  On offense it has the opposite problem.  In terms of points scored the Nuggets rank 2^nd in the league.  In terms of offensive efficiency, though, the team is only ranked 11^th.  Yes, Denver is above average offensively.  Just not as far above average as its points scored per game would suggest. 

When we add together 17 (the Defensive Difference) and 9 (the Offensive Difference), we see a Distortion Score of 26. And as noted, this leads the league.

Denver, though, is not the only team whose performance is distorted by points score and points allowed.  The Indiana Pacers ranked 26^th in points allowed, but were 15^th in defensive efficiency.  On offensive, the Pacers ranked 7^th in scoring per game, but 18^th in offensive efficiency.  So the standard metrics tell us that the Pacers were very good on offense and very bad on defense.  The pace adjusted measures tell us that Indiana was actually a better defensive team .

Indiana was not the only team where the efficiency measures tell us the opposite story from what we see when we just look at scoring averages.  Like Indiana, points scored and allowed tell us that Seattle and Charlotte were better on offense while the efficiency metric says the teams were stronger on defense.

For Portland, New Orleans, Dallas, Toronto, Washington, and Atlanta, we see the opposite story.  These teams look like they are better on the defensive side of the ball.  But when we look at team efficiency, we see that each of these teams is actually stronger on the offensive side of the ball.

Why this Matters?

The purpose of the Distortion Score is to highlight how much the traditional measures of points per game distort our assessment of individual teams.  And by that measure, the view of Denver is the most distorted. 

Let me close by noting again why all this is important. If a decision-maker wishes to improve an organization, the decision-maker must first know what is wrong.  If your metrics, though, distort your strengths and weaknesses, then it really doesn’t help much.  

For Denver fans, let’s hope that George Karl didn’t feel like correcting Dan Patrick on his show.  If that isn’t the case, though, it looks like Denver’s efforts to improve this summer are off to a very bad start.

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.

Over an 82 game season, the Boston Celtics won 29 more games than the Atlanta Hawks. Given this disparity, people expected the Celtics to easily defeat the Hawks in the first round of the playoffs.

But that didn’t happen.  The Celtics were the only advancing team to be pushed to seven games in the first round.  Such an outcome led to the following observations from people connected to the Atlanta Hawks (first two quotes from a Mark Bradley article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, while the Josh Smith quote is from a D. Orlando Ledbetter article in the AJ-C).

“We played a great series,” said Michael Gearon Jr., one of the team’s several owners. “We established some respect for ourselves around the league. Are we disappointed to lose? Absolutely, but it doesn’t take away the direction we’re going, and that’s to be a premier team for a long period of time.”

Said [Mike] Woodson: “[The series] definitely changes the perception. … I think our fans like our product, and it really doesn’t get much better than those three games in Atlanta. … Basketball is back in Atlanta in a big way.”

“You’ve got to find some positive out of it, and you know we came further than what people thought we were going to do,” [Josh] Smith said. “Now they understand that the Hawks are a good team. We play hard and we try to bring it every night.”

Smith believes that he and the Hawks did garner some respect for their play against the Celtics.

“I’ve got confidence in my team, confidence in my teammates,” Smith said. “I know that if we play hard and if we play to the best of our capabilities that we can play with anybody.”

From the owner, to the coach, to the starting power forward, the same story is told.  The Hawks are now a “good” team. But is the data consistent with this perspective?

Evaluating Atlanta’s Regular Season

We now have two data sets on the Hawks: the 82 game regular season and seven playoff games.  As I have noted in the past, I think we should prefer a bigger sample to a smaller sample.  When we look at the regular season, do we find that the Hawks have improved?

To answer this question, let’s first look at what the Hawks did in 2007-08 and over a collection of recent seasons.  

The Hawks in 2007-08 won 37 games with a -1.92 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).  And here is a collection of recent results:

1999-2000: 28 wins, -5.64 Efficiency Differential

2000-2001: 25 wins, -5.51 Efficiency Differential

2001-2002: 33 wins, -4.45 Efficiency Differential

2002-2003: 35 wins, -3.76 Efficiency Differential

2003-2004: 28 wins, -4.90 Efficiency Differential

2004-2005: 13 wins, -10.22 Efficiency Differential

2005-2006: 26 wins, -5.06 Efficiency Differential

2006-2007: 30 wins, -5.07 Efficiency Differential

From 1999-2000 to 2006-2007, the Hawks averaged 27.3 wins and posted an average differential of -5.58 (if we ignore the 2004-05 season the averages are 29.3 wins and a differential of -4.91).

Relative to these averages, the Hawks of 2007-08 improved by less than 10 wins.  So Atlanta was better, but not by much.

Finding Improvement in Atlanta

Where did these additional wins come from?  The answer to that question is reported in Table One.

Table One: The Atlanta Hawks in 2007-08

If we take the rookies performance as given (so Al Horford’s performance is not forecasted), we see in Table One that the Hawks - given what the veteran players did in 2006-07 - should have expected to win 32 games this season.  The Wins Produced from this season, though, sum to 36.3.  So the Hawks veteran players improved by only four wins.  And this improvement was primarily confined to just two players: Marvin Williams and Anthony Johnson (who is no longer on the team).   Joe Johnson, Josh Smith, Mike Bibby, and Josh Childress were essentially the same players in 2007-08 as we observed in 2006-07.

Given such little change in the productivity of Atlanta’s veterans, it must be the case that this team simply improved because it drafted Al Horford.  Horford produced 9.0 wins in 2007-08, the top mark among all rookies.  And it was this production that got this team into the playoffs.  In other words, the team didn’t make the playoffs because of better team chemistry, or better coaching, or just because it tried harder.  The team drafted Horford (one of the better players in college last season), and his production added to what the veterans on this team were already offering was good enough to get the team to a mark that was slightly below average.

Searching for More in Atlanta

The analysis so far has focused on the entire team.  If we look at the players who played at least 1,000 minutes for Atlanta this year, we wouldn’t expect to see a below average team.  From Table One we see this team fields the following starting line-up (WP48 listed after each name):

PG: Mike Bibby (0.107)

SG: Joe Johnson (0.100)

SF: Marvin Williams (0.043)

PF: Josh Smith (0.111)

C: Al Horford (0.170)

The average WP48 of this group -despite the play of Williams — is 0.106 (which is slightly above the average mark of 0.100).  Josh Childress - the top player off the bench - has a WP48 of 0.206.  So with Childress, we see six players with a 0.123 average WP48.  Such a mark is consistent with a 50 win team.

So why are the Hawks below average?  It turns out that every other player employed by Atlanta this season had an average WP48 of -0.009 (excluding Anthony Johnson you get a mark of -0.042).  In sum, the Hawks were held back by a very weak bench.  Obviously if Atlanta could fix that problem, this team could actually become a serious contender in the Eastern Conference. Or to repeat the argument stated earlier, the Hawks simply need to add a few more productive players to get better.  Hoping for better chemistry, better coaching, and/or more effort is probably not going to get it done.

Commenting on the Playoffs

Let me close by commenting briefly on the smaller sample noted earlier.  The Hawks did take the Celtics to seven games.  But if we look at the aggregate playoff stats, the Hawks did not play well.  The team’s efficiency differential in the playoffs was -13.51.   Obviously when you are out-scored by 12 points per contest, your differential is not going to look to good.  

When we look at the individual players, we see two Atlanta players with a PAWSMIN (Position Adjusted Win Score per minute) that was above average.  Josh Childress and Al Horford - the two most productive players in the regular season - were the only players to be above average in the post-season.  Such a result is consistent with what we generally see in the playoffs.  Players tend not to rise to the occasion in the playoffs.  What we tend to see is that good players in the regular season are good (although not as good) in the playoffs.  And bad players in the regular season remain bad in the playoffs.

Although the Hawks did not play well, the team still won three games in Atlanta, while getting blown out in four games in Boston.  How is this possible? 

Erich Doerr provided a Monte Carlo simulation of the NCAA tournament.  If we look at the results of all 10,000 of his simulations, we see that teams like Davidson, Drake, and Butler were able to win the simulated tournament.  In other words, if you played these games enough, odd results can happen.  

Of course when we look at all 10,000 simulations, the expected results tend to dominate.  Unfortunately, we don’t play these games 10,000 times.  We only have one observation.  And sometimes that one observation is not very representative of what you would see in a larger simulated sample.

Applying this thinking to the Boston-Atlanta series, I think had Boston and Atlanta played this series over and over again you would see that Boston would tend to dominate.  But when you only play once, it is possible for Atlanta to push Boston to seven or even win the series.

And this gets back to a point made in The Wages of Wins.  The playoffs are for fun, not for science.  This small sample of games does not identify the best team.  They do provide us with great entertainment in May and June. And of course, something for sports fans to argue about.

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.

The New Jersey Nets joined the NBA in 1976.  Over the next 24 years the Nets only had seven winning seasons.  The best of these teams was seen in 1982-83, when the Nets posted a 2.58 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) and won 49 games.  If this is your best, obviously your franchise has problems.

The Guards of New Jersey

Then in 2001, the fortunes of this team changed.  Over the next six seasons the Nets never had a losing season.  The team also had a 1.9 average efficiency differential, besting the 1982-83 mark three times (2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04). 

Obviously the key addition was Jason Kidd. In his first seven NBA seasons - with Dallas and Phoenix - Kidd produced 97.6 wins with a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.253 (more than twice the average mark of 0.100). If we look just at his four full seasons in Phoenix we see a 0.300 WP48.  In sum, Kidd came to New Jersey as an elite player. In six plus seasons with the Nets, this elite status continued.  Kidd posted a 0.353 WP48 with the Nets, leading the team in Wins Produced each and every season. 

Although Kidd was consistently a very good player, he was not always working alone.  During the Kidd era the Nets consistently employed a productive shooting guard.  From 2001-02 to 2003-04, that off-guard was Kerry Kittles.  In eight NBA seasons, Kittles produced 52.2 wins with a 0.148 WP48 (average WP48 is 0.100).  If we focus just on the three seasons with Kidd, we see a 0.176 WP48. 

Kittles departed after the 2003-04 season.  Midway through the 2004-05 campaign, Vince Carter came to New Jersey.  Like Kittles, Carter was also a productive shooting guard, posting a 0.188 WP48 from 2005-06 to 2007-08.

When we look at each of the past seven seasons - reported in Table One - we see the Nets starting backcourt produced an average of 30.2 wins each season.  This works out to, on average, nearly 70% of the team’s Wins Produced.  In sum, the Nets were led by its starting guards.

Table One: The Nets Backcourt from 2001-02 to 2007-08

The New Jersey Supporting Cast

One should note that although Kittles and Carter posted similar productivity numbers [at least in terms of WP48], the combination of Kidd and Kittles got considerably more help.  One can see this in Table One, where it’s noted that Kidd and Kittles never produced as much as 60% of the team’s Wins Produced.  Meanwhile the combination of Kidd and Carter always accounted for at least 79% of the team’s wins.

The same story can also be told if we look at the number of above average players on the team.  Focusing just on those players who played at least 1,000 minutes, here are the players - other than the starting guards - who posted a WP48 in excess of 0.100 in each of the past seven seasons:

2001-02: Keith Van Horn (0.183), Todd MacCulloch (0.166), Lucious Harris (0.152)

2002-03: Richard Jefferson (0.192), Kenyon Martin (0.110)

2003-04: Richard Jefferson (0.186), Kenyon Martin (0.184)

2004-05: Richard Jefferson (0.125)

2005-06: Richard Jefferson (0.244)

2006-07: None

2007-08: Josh Boone (0.154)

The 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04 editions of the Nets were the best in franchise history (at least in the NBA).  And when we look at the help the backcourt received, it’s easy to see why these teams were so good.

After Martin left for Denver, though, the Nets slowly declined.  In 2004-05 and 2005-06 the Nets were able to field winning teams despite only having three productive players (Kidd, Carter, and Jefferson).  In 2006-07 the Nets managed to win 41 games with Kidd and Carter as the only above average players.

The Decline of Richard Jefferson

And then we have the 2007-08 edition. Table Two reports what this team accomplished this past season, as well as what we would have expected had these players performed as they did in 2006-07.  As one can see, the last edition of the Nets was bad.  And given the past performance of these players (and the minutes played), we would have expected the Nets to be bad.

Table Two: The Nets in 2007-08

Although most players performed as expected, there were are few differences.  Kidd and Carter — still the top two players on the team — were helped by the emergence of Josh Boone.  However, the declines in the play of Nenad Krstic and Bostjan Nachbar (each went from bad to really bad), as well as the departure of Kidd, caused this team to fall even further than we would have expected.

But let’s play a game of what if.  What if Richard Jefferson went back to what we saw in 2005-06?  That one change would have resulted in 14 additional wins.  In other words, if Jefferson had not declined, this team would have once again made the playoffs.

How did Jefferson decline?  Table Three reports his career numbers. 

Table Three: The Career of Richard Jefferson

FOR THE ITEMS IN RED, SEE THE UPDATE BELOW: Comparing 2007-08 to 2005-06 we see where Jefferson’s production has changed.  His shot attempts and scoring have both increased.  But his rebounds, blocked shots, and steals have declined. In fact, his performance with respect to net possessions (rebounds + steals - turnovers) was at an all-time low this past season. The decline in rebounds - which was even worse after Kidd departed — was the primary reason Jefferson morphed into a below average player.

It’s possible that Jefferson’s injury problems have caused him to limit his work on the non-scoring aspects of the game.  Regardless of the reason, without a productive Jefferson, the Nets only had Kidd and Carter.  And when that wasn’t enough for this team to contend for a title, New Jersey decided to trade Kidd and start over.

In sum, the Nets fall from elite status in the NBA can be tied to the failure to field a productive supporting cast.  And that failure can be partially linked to the decline in the production the team received from Richard Jefferson.

Going forward the Nets do have above average players in Carter, Boone, Devin Harris, and DeSagna Diop.  But none of these players are at the level of Kidd. So unless an extremely productive player is added to this mix (or one of the above average players gets much better, or Jefferson returns to form), we can expect the historic Nets to return in the immediate future. 

UPDATE: NetsDaily noted in the comments to this post that the data on Richard Jefferson in Table Three was incorrect. In looking at the table, I had to agree.  Basically, I incorrectly the labeled the years.  The data - going from left to right - went from Jefferson’s rookie year to the present while the years went in the opposite direction.  I have now fixed the table, so years do match the data.  

This correction does change the story a bit.  From 2005-06 to 2007-08, Jefferson did not decline in terms of blocked shots and steals.  He did drop-off in terms of rebounds and shooting efficiency.

Although the data was incorrect, the essential story remains the same.  Jefferson did get worse.  Had this not happened, the Nets would have remained a playoff team.

Thanks to NetsDaily for spotting this error.  Given that no one checks the tables before stuff is posted here, I suspect this kind of problem happens more frequently than I would like.  If you spot something like this, please let me know and I will try and get that corrected.

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.

Readers of The Wages of Wins Journal have seen all season that, according to Win Score and Wins Produced, Kevin Durant was not having a great rookie season.  Now that he has been named Rookie of the Year, I thought a brief review of Durant’s entire rookie season might be worthwhile.  

Reviewing the WoW stories

Let me start this review by re-hashing the stories offered on Durant since he was drafted last summer.

As the following post from July 7, 2007 indicates, the college numbers fully supported the notion that Kevin Durant would be an excellent NBA player.

Looking Back at the NBA Draft, Part Two

Less than two weeks after this post, though, we began to see evidence that Durant might not be a stellar rookie.  As the following posts indicate, he did not play well in summer league action.  He was also not good in the exhibition season.  And as the regular season progressed, he was again not very good.

July 17, 2007: Disappointing Durant

July 21, 2007: Durant Disappoints Again

October 31, 2007: Will Kevin Durant Be the Best Rookie?

November 16, 2007: Choosing the Best Rookie in November

November 27, 2007: Evaluating Future Stars in Baseball and Basketball

November 28, 2007: The Top Rookies, Again

November 29, 2007: Re-Hashing Durant, Melo, and Stack

December 31, 2007: Should the Rookie of the Year Help His Team Win More Games?

February 13, 2008: The Assistant Coaches Choose the Best?

March 25, 2008: Horford Also Tops Durant in March

The Rookie Durant

Now that the season is over, we now know that Durant was not a great rookie.  Okay, we who look at Wins Produced (which might just be me) know this.  The sports media has selected Durant as the Rookie of the Year.  In other words, the media thinks Durant was the best rookie. 

Durant did lead all rookies in scoring.  But when we look at all the stats, it’s clear that Durant has problems his rookie season.

A player can accumulate points by being an efficient scorer and/or taking a large number of shots.  Durant’s scoring was really about taking shots.  His adjusted field goal percentage (45.1%) was well below average.  He was also below average with respect to steals, turnovers, net possessions (rebounds + steals - turnovers) and assists. 

For a shooting guard he did show that he could rebound and block shots.  He is also able to get to the free throw line.  But these positives were swamped by his negatives, and hence when we look at Win Score - which summarizes all the box score statistics - we see a below average player.  An average shooting guard will post a Win Score of 6.1 per 48 minutes played.  Durant only offered a Win Score of 5.2 (per 48 minutes played).

A similar story is told by Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  For the season he produced 0.7 wins and posted a 0.012 WP48.  Again, these are well below average marks.

What of the other rookies?  When the All-Rookie team - selected by the coaches — is announced I will comment on the entire 2007-08 rookie class.  For now I will simply say that of the rookies who received votes from the media, Al Horford, Jamario Moon, Luis Scola, and Carl Landry were above average performers.  Each of these players would have been better choices than Durant (in fact, of those receiving votes, only Juan Carlos Navarro and Al Thornton offered less than Durant).

Answering the Arguments for Durant

Supporters of Durant will offer excuses for why he did not produce this season.  They will also try and argue that he seemed to improve as the season progresses.  And they will argue that someday Durant will be the best player chosen in 2007.

To these arguments I say…

1. The fact is he did not produce.  The award for Rookie of the Year should go to the player who did play well, not the player who might have played well in different circumstances.  If we are going to follow that logic, give the award to Greg Oden.  He also might have been the best rookie if he simply didn’t get hurt.

2. Durant might have played better in March and April.  The award, though, is Rookie of the Year.  It’s not, Rookie of March-April.  The first four months of the season count and we should not ignore these games in giving out awards that represent a player’s accomplishments for a season.

3. And to the argument that Durant might someday be better…I think that is entirely possible.  But again, this is an award for what a player did as a rookie.  And as a rookie, Durant was bad.  No matter what he does going forward, that fact is not ever going to change.

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.

Much has been said about Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony in this forum.  Given the story told - Melo and The Answer are overrated - one might expect me to note that the 76ers without Iverson have won more playoffs games the past two seasons than the Nuggets have won with The Answer.  But that’s not the purpose of this column.  This column is being offered as a beacon of hope… to Denver fans. Yes, I think the Nuggets with Melo and Iverson have a reason to be hopeful about 2008-09. 

Reviewing 2007-08

This story begins with Table One, which reports what the Nuggets did in 2007-08 and what this team could have expected given what their players did in 2006-07.

Table One: The Denver Nuggets in 2007-08

Given what these players did last season the Nuggets should have only expected 33 wins.  The team, though, won 50 games.   The team’s Wins Produced summed to 51.0.  All in all, there was some improvement in Denver.

One could argue - contrary to what we see in Denver’s sports media - that George Karl must have done an excellent job of coaching.  Although Karl’s influence cannot be discounted, we can assign some responsibility to the players.  Specifically, we can actually go through the individual player’s numbers and see which players improved.

Although Denver employed 17 players this past season, nearly 17 of the 18.2 additional Wins Produced can be tied to only four players: Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Anthony Carter, and Linas Kleiza. In other words, most players didn’t change at all.  But what of the four that did?

Allen Iverson’s performance returned to essentially what we saw in 2005-06. So Iverson playing a better (and I mean just better, he is still not one of the game’s best) is not a surprise.

Kleiza was in the negative range his first two seasons. He’s still below average, but he has managed to raise his production into the positive range.  Although this small leap was unexpected, it’s not surprising to see a young player get a better.

Unlike Kleiza, Carter is not a young player. This past season was his 9^th year in the league, and he had never been above average in any previous campaign.  Of course, his minutes have been quite erratic(less than 1,500 minutes over the past four seasons).  So perhaps what we are seeing is just the benefit of Carter getting to play.

The Surprising Melo

And then we have Melo. Anthony had played more than 11,000 minutes before the start of the 2007-08 season. Despite lofty scoring totals, his total production had frequently hovered around the average mark.  In other words, Melo was not quite the star people believed him to be.

But as I said at the start of the season, despite all his experience (which again didn’t result in an outstanding level of productivity), Anthony is still only 23 years of age. Had he stayed at Syracuse (where he put up some good numbers) for all four seasons, the 2007-08 season would only be his second year in the league. So maybe we should not be surprised to see such improvement. 

Okay, let’s be serious. We should be surprised. Just take a look at these numbers.

Table Two: The First Five Years of Melo

Anthony was below average his first two seasons.  Then in year three and four his numbers managed to creep above the average mark. 

For year five - this last campaign - Table Two reports both the first half and second half numbers.  In the first half we see another small leap forward.  Although his shooting efficiency was a bit off his 2006-07 pace, Melo was managing to grab a few more rebounds.

And then we have the second half of 2007-08.  Suddenly Melo is hitting his shots.  He is also rebounding.  Plus his turnovers are down.

When we put it all together, we see a player who transformed from being little better than average in the first half of 07-08, to a player that was finally fulfilling the vision people had after looking at his Syracuse numbers.  In sum, if the second half is not a mirage, Melo might finally be a star.

Hope in Denver

And that should give Denver fans hope.

And here is more hope.  When we look at the Nuggets in 2006-07 we see that Nene Hilario was an above average big man.  But Nene only managed to play 266 minutes in 2007-08.  If he can be healthy and productive in 2008-09, the Nuggets can put the following line-up on the floor:

PG: Anthony Carter [above average in 2007-08]

SG: Allen Iverson [above average in 2007-08]

SF: Carmelo Anthony [well above average in second half of 2007-08]

PF: Nene Hilario  [above average in 2006-07]

C: Marcus Camby [one of the five most productive players in 2007-08].

These five players - given what they did in the time frame listed above - would combine to produce 54 wins next season.  Yes, without getting much of a contribution from Kenyon Martin or J.R. Smith (two players who can be just below average), the Nuggets could join the Western Conference elite in 2008-09.

A Zen-Like Vision for Denver

The vision I laid forth assumes Denver does basically nothing this off-season.  And that’s going to be hard to do.  Carmelo Anthony - like Tracy McGrady - has never won a playoff series.  Plus, Melo and the Nuggets exited the 2008 playoffs without winning a game.  So it seems clear to some that something must be done.

But I don’t that it’s that clear.  We basically have two samples.  In the playoffs Melo and Iverson were below average (as was everyone else on the Nuggets not named Camby, Kleiza, or J.R. Smith).  But in the regular season, this team won 50 games and showed it was just a shade below the top teams in the West.  The playoff sample is only four games, or less than 5% the sample we see in the regular season.  Given the size of the playoff sample, I think it should be heavily discounted.

This leaves us the regular season and the argument advanced above.  If Melo’s second half performance is a good representation of what he will do next year (and that is a big IF), and Nene can be healthy and productive, this team will improve in 2008-09.  And that means the Nuggets will be true contenders.

Of course, if the Nuggets do something silly - like get rid of Marcus Camby - then Denver is probably going to take a step back next season.

So that’s my story.  If Denver does nothing, I think they can make progress.  If they try and make “progress”, Denver will probably slide back.  In sum, Denver is facing a “moment of zen.”  Do nothing and thrive.  Do something and slide (or some such “zen-like” statement).

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.

Let me start this column by repeating something I said just a few days ago:
Last summer the sportswriters named Monta Ellis as the Most Improved Player of 2006-07.  In response to this selection, I wrote the following column:

Not Monta Ellis

The title pretty much summarizes the argument.  If you look at the numbers - and I mean at more than points scored per game - it would be hard to argue that Ellis was the most improved player last year.  Of the seven candidates I examined last summer, Ellis was the least improved. 

As I noted less than two weeks ago, Ellis improved tremendously in 2007-08.  In fact, he improved so much that if Wins Produced was your metric of choice (and of course, it should be), Ellis would be the Most Improved Player in 2007-08.  In other words, the sportswriters were right last summer, they were just 12 months too early.

Finding the Most Improved

The Monta Ellis conclusion is based on the following analysis.  First I looked at players who played at least 1,000 minutes in both 2006-07 and 2007-08.  Then I compared the Wins Produced a player posted in 2007-08 to what his Wins Produced would be this season if he maintained his 2006-07 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  Following these steps reveals that Monta Ellis - with a WP48 that increased from 0.043 to 0.177 - posted the largest increase in Wins Produced. In all, Ellis produced 8.6 more wins than his WP48 of 2006-07 would suggest.

Table One: The Most Improved in 2007-08

As Table One reveals, Monta Ellis just edged out Chris Paul for this award.  Hedo Turkoglu - the player the media chose - ranks fourth, just behind Chris Kaman (who I would have guessed was the winner before I did my analysis). Rudy Gay - who finished second in the media’s voting - ranks 20th.  Yes, Gay did improve, just not as much as a number of other players (including Kaman).

The Unchanged

The media’s vote indicated that LaMarcus Aldridge was the third most improved player.  But if we look at the 25 most improved, Aldridge’s name is nowhere to be found.

We do find Aldridge’s name, though, in Table Two.

Table Two: The Unchanged in 2007-08

Table Two reports the players who changed the least from 2006-07 to 2007-08.  The 20^th player on this list is Aldridge.  Yes, a player who members of the media think is the most improved really hasn’t changed much at all.

At least, not in the aggregate.  There were some changes in Aldridge’s performance if we look at the individual stats. 

Table Three: Evaluating LaMarcus Aldridge

As Table Three indicates, Aldridge did manage to take more shots this season.  And despite a lower level of shooting efficiency, he was able to score more points. Of course, if you score less efficiently, you are not helping as much as you could.

In addition to scoring, Aldridge also posted an increase in assists and personal fouls.  But he rebounded slightly less and committed a few more turnovers. The net effect was a very small change in Win Score per minute, and as noted, WP48.

Of course the media doesn’t look at Win Score or Wins Produced. In fact, they don’t appear to look at shooting efficiency or per-minute stats.  What they did see is that Aldridge increased his per-game scoring from 9.0 to 17.8.  And apparently, that was enough to get Aldridge some votes.

The Least Improved

At least, Aldridge did improve a bit.  A few players didn’t quite fare this well.  Table Four reports the least improved players - or the players who posted the biggest declines - in 2007-08. 

Table Four: The Least Improved in 2007-08

Topping the list is Rashard Lewis, who was primarily done in by the switch from small to power forward.  The next two names on the list - Quentin Richardson and Dwyane Wade - were done in by injuries.

Assuming Wade can recover from injury, he’s the early favorite for Most Improved in 2008-09.  At least, the early favorite if Wins Produced is the metric of choice.  Given the media’s fixation on per-game scoring, Wade is going to have a problem winning this award.  Wade averaged 24.6 points per game in 2007-08. Unless he can average well over 30 this next season, some members of the media might not see any improvement next season (regardless of what Wins Produced might say).

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.

This weekend - while watching the NFL draft (which doesn’t appear to be going so well for the Lions) - I finished my analysis of the 2007-08 NBA regular season.  Over the next few weeks I will be offering comments on this past season (primarily focusing on each team).  Before I start writing these comments, I thought people might be interested in looking at the Top 15 players - in terms of Wins Produced - at each position.

Table One: Top 15 Point Guards

Table Two: Top 15 Shooting Guards

Table Three: Top 15 Small Forwards

Table Four: Top 15 Power Forwards

Table Five: Top 15 Centers

For those interested in the MVP race, here is where the top candidates rank:

Chris Paul: #1 Point Guard (and #1 overall)

Kobe Bryant: #1 Shooting Guard

LeBron James: #1 Small Forward

Kevin Garnett: #2 Power Forward (would be #1 had he played more minutes)

Dwight Howard: #1 Center

As I have argued in the past, I still think Paul is the best choice.  And of these, Kobe is the worst.  That being said, Kobe did finish in the top ten in Wins Produced.  

Okay, now back to the draft.  The Lions took another wide receiver at the top of the fifth round.  I am hoping they take a new general manager with the second choice in the fifth round.  Of those left on the board, who does Mel Kiper rate as the highest GM?

- DJ

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

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

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.