Currently I am attending the Western Economic Association meetings, so my ability to post is somewhat limited. I did want to offer some thoughts on the NBA draft (as well as various signings and trades). My limitations, though, prevent me from commenting on everything (worth commenting upon). So let me just offer thoughts on one event – the Jason Richardson trade.
On draft night the Golden State Warriors traded Jason Richardson to the Charlotte Bobcats for the draft rights to Brandan Wright (other players were involved, but these players were the key to the trade). To put this trade in perspective, I want to go back to the major trade the Warriors made in 2006-07. Just prior to the midpoint of this past season the Warriors traded Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy to the Pacers for Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson. At the time of the trade the Warriors were not contenders and I expected that status to continue. In fact, given that neither Harrington nor Jackson have ever been average or above average players, I expected the fortunes of the Warriors to decline in the second half.
The reality was a bit different from my expectations. In the second half the Warriors improved enough to take the 8th spot in the Western Conference standings. And in the playoffs this team pulled off one of the greatest upsets in the history of the league. Such results suggest that the Harrington-Jackson trade was a stroke of genius.
The numbers before the trade suggested otherwise. And when we look at the numbers after the trade, we actually get the same story. It’s not clear the Harrington-Jackson trade helped. Before the trade occurred I noted that Harrington and Jackson had posted the following numbers with respect to Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48].
– Al Harrington: Career (0.022), 2006-07 (-0.20)
– Stephen Jackson: Career (0.047), 2006-07 (0.003)
Remember, average WP49 is 0.100. So both players have been historically below average. In the second half of 2006-07 Harrington posted a 0.019 WP48. Jackson’s second half WP48 was 0.035. In sum, both players performed close to their career averages. And this means that neither player appears responsible for the second half surge of this team.
If we look at the other players on the team, we do see another explanation. Whereas Jackson and Harrington performed close to their career averages in the second half of 2006-07, Jason Richardson did not.
Richardson posted a -0.044 WP48 in the first half of 2006-07. Yes, he was so bad he was in the negative range. At the conclusion of the season, Richardson had a 0.114 WP48, a mark quite close to his career average. Given a -0.044 mark in the first half of the season, Richardson had to perform quite a bit better in the second half to finish at 0.114. Specifically, Richardson’s second half WP48 was 0.224.
To put that number in perspective, Kobe Bryant posted a 0.234 WP48 in 2006-07. In essence, Richardson suddenly imitated Kobe in the latter half of the season. And had the Warriors traded Murphy and Dunleavy for Kobe, we certainly would have expected the Warriors to improve.
We should note that Baron Davis also improved, posting a 0.252 WP48 in the second half of 2006-07. Davis had a career WP48 of 0.141 entering last season (and a 0.182 mark in the first half).
Had Richardson and Davis not improved the Warriors would have won nearly seven fewer games in the second half of the season. Hence, one could argue that it was these two players that led Golden State’s surge. Although one might argue that Harrington and Jackson caused these players to improve, there are two more plausible arguments.
First, both players recovered from injury during the season. Hence one could argue that improved health led to improved output.
One could also focus on the coaching of Don Nelson. Unpublished research I have completed with Mike Leeds and Mike Mondello suggests that many coaches have no statistical impact on player performance. Nelson, though, does appear to have an ability to get more from his players. Perhaps the improvement in Richardson and Davis could be tied the input of the coach.
Whether it was injury or coaching cannot be known with certainty. What we do know is that the Warriors have now traded Richardson for Brandan Wright. And that may not be a move that will help in 2007-08.
Of the 47 college players taken in the 2007 draft, Wright ranks 15th in terms of PAWSmin last season. In other words, Wright’s college performance last year does rank in the top third of all college players selected. Unfortunately, most rookies are below average, and given Wright’s 2006-07 college performance, this would be our expectation for next year. So looking at this trade for next year, it looks like the Warriors have traded an above average performer for a player who is likely to be below average.
In the long-term, perhaps Wright can make this trade look better. In the short-term, though, the Warriors have let go a player who was a key part of the team’s surge. And such a move suggests the Warriors might not be surging as much next year.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Jeremy
July 2, 2007
Thanks for taking the time to look at this trade right now. Crunching PAWSmin I came to the same conclusion–actually, when I heard of the deal my heart sunk. This feeling in the pit of my stomach was later confirmed by PAWSmin.
As a Warrior fan my primary hope for this trade is that it is a prelude to the rumored Keving Garnett deal. That deal, provided it leaves Baron Davis and Andris Biedrins intact as part of the Warrior roster next year, would greatly improve the team.
rtmsf
July 2, 2007
I knew there was a reason I didn’t like this trade. Thank you for putting into statistical terms for me.
Jason
July 2, 2007
That was more or less my statistical take, but I think that the other economic part of the trade has to be considered. In a year, the Warriors are going to have to extend Biedrins and they need the money to do that. Further, they received a trade exception as well, which means they’re in the very unique position in the NBA of being able to trade for a player without having to send out players under contract, usually players with bloated contracts the other team would rather not have.
As such, I don’t think it’s fair to evaluate the trade at this point even for next season as there’s still the big empty spot that Richardson’s salary filled that the Warriors need to fill, but they have a tool to do so.
I am curious though what the before and after splits for other Warriors were vis a vis the Dunleavy/Murphy trade as well as the splits for players on the Pacers after they found Murphy and Dunleavy in the mix.
I don’t think Jax or Harrington were the big pieces that improved things (though watching Jackson, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s the type of player who doesn’t get the stats himself but contributes to the stats of others), but Murphy struck me as the kind of player whose stats didn’t accurately record just how lousy he was on defense. For a number of years the Warriors rebounds declined substantially when he was in the game, despite his own totals, indicating that there were fewer rebounds to be had, in large part because there wasn’t any way for teammates to grab rebounds on made buckets.
Jackson, for what it’s worth, seems to have been a positive influence on team rebounds both in Indy and with the Warriors, which is consistent with the hypothesis that he’s a good perimeter defender who caused missed shots.
Court
July 3, 2007
I like your analysis but unfortunately this is in the vein of the dilettante statistical fan who doesn’t really know the game. Stephen Jackson has always been a strong asset on the court. Ever watch the Spurs’ last championship run before 07? His numbers don’t tell the story.
Court
July 3, 2007
Apologies, but furthermore, Jackson has some pretty clear intangibles that are hard to dispute. He plays lock down D, most notably on Nowitzki, he’s clutch on offense, and he brings huge positive bravado to teams. Again, hae you ever even watched basketball?
dom
July 3, 2007
Nelson has had some great teams and has he ever been to the finals as a coach>? those golden state teams. Ewing still fairly young in NY? Dallas? Its not nelson
Ingve Kaltveit
July 4, 2007
Wow what an absolute idiot way of looking at team sports. If LeBron signed with Atlanta, and his numbers went down but the Hawks won 50 games, you’d argue they improved in spite of James’ contribution? And how the hell are career averages at all relevant? Man, you really need to stick with your economic stuff because sports sure as hell ain’t your thing.
tony
July 4, 2007
Ur a fool/// he will never imitate kobe// j rich had baron davis that’s the only reason why his stats are like that and further more if kobe had a baron davis he wouldn’t of lost to no1 but the spurs (that’s until they get garnett) then its no stopping the holy trinity phil,kobe,garnett
Mr. Parker
July 4, 2007
dom,
Nelson seems to be a great regular season
coach. He puts player in the best possible
position. Hence, he didn’t play Ellis or
Harrington nearly as much in the Dallas series
as he did in the regular season.
His team has been able to beat Dallas like a
drum before and after the mid season trade.
What you see is a guy who’s never really had
the pieces put some great regular season and
the occasional playoff series runs together.
Basketball is about personel. Nelson puts his
player in great positions but has yet to
have a truly great player to put in a great
position.
Run down the list of Nelson’s players and
at what point in their career he coached them
and you will not see any player ready to
produce a championship.
Mr. Parker
July 4, 2007
also,
someone wanna explain how putting
Zach Randolph in NYC is a good idea?
This move is akin to sitting my 5 yr old
brother next to a light socket decorated
with Transformers stickers
Jason
July 4, 2007
“Intangibles” by their nature, are easy to dispute. If they were readily apparent, they would not be “intangible.”
The notion that Jackson is a good defender who doesn’t receive credit in the box score does have some merit. The Warriors did rebound at a better rate with him than without him, their defensive FG% was better, they scored more points per possession and surrendered fewer points per possession. All would indicate that the team was doing better with him than without him.
Whether there were other contributing factors–and there probably were–it is tangible evidence that they were playing better. Whether he was responsible is not as easy to get at. Watching them, it’s my subjective opinion that this was true.
Troy
July 5, 2007
Dave, good post but it doesn’t seem to me to jibe with some of your earlier writings RE: the time problem. Since Richardson is a 6-year pro, doesn’t that mean he’s more likely to produce at his career average level i.e. slightly above average for an NBA player? In that case, they traded an average NBA player for, by most accounts, a top 5 talent who dropped in the draft because he’s very young and more of a development project than other players.
What really puts it over the top is what others have said — it sets them up for a blockbuster deal down the road. I think Golden State made a great trade here.
Josh
July 5, 2007
I agree with your thoughts 100%. I believe the Warriors made a quick, un-rational decision. S-Jax is too emotional, and Baron is injury-prone. So who will lead the Warriors to even make it to the playoffs? Monta? Or, maybe the new talent Mr. Wright? J-Rich was consistent.. except for the injuries earlier in the season.. and like you said, he improved after coming off injuries later in the season.
C-Mart
July 5, 2007
KEVEN GARNETT!!!
All that trade did was clear cap space for KG. B Wright plus maybe the fastest player in the league Monta Ellis = A hall of fame player in his prime. KG Can carry a team that is willing to play with him into the playoffs. You put KG in Nelson’s hands and to hell with anyone else on the team you have a shot at the playoffs. Throw in Biedrins and one of the best point guards in the game plus a million spot up jump shooters who run the floor. Watch out.
Josh
July 6, 2007
It doesn’t seem the Timberwolves are willing to give up Garnett just yet.. for the reason he is deemed ‘The Ticket’. In that case, what DJ predicts will probably hold true about the W’s.
Mr. Parker
July 8, 2007
How can dampier play only 7 minutes a game
when he has a friggin win score .19wp48?
If you want to know why GS beat the pants off
of Dallas look no further than that. At 25 more
minutes per game in a 7 game series that is
worth about .8 wins. Instead they got about .2
wins out Dampier. Then when you factor in
the oppurtunity costs of playing someone else
it gets worse.
When you cant recognize who your best players
are maybe you need to not be coaching a team
that could win the NBA championship.
Looking at Dallas you see that they accomplished
their record setting season by playing their
best 3 players major minutes during the season.
They were not as good as their record to begin
with. When you compound that by sitting one of
your best players and play someone with a .05
wp48(cough stackhouse cough) you are asking
for trouble.
Rasta
July 9, 2007
From a WOW perspective, how does this trade affect the Bobcats? Upgrading from Matt Carroll to JRich has to add a few wins, I suspect.
If they are able to re-sign Wallace, they’ll have 3 very good players (JRich, Okafor, Wallace) to carry the load. May looks good when he’s healthy, Felton is still learning the ropes at PG, and Morrison isn’t nearly as bad as he looked last year. And don’t forget about Fabio.