At some point in this post I am going to get to the Clippers and Chris Kaman. But let me start someplace else – and yes, I think it’s relevant – before getting to the Clippers-Kaman story.
Why Statistics are Tracked?
This is how The Wages of Wins begins:
Sports are entertainment. Sports do not often change our world; rather they serve as a distraction from our world.
In this sense, sports are like music or movies. But music and movies don’t typically come with a set of numbers that viewers need to see and understand to enjoy the entertainment. Even the most casual sports fans, though, look at some numbers in watching and enjoying a sporting event.
So here’s a simple question: Why do team sports keep track of statistics?
In Statistical Thinking in Sports (edited by Jim Albert and Ruud Koning) I wrote the following:
The purposes behind this effort (tracking player statistic) is to separate each player from his team and connect that specific player’s actions accurately to the team outcome observed. There are two reasons why we wish to separate the player from his team. First, we wish to explain why a specific team has won or lost. Specifically, which players are most responsible for the outcome we observed? From the team’s perspective, though, there is a more important issue. Teams need to know which players to employ in the future. By tracking and analyzing player statistics teams hope to identify the players who will help the team be successful in the future. In sum, statistics are tracked to both explain what we observed in the past and determine what actions a team should take in the future.
Okay, we have an answer to why statistics are tracked. Ultimately we wish to assign responsibility for outcomes and predict the future. What does this have to do with the Clippers?
Looking at the Team Numbers
Two years ago the Clippers won 47 games and advanced to the second round of the playoffs. Last year the Clippers won only 40 games and missed the playoffs entirely. How do we explain this decline?
Obviously, one could argue that this is not really much of a decline. When we look at efficiency differential (offensive efficiency – defensive efficiency) we see a mark of 1.7 in 2005-06. Yes, by NBA standards, this is barely positive. Yet in the woeful history of the Clippers in Los Angeles, this is the best the team had ever done. Last year the differential returned to the familiar negative range with a mark of -0.5 (I say familiar because the Clippers have only had a positive differential three times since 1984-85). Although it’s typical that the Clippers wander into the negative range, a movement from 1.7 to -0.5 is not very large. So one could argue that the “decline” we see was not really all that significant.
Assigning Responsibility
But such an approach wouldn’t be very fun. Surely there is someone we can blame for the Clippers missing the playoffs. If we look at the Wins Produced on this team (remember, Wins Produced just takes what we know about efficiency differential and applies this to the players) we see that blame can indeed be assigned.
Table One: The Clippers in 06-07 and 05-06
And that someone we can blame is…. Chris Kaman.
Kaman produced 8.6 wins in 2005-06. His Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] was 0.160, a mark above the average level of 0.100. Last year, though, his WP48 fell to 0.061 and his Wins Produced declined to 2.8. Had Kaman maintained in 2005-06 production, the Clippers would have seen nearly six more wins, which would have left this team about where it was in 2005-06.
To be fair, one could make a similar argument about Sam Cassell. Cassell’s production declined 4.3 wins. But let’s face it, he’s old. He was drafted in 1993, which was so long ago that Robert Parish and Moses Malone were still playing. And being old, as Parish, Malone, and many others learned, does wreck your game.
Unlike Cassell, though, Kaman is still young. So why did he decline? Let’s take a look at more numbers.
Table Two: Evaluating Chris Kaman
When we look at the individual stats we see that in 2005-06, Kaman was above average with respect to both shooting efficiency and rebounds. Last year he was well below average with respect to shooting efficiency and his rebounding numbers also fell.
Okay, now we know where Kaman was worse. Why was Kaman a less effective scorer and less capable rebounder?
Before I fail to answer that question, let me review what we do know. We started with a team outcome. The Clippers team performance clearly declined. We then went through the numbers generated by the players and identified a specific player who played a large role in the decline. After that, we then went through and found the aspect of his performance that caused production to decline.
At this point — and we emphasized this in the book — coaching should take over. The coaches can see – when they look at the numbers — where Kaman was worse and the consequences of this decline. Now it’s up to the coaches (and Kaman) to fix the problem.
Looking Forward
We have now assigned responsibility. What about the future?
Let’s say the coaching staff with the Clippers fixes the problem with Kaman’s game. Will that return this team to the playoffs? Unfortunately, the answer is probably no. Elton Brand, the team’s most productive player, will not play this year. Without Brand this team has little hope of challenging in the West. Yes, the additions of Ruben Patterson and Brevin Knight will help. But Brand is the team’s most productive player. No one else on the roster – with the exception of James Singleton (I was thinking of a post on Singleton, since he is a very productive player who has now left the Association) – offered a WP48 in excess of 0.200 last season. So the loss of Brand hurts.
Still, there is hope for the Clippers. By going through the numbers we were able to identify where the Clippers faltered last year. If Kaman’s issues can be fixed, and Brand comes back healthy, the 2008-09 season might be promising. Yes, that is a few ifs. But for a team with such a miserable track record, a bit of hope is at least something.
– DJ
For a discussion of other teams see NBA Team Reviews: 2006-07
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The equation connecting wins to offensive/defensive efficiency is given HERE
Wins Produced and Win Score are discussed in the following posts
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Wages of Wins Journal 
Paulo
September 28, 2007
Were you able to read Sam Alipour’s interview with Elton Brand? If you’re a Clips fan bitter about last year’s decline, you can also blame him for that. :-P
But seriously, I hope some does step up for the Clips. It’s nice to see them do well after years of being in the lottery.
zhiv
November 9, 2007
Nice meeting you, Wages of Wins.
This analysis is more or less okay, especially if you don’t follow the team. But I believe that you’re missing a few factors. And those factors are part of how you go from “Blame Kaman” to “Last Team Standing.”
05-06 was the Clipper’s best season ever. Elton Brand, already a great player, showed amazing improvement. Sam Cassell joined the team and taught them how to win. But in order to understand the Clippers’ 05-06 success, you have to look at the season before–and that is the only way to figure out what is happening with them right now.
In 04-05 the Clips rather surprisingly chose to let Quentin Richardson sign with Phoenix, and they brought in Kerry Kittles to play SG. Kittles hurt his back and never made a significant contribution to the team. Corey Maggette had developed into a solid starter at SF, and he moved down to play SG in Kittles’ absence. Bobby Simmons was a pleasant surprise, playing SF effectively all season. Injuries to second rate point guards Marko Jaric and Keyon Dooling caused journeyman Rick Brunson to start 50 games, but some Clipper fans will tell you that the only reason that the team didn’t make the playoffs was because Dunleavy chose to play raw, mistake-prone Chris Kaman ahead of talented but flawed Chris Wilcox. At any rate, Maggette led the team in scoring and must have produced some impressive statistics by your calculations.
With Brand in great shape, Cassell providing new leadership, Cuttino Mobley as a pure SG starter, and Maggette returning to SF, the Clips got out to a fast start in 05-06. But then Maggette was hurt at the end of November. Led by Brand’s MVP-calibre season, the Clips sailed into the playoffs. When Maggette was recovered at the end of March, Coach Dunleavy liked low-production, defense-oriented Quentin Ross as a starter, and the Clips went deep into the playoffs (especially for them).
So, for the purposes of your calculations, Maggette’s numbers were drastically reduced in 05-06, even in the games he played.
In 06-07 Dunleavy stubbornly stuck to the script from the 05-06 season. He refused to start Maggette (leading scorer from 04-05). Maggette was supposed to be the high-scoring 6th man, but he was often the 9th guy off the bench. Personality conflicts played a role in these decisions, and team chemistry seemed very poor as the Clippers performed well below expectations through the first half of the season and beyond. The question is, how did the decision to start low-production Ross over high-production Maggette affect Chris Kaman? I’ll let you figure that out, which seems especially tricky since the absence of high-production Elton Brand seems to be doing wonders for Kaman.
But the main point is, the reason why the Clippers declined and were bad in 06-07 is because, effectively, one of their starters and most important players was “out” for the better part of the season. In your analysis, I believe you’re comparing Maggette’s numbers to his injury-season of 05-06, rather than his more productive 04-05. And Maggette’s 06-07 looks a little bit better than it might, because he started the last 25 games and the team’s record improved and they made a late but feeble push for the playoffs.
This late push, and the effectiveness showed when Maggette returned to the starting lineup, sets the stage for the current situation and the success that is surprising to many. Maggette is very important to the Clips, and his 04-05 stats should reflect that accurately. So the Clips have one starter back that they were missing–due to a coaching decision–in 06-07. And losing Brand seems similar, somehow, to the reaction to Maggette’s injury in 05-06: it’s creating opportunities and responsibilities for other players, they’re filling the gap and playing harder.
As opposed to last year, when they (and their fans) were scratching their heads and wondering why their best team wasn’t out on the floor.