With the 6th pick in the 2004 NBA draft the Atlanta Hawks selected Josh Childress. With the very next selection the Chicago Bulls selected Luol Deng, whose production of 7.1 wins in the first 41 games this season ranked third among all small forwards. With the 9th pick in 2004 the Philadelphia 76ers turned to Andre Iguodala, who produced 6.5 wins in the first half of the current campaign.
Childress only produced 4.2 wins in the first half of 06-07. This lack of production, though, was due to injury. When we turn to his Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] we see a mark of 0.255. This surpasses the per-minute marks of both Deng (0.229) and Iguodala (0.194). In fact, if we look at the careers of these three players up until the mid-point of this season, Childress has posted the best WP48 (0.219 for Childress versus 0.216 and 0.192 for Iguodala and Deng respectively).
Childress, though, was ignored for the Junior All-Star game in both 2005 – when he was a rookie – and 2006 – when he was a sophomore. In contrast, both Deng and Iguodala were named starters for each of these teams.
Seeing someone else start has been common for Childress throughout his career. In 190 career games, he has only started 54 times. This year Childress has yet to start, often sitting behind the player taken with the second pick in the 2005 NBA draft, Marvin Williams.
M. Williams has thus far played 3,206 minutes in his career and produced 4.4 wins. This translates into a WP48 of 0.065, which is below the average mark of 0.100. If we compare the per-minute numbers of Childress and M.Williams, we can see where the latter’s deficiencies lie. Relative to Childress, M. Williams has difficulties with rebounds, turnovers, and hitting his shots. Consequently, his overall production is substantially worse.
Table One: Josh Childress vs. Marvin Williams
It’s important to remember that the Hawks selected M.Williams in 2005 over Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and several other players who have thus far been quite productive (see the discussion of the junior all-star game posted three weeks ago). Thus far this choice has not quite worked out.
If we look at the Hawks in 2006-07, we see a team that has won 22 games after 55 contests. Given that this team only won 26 games all of last year, Atlanta looks like an improved team. This look is a bit of an illusion, though. In terms of offensive and defensive efficiency the Hawks should have won about 28 games last season. This year the team, given their offensive and defensive efficiency, should also be on pace to win 28 games.
Despite this lack of improvement, the Hawks are not without a few bright spots.
Table Two: The Atlanta Hawks in 2006-07
In addition to Childress, both Joe Johnson and Josh Smith have been above average performers this season (although Childress has offered more than both). Shelden Williams, the team’s lottery pick in 2006, has been one of the few rookies whose productivity per 48 minutes eclipses the 0.100 mark.
After these players, though, the roster has little to offer. At center, both Zaza Pachulia and Lorenzen Wright are below average. The same could be said for every single point guard on the roster, a fact that might cause Atlanta fans to wonder why the team passed on both D. Williams and Paul in 2005.
The weaknesses we see on the Hawks this season are identical to the weaknesses we saw in Atlanta in 2005-06 and 2004-05. In fact, since Jason Terry left in 2004, the Hawks have not had an above average point guard. And since Dikembe Mutombo left in the midst of the 2000-01 season, this team has not had a productive center.
Perhaps in the summer of 2007 this team will finally address the problems at each of these positions. Then again, given Atlanta’s propensity to collect 6-8 and 6-9 players, perhaps not.
By the way, for those keeping track, the only teams I have yet to comment on this season are New Orleans/Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Denver, and Philadelphia. Hopefully I will get to the Hornets and Bucks this next week. And then I will offer some thoughts on the Nuggets and 76ers.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Okapi
February 24, 2007
I would think plus/minus could be useful in this narrow situation of determining which of 2 players to start, i.e. Childress or Williams.
The message from plus/minus is similar to the message from WP48 in contending that Childress is much better– http://www.82games.com/0607/0607ATL.HTM
Matt
February 25, 2007
It is true the Marvin starts, but Childress ends up with more minutes. He stays in as the sub for both Josh Smith and Marvin Williams. It could be argued that Childress’ value is inflated because he plays against the opposing teams’ 2nd string more often, but having a player than can regular lead your bench to produce more than the opposing bench is a different kind of value than who should start. If Childress were to start then his value would drop, but it doesn’t necessarily guarantee that Marvin Williams could provide more value playing against 2nd stringers.
In the long run, this team is invested enough in Marvin that he will get the starts and the minutes in order to help accelerate his growth as a player. This strategy seems to be paying off, as Marvin “Sexual Healing” Williams has been geting better this season.
Charles Follymacher
February 25, 2007
I seem to have a thing for the underrated. I was high on Shelden til his stock rose in the draft (and subsequently switched to Millsap as my PF of choice), but I haven’t given up on Childress (of course I have him in my pool) who just has to be recognized sooner or later. If for nothing than his FH (‘fro height) rating.
Okapi
February 25, 2007
This is a non sequitur to this post but the Sacramento Kings owner is apparently not a believer in Pythagorean expectation. From the NY Times:
[(…)Maloof pointed to the new coach, Eric Musselman, who had two losing seasons as head coach at Golden State in 2003 and 2004. “He needs to address those close losses,” Maloof said, adding: “I think he’s a little inexperienced, to be honest. Nobody is going to work harder than Eric Musselman.”(…)]
The Franchise
February 25, 2007
This may be an example of a team that is more intent on keeping itself from looking stupid than winning. If Marvin William’s minutes were decreased, his stats would decline, and the team would look even worse for having drafted him so high.
And after two more losses by Denver with both Iverson and Anthony on the floor, I’m also looking forward to your analysis of the Nuggets. When we met in person after the trade, you’d mentioned that some people would be giving up a lot of shots to accomodate Iverson; even though Anthony and Iverson have only played together in about ten games, is it possible to see who those players are? And is the team worse off as a result? It seems that they are; many sportswriters predicted that the trade would launch Denver into the realm of the contenders, but instead they seem more likely to miss the playoffs entirely.
dberri
February 25, 2007
Okapi,
I wonder how one would address a team’s performance in close games. What magic words could you say to make the bounces go your way?
Franchise,
I think you are correct about the willingness of a team to keep playing a high draft choice. Staw and Hoang (1995) and Camerer and Weber (1999) both report evidence of this behavior in the NBA.
As for Anthony and Iverson, I am surprised that this combination is starting 2-7. As the season progresses the Nuggets will start winning more than 22% of their games. I do not think, though, that the Nuggets — as currently constructed — can challenge the Mavericks, Suns, and Spurs. And this was suggested by people when this trade happened (though not by anyone who looked at Wins Produced).