It’s Friday the 13th so thoughts turn to luck (or the lack thereof). And that subject causes me to think about the Celtics.
Back in the 1980s I watched the Pistons struggle to get by the Celtics. The call “there’s a steal by Bird” still makes me very unhappy. It seemed in those days that the Celtics were endowed with more than their share of “good luck.”
In more recent years the luck of the Celtics has run out. In 1997, as M.L. Carr confessed, an effort was made to lose games to secure the rights to Tim Duncan. This effort, though, did not meet with “good luck.” Instead the unlucky Celtics ended up drafting Chauncey Billups and Ron Mercer. Mercer never developed into a productive NBA player. And although Billups eventually became “good”, it happened many years after Billups departed Boston (which was more bad luck for the Celtics).
Ten years later the Celtics again appear to be suffering from “bad luck.” Currently the Celtics are scoring 99.9 points per 100 possessions while surrendering 103.6. Certainly these levels of offensive and defensive efficiency are poor, but not quite as bad as the Celtics won-loss record suggests. After 78 games the Celtics have only won 23 games. The team’s efficiency differential suggests that this team should have won 30 contests. The difference can be thought of as “bad luck.”
When we turn to the team’s Wins Produced, again we see evidence of “bad luck.”
Table One: The Boston Celtics in 2006-07 and after 78 games this season
The two best players for Boston in 2006-07 have been Paul Pierce and Al Jefferson. Pierce has posted a 0.206 Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] while Jefferson’s WP48 stands at 0.221. Both are well above the average mark of 0.100.
Unfortunately, both have missed a substantial number of games. Pierce has only played 47 games this season while Jefferson has played in 66 contests. Assuming both stay on the bench the remainder of the season, these two players will combine to miss 51 games. Given the productivity of each player, had these players appeared in every contest this year the Celtics would have won 8.1 additional games (that is a conservative estimate, since the alternatives on the roster tend to be in the negative range). If the team’s offensive and defensive efficiency had also produced as many wins as we should expect, a healthy Pierce and Jefferson with a bit of good luck might have been enough to vault the Celtics into playoff contention in the weak Eastern Conference. Instead this team has secured the second worst record in the NBA.
Of course, there might be a reward for all this “bad luck.” It’s possible that either Kevin Durant or Greg Oden could join the Celtics next season. If it’s Oden, the Celtics next year could field a line-up of Rajon Rondo, Tony Allen, Pierce, Jefferson, and Oden. Given what these players have done this year, and assuming a productive Oden, the Celtics could have a line-up with five above average performers. That should mean the Celtics “good luck” will once again appear.
Now some have suggested the Pierce and Jefferson could have played more this year. In other words, the Celtics might not be suffering from “bad luck” but rather might be pulling the same move they tried in 1997. If that is the case, and the lottery balls prove kind, the alleged strategy of Doc Rivers (who reportedly has been offered an extension for guiding his team to the second worst mark in the league) and Danny Ainge might prove very successful. In sum, it’s possible that Rivers and Ainge might be rewarded for this alleged strategy with quite a bit of “good luck.”
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
JChan
April 13, 2007
It’s amazing the amount of “tanking” talk that I’ve heard this year. I don’t remember any other year in which it was (or at least seemed to be) so prevalent. It’s a pretty clear indication that the NBA needs to consider going back to the unweighted lottery system. The top picks in a basketball draft are too tempting to expect teams to not try anything they can to improve their chances.
As for those who say it wouldn’t be fair, I don’t understand why we need to award perennially terrible and poorly managed teams with the top prospects. Anyone who didn’t make the playoffs deserves a chance to improve themselves.
Okapi
April 14, 2007
NY Times column on Knicks that seems to agree w/ the assessment of Curry on this blog:
“(…)It is still wishful thinking to consider Curry the eventual centerpiece for a serious playoff team, not when his scoring area is so limited, when his poor recognition and reactions to swarming defenses make guards think twice about passing him the ball with the game on the line … What about the future? What about the oft-stated plan to build his team around a big man who doesn’t defend the rim or play with vitality or read situations at the pace of the N.B.A. game?(…)”
source: http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/sports/basketball/14araton.html
dberri
April 14, 2007
Okapi,
I saw that story as well. The story led me to think about about how the sports media seems to cover the NBA. If an NBA team wins, the leading scorers on that team must be great. Notice how the coverage of Iverson and Anthony has changed since the Nuggets put together a winning streak. Or the coverage of Curry earlier in the season.
When a team loses a few, though, the media then turns on these very same scorers. Suddenly these players have significant deficiencies in their game that were not apparent before.
The reality is a bit different. Curry has never been a “good” player. And Iverson is playing about as well with the Nuggets as he did for the 76ers. Although the performance of these players are not changing, the outcomes we observe for the teams can change as other players come in or go out of the line-up. And as these outcomes change, the perceptions of the media seem to change as well.
anon
April 15, 2007
Dberri,
How can you do an article about the celtics and not mention the outstanding play of rajon rondo? Clearly one of the elite players in this year’s draft. he has the potential to be an elite point guard in the NBA (incredible rebounder, passer, and defender – very very poor shooter though).
Obviously, it doesn’t mean much because the Celtics have sucked. But the only reason the margins of loss haven’t been more dramatic recently is because of rondo (and 82games and PAWSmin back up this story).
dberri
April 15, 2007
anon,
I mentioned Rondo in the story. Okay, I just listed him as above average. But technically, he is there.
Let me add this to the Rondo story. If you looked at his college stats you would have expected him to be one of the better players drafted.
The Franchise
April 15, 2007
Anecdotal evidence of tanking: Memphis and Boston have both been losing a lot of games lately, but Memphis recently clinched last place in the Asssociation with six consecutive losses, and therefore the best spot in the Kevin Durant sweepstakes.
Saturday night, they played against Denver, ateam that had won eight in a row and was now locked into 6th place in the Western Conference. Obviously, a 6th-place team should be favored over the worst team, but instead, Memphis won going away.
Of course, in a single game, an unlikely result can occur, but this was an interesting vignette: when the game didn’t matter to either squad, the worse team is the one motivated to succeed, which would have been an unlikely result had the Grizzlies still been “at risk” of finishing ahead of Boston.
anon
April 15, 2007
one other observation:
This is all contingent on ainge. I think oden, jefferson, pierce, rondo, and allen would be an amazing starting five (possibly the best in the NBA), but it’s unlikely ainge will keep this lineup. from what I’ve heard, they only want to keep two of oden (assuming they get him), jefferson, and pierce. not sure why? then again, I’m not sure what ainge is ever thinking.
Okapi
April 15, 2007
Dberri,
Thanks for your very interesting reply to my comment.
“If an NBA team wins, the leading scorers on that team must be great.”
Good example of atrribution errors.
Owen
April 16, 2007
Anon – I would love to see that lineup too.
Dave – I agree with Okapi. Great comment.
Owen
April 18, 2007
Dave – Vis a vis your insightful comment regarding press perception, Howard Beck has a peach of an article in today’s NYT. This was the lead in on the website…
“Mardy Collins’ recent emergence as a shooter has been a rare bright spot for the Knicks. Yet Renaldo Balkman and David Lee still lack an outside shot…”
Collins has played more than 30 minutes in each of the last ten games. He averaged just under 15 pionts in that stretch on 52-134 from the field with nine three pointers and 34-51 from the line. This apparently proves he has hidden dimensions as a scorer. The Knicks have lost every one of those games except against the Bucks contest, (where Curry went hog wild against a front line of Ilyasova and Gadzuric.) Looking at NBA Babble, it seems Collins is in the negative zone overall for these ten games.
What’s interesting from a WOW perspective is that Collins has put up fairly robust totals for a point guard in every other category, (including unfortunately turnovers.) He is averaging 5.8 asts, 5.7 rebounds, 1.9 steals and 3.8 turnovers. It seems the obvious conclusion would be that he
might be a valuable contributor if he could turn the ball over a little less and shoot much less. Yet what we are urged to take away by Beck is that he is an emerging and surprisingly effective scorer whose jump “is on the rim and “looks good” according to Malik Rose.
His thinking about Lee and Balkman is very typical also. The party line in New York is that the Knicks have failed because they don’t have enough dead-eye outside shooters for Eddy Curry to generate open shots for by commanding double and triple teams. In this narrative, Lee, Balkman, and Jeffries are culprits since they can’t shoot outside jumpshots.
Given that the first two are the best and probably second best players on the Knicks I find this entire line of reasoning more than a little bit preposterous. There clearly is a powerful myth of the jumpshot. You can’t really be judged to be a good player in the NBA if you don’t have one, unless you are a true center. People instinctively prefer players who score on the perimeter, even if they do so with much lower efficiency since this “stretches the defense” and “opens things up for other players.” Whether this actually helps offensive efficiency or leads to winning doesn’t seem to matter at all.
Anyway, fwiw…
dberri
April 18, 2007
Owen,
Have you made this argument at Knickerblogger yet?
When I read Beck’s column I thought it was a very odd argument. Mardy Collins is going to help next year? Can anyone really believe this? Not based on what we saw at Temple or what he has done his rookie season.