At the onset of the season the Phoenix Suns were considered contenders for the NBA title. On Christmas Day the Los Angeles Lakers defeated the Suns, and suddenly there’s talk that Phil Jackson, Kobe Bryant, and company are once again among the NBA elite.
One might suspect that because this game was on national television, and this is the team from La-La land, that talk of the Lakers contending in 2008 is a bit premature. The numbers, though, suggest that the Lakers have indeed caught the Suns. Currently the Suns have a 4.8 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency). The Lakers mark is currently 5.1. Both differentials are consistent with a team on pace to win about 54 games, so it’s not the case the Lakers are necessarily better than the Suns. But it’s also not an exaggeration to say that LA and Phoenix are now on equal terms.
Some have noted that the Lakers also got off to a good start last year. Although the won-loss records are similar, the Lakers efficiency differential after 41 games last year was only 1.7. So the Lakers record in the first half of 2006-07 was a bit of an illusion.
This year’s record seems like the real deal. And so we wonder, what’s changed?
The Kobe Story
Some might look at Kobe. Here, though, is what Kobe and the Lakers have done across the past eight seasons.
2006-07: 0.234 WP48, 15.3 Wins Produced, 42 Team Wins
2005-06: 0.209 WP48, 14.3 Wins Produced, 45 Team Wins
2004-05: 0.175 WP48, 9.8 Wins Produced, 34 Team Wins
2003-04: 0.239 WP48, 12.2 Wins Produced, 56 Team Wins
2002-03: 0.270 WP48, 19.1 Wins Produced, 50 Team Wins
2001-02: 0.213 WP48, 13.6 Wins Produced, 58 Team Wins
2000-01: 0.180 WP48, 10.5 Wins Produced, 56 Team Wins
1999-00: 0.245 WP48, 12.9 Wins Produced, 67 Team Wins
This year Kobe’s WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] is 0.247 and he’s on pace to produce 15.6. What story do all these numbers tell?
1. Kobe has consistently been a very good player in his career.
2. His marks this season are quite similar to what we saw last year and across much of the past nine campaigns.
3. Despite Kobe’s production the past three seasons, the Lakers were not title contenders.
When we consider these three points we have to conclude that the Lakers resurgence is not about Kobe. Yes, Kobe is clearly helping this team. But he’s not the reason this team has improved.
Projecting the Lakers
To see why this team has improved, we have to consider the production of all the players on this team. This is reported in Table One.
Table One: Projecting the Lakers after 28 games
Table One offers two projections of the Lakers in 2007-08. The first looks at how many wins we could expect if each player plays as well as he did last year. The second estimates how many wins each player will produce if he keeps playing as well as he has this season.
These two projections clearly indicate that the Lakers are on pace to improve about ten wins this season. And this improvement can be linked to the play of Derek Fisher, Jordan Farmar, and Andrew Bynum.
Of these three, the biggest leap is seen in the play of Bynum. Had Bynum maintained what he did last year he would only be on pace to produce 6.3 wins; as opposed to the 17.6 wins projected given his WP48 of 0.369.
Bynum and Shaq
As the following columns indicate, the productivity of Bynum this season has become a popular topic in this forum.
And now it’s time for another Bynum argument that at first glance might seem a bit of a stretch. Bynum has essentially replaced Shaq in LA.
Okay, stop laughing for a moment and here me out. Let’s start this story with what Shaq meant to the Lakers.
Here is what Shaq did for LA from 1999-00 through the 2003-04 season:
2003-04: 0.300 WP48, 15.4 Wins Produced, 56 Team Wins
2002-03: 0.336 WP48, 17.7 Wins Produced, 50 Team Wins
2001-02: 0.359 WP48, 18.1 Wins Produced, 58 Team Wins
2000-01: 0.347 WP48, 21.2 Wins Produced, 56 Team Wins
1999-00: 0.428 WP48, 28.2 Wins Produced, 67 Team Wins
I don’t think it’s a stretch to argue that Shaq meant more to the Lakers than Kobe. Just as popular perception suggests, Shaq consistently posted a higher WP48 than Kobe, although Kobe’s Wins Produced was higher in 2002-03 (because Kobe played more minutes).
Now let’s compare Shaq to Bynum.
Table Two reports Shaq’s performance across his career, and for the 2003-04 (Shaq’s last season in LA), 2001-02 (LA’s last title team), and 1992-93 (Shaq’s rookie year) seasons. In addition to reporting Shaq’s statistical performance, Table Two also notes what Bynum has done across 28 games in 2007-08.
When we look at all these numbers we see that both players are much better than the average center with respect to shooting efficiency from the field, rebounds, blocked shots, and assists. And although both have trouble getting steals and hitting free throws, the Win Score of each player easily dwarfs that of an average center.
Although both are much more productive than the average center, the numbers suggest that Bynum – on a per-minute basis — has done a bit more than Shaq. Bynum has a higher Win Score per 48 minutes and WP48 in 2007-08 than Shaq posted in any of the years noted.
Does this mean Bynum is better than Shaq?
Hmmmmm…. no. From 1992-93 to 2004-05, Shaq averaged 18.2 Wins Produced per season. Bynum is currently only on pace to produce 17.6 wins. The difference between the two players is not so much what they do per-minute, but how many minutes each player plays. Across Shaq’s first 13 seasons he averaged 37 minutes per game. Bynum has only played 37 minutes or more in seven games in his entire career. In sum, although per-minute Bynum can offer Shaq-like production, Bynum hasn’t shown yet that he can play Shaq-like minutes. Hence, Bynum is not quite Shaq-like…yet.
Of course Bynum is only 20 years old. At this age, Shaq was just finishing up at LSU. So although Bynum is in his third year as an NBA player, it’s still too early to know what he will ultimately look like as a full-time NBA player.
Still, the early returns do tell us that this past summer Mitch Kupchak, the much maligned GM of the Lakers, was right. And Kobe was very, very, very wrong. Remember, Kobe wanted the Lakers to send Bynum to the Nets for Jason Kidd. Had Kupchak, Kobe’s boss, listened to his very vocal employee, the Lakers would have swapped a player who is already one of the most productive centers in the game for a guard who will be 35 years old before this season ends. Yes, Kidd is still amazing. But he’s old. And as we keep learning about amazing old guys again and again, at some point they stop being amazing.
Step-by-Step Summary
Let me conclude by summarizing the stories being told.
1. The Lakers are right now on par with the Phoenix Suns.
2. Kobe Bryant, who is a very productive player, is not the reason this team has improved on last year’s performance.
3. Kobe needed Shaq to contend for an NBA title. Once Shaq was taken away, this team declined considerably.
4. Andrew Bynum is a big part of why this team has improved.
5. On a per-minute basis, Bynum’s production in the first 28 games of this season rivals Shaq.
6. Until Bynum consistently plays major minutes, though, he will not be quite as productive as Shaq.
In addition to these six, we have one last observation.
7. This past summer, Kupchak was right to keep Bynum and Kobe was wrong to want Bynum traded away. And every time Bynum goes for 20 and 10, this point should be repeated.
UPDATE: Paul Oberjuerge wrote the following column after the game on Christmas (a column I just discovered):
Bynum trade offers receive big laughs
Oberjuerge column makes the same argument I make – including statements making fun of Kobe’s demand the Lakers trade Bynum — but without the numbers. Instead he relies upon a series of quotes from people like Tex Winter and Phil Jackson. For those who don’t want to click on the link, here are the Winter’s quotes:
“I think he’s got an unlimited future,” Lakers consultant Tex Winter said of Bynum. And Winter was only the latest (and most astute) to scoff at a Bynum-for-Kidd deal. “Even as good as Kidd is, I don’t believe he can have the impact on a team that a big man can have, like Bynum,” Winter added. “And I think that’s what the Lakers’ staff saw, and they were reluctant to make a trade. It’s hard to come by a guy who has the physical abilities that Bynum has, as young as he is.”
– 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
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.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Kent
December 27, 2007
This is a great post. Very interesting.
Paulo
December 27, 2007
But isn’t this the case for the past 3 years or so? LA gets on a hot start, everyone starts penciling them as dark horses (or higher), Odom gets inujred, pass-the-ball-around Kobe reverts to ball-hogging Kobe, LA goes on bad streak, *insert random important rotation player* misses rest of season, LA’s Hollywood season goes down drain (and in two of those, it was against PHX).
I understand that this is an interpretation of the results, and the numbers are there to prove so. But LA has a lot riding on Odom’s health more than anyone wants to believe (even me).
PS.
Happy Holidays everyone!
RG73
December 27, 2007
DB–I’m wondering what your thoughts are on the Ariza trade. He’s got the 2nd best WP48 on the team (excluding Colby Karl’s 4 minutes of play), but he hadn’t been getting a lot of playing time until the Phoenix game. When he got the start it looked like the numbers he puts up in limited minutes aren’t a fluke or due to small sample size–he’s looking like a very solid player.
How does this team project if he should eventually win that starting spot over Walton (which he should since he’s the better player)? It would seem that not only have they potentially replaced Shaq, but perhaps replaced Butler as well.
Another thing I’m curious about is how are Lamar Odom’s numbers if you just look at December? He missed training camp (or most of it) due to injury and was playing out of position in November and playing himself back into shape (and thus putting up pretty awful numbers). Since returning back to the PF spot, his rebounds are up consistently, his FG% is generally better, his TOs are down. I’d guess that his WP48 for the last 14 games is more consistent with his career averages.
As for your point about Bynum’s minutes, it is worth noting that of 7 games he’s played 37 or more minutes, 4 of them have been in the last 5 games. The coaching staff has been pushing him more in the last few games to stay on the court longer and he’s been responding. I’d expect that this will be more common as the season progresses. The alternative is putting in Mihm, Turiaf or Brown (when and if he’s healthy again)–while its nice to have 3 back up centers, none of them are terribly effective, so I’d assume the coaching staff is going to want to maximize Bynum and minimize those guys out there.
mm
December 27, 2007
I understand WP48 and win-score an all that – and I know you admit it has limitations, but what is your subjective analysis of the improvement of Bynum, Farmar and Fisher? And related to this, I think the analysis potentially understates the contributions of someone like Bryant. Bynum and Farmar are clearly young players, and their improvement is no surprise (maybe the degree is) – but what do you attribute Fisher’s improvement to? That is one item that seems to not be accounted for in your metrics – for Fisher to improve from -0.7 (last season’s wins produced) to 6.1 (this season’s projected wins produced), a large portion of this should be attributed to being on a team with Kobe where he consistently gets double teamed, leaving Fisher open to knock down the J? In similar minutes to his last 3 – 4 seasons, Fisher is hitting his averages right on the nose in every category except field goal % (which is way up and driving his improved WP). Some of this has to be attributed to playing with Kobe.
Other instances where score could be misleading / understated for Bryant (and many other players, just using him as an example): (1) With the above Fisher example, I understand that if the open shot is on the first shot, it would show up in Kobe’s box score as an assist, but many times the ball may not get to Fisher until the 2nd pass from Kobe (it gets swung around the perimeter), therefore Fisher gets an open shot b/c of Kobe, but no credit. This is especially relevant to Kobe b/c he gets double teamed more than any other perimeter player in the league. (2) Defense in wages of win is not properly accounted for. It consists of steals, blocks, [and fouls and rebounds?]. What about just playing good defense, not letting someone get off a clean shot? That’s how Bruce Bowen plays D. That’s how Kobe plays D. Maybe there aren’t numbers to support that (or rather stats kept) but it certainly impacts how a player should be valued.
I thoroughly enjoy your blog and analysis, I just struggle with some of these thoughts and others at times.
dberri
December 27, 2007
RG73,
I was going to talk about Ariza when I started writing the column, but then I forgot. Walton was a very good player last year, but is not as productive this year. Ariza, though, has consistently been productive. And as I said at the time of the trade, the Lakers basically stole Ariza from the Magic.
As for Odom… you may be right. Unless I look at the game logs, though, I can’t tell if what you are saying is true. You could calculate Odom’s Win Score per-minute since December 1, though, and see if he has actually improved.
mm,
As I noted, I am skeptical of the story that Kobe has made his teammates better. If he had this power, why were the Lakers struggling for three consecutive years? Kobe was there the entire time and the team was not contending.
RG73
December 27, 2007
mm–The problem with attributing Fisher’s improvement to Kobe is that he never shot this well playing with both Shaq and Kobe in the past. You can’t really get better open looks than playing with an in-his-prime Shaq and Kobe. Yet Fish never broke 43% on his FG% back then. It is possible that he’ll eventually wind up closer to his career averages by season’s end, or maybe, he’s just improved for other reasons. Maybe he worked with a shooting coach all summer. Maybe his daughter’s illness caused some personal revelation and he worked really hard on his own all summer. But I don’t think you can attribute all of it to Kobe. I mean he played with Boozer, Williams and Okur last season and didn’t shoot well. Boozer requires double teams, Okur can spread the floor with his shooting, Williams can draw defenses by driving–yet Fish shot 38%. I don’t think Kobe individually draws as much defensive attention, on average, as the collective Boozer, Okur, Williams trio.
There has been a trend towards increasing FG% for players coming to the Lakers post-Shaq era. And some of that effect is probably due to Kobe. But we also can’t rule out the offense (obviously not in 04-05, but since Phil’s return): the Triangle is one of the most disciplined offenses run by pro teams and, in general, puts players in a position to take better shots. So that is probably some of it as well. But I think Fisher’s case is unique.
As for your example of Fisher being on the receiving end of say a 2nd pass due to Bryant–this is true, but it also works both ways, right? Fisher starts hitting more open shots and then you can’t double on Kobe as much, leading to better shots for Kobe. It is a feedback loop. You simply can’t leave open a guy who’s shooting 49% consistently, so his defender has to stay on him. Then Kobe sees more single coverage. And that should show up in the stats assuming Kobe uses the single coverage to take better shots.
As for your point about defense, I’ll leave that for DB to answer (I wonder about it myself), but there are certainly defensive stats (defensive rating, or opponent FG%, etc.). Kobe has a solid 101 defensive rating this season. Defensive rating is a little confounded with floor units–e.g. playing with good defenders for extended minutes can give you good defensive numbers (see Paul Pierce and Ray Allen this season with KG). But it tends to correspond with good defenders. Kobe doesn’t have a huge defensive impact though, but it is pretty hard to do that at the 2. Jordan only had a defensive rating of 101 or lower 3 times in his career, so Kobe is generally playing solid defense this season. But I don’t suspect looking at defensive numbers would give you a qualitatively different answer than wins produced for the Lakers this season.
pablasso
December 27, 2007
I think that you made your point clear with the 234556 posts about it. You hate Kobe hype.
He may not be the reason for the upgrade from last year, but without him the LA would have a hard time even hitting the playoffs, give the guy respect, he’s the franchise.
Mark
December 27, 2007
Many people don’t realize just how raw Bynum really was when he was drafted. Not only was he out of high school, he didn’t play much in high school due to an injury. And he never played as a kid. Bynum is basically living that fantasy most of us have of waking up one day 7′ tall and dexterous. Might as well learn to play basketball!
Hollinger has the Lakers ranked #3 due to their point per possession differential (4th best) and opponent’s record (6th hardest). It certainly seems they are for real this year.
Who would have guessed 6th months ago that a Laker / Celtic final was even a remote possibility?
Crow
December 27, 2007
Dave I noticed something that seems worth mentioning and hearing further comment on.
In your Bynum Shaq comparison you list the per 48 minute averages for centers which roughly includes 18 pts, 12 rebs, 2 assists, 2 blocks. (I assume they are right but I wonder a little if there is any way that they are high?)
I was on basketball reference looking for good young big men 6-9+worthy or trade or free agent consideration just previously and was using a slightly different lower standard and was surprised to pull up only about 20 names. When I shifted to the center averages I only got 4 last year that met all of these 4 main criteria. Bynum does this year. He was just shy on pts last year.
He is a rare big to meet all 4 criteria. Last season the 4 were Yao, Gasol, D Howard and T Thomas. Some might argue that the assist or block level is too high but these are averages right?
Maybe we have a lot of centers who per 48 minutes meet or exceed 1 or more of these 4 criteria and overall they balance each other out to this center average? And yet so few combine average or above performance? If so that might make an interesting followup article. What are the center groups and performance levels and who employs which type and to what win impact?
Completely eliminating the block criteria from the 4 criteria adds 5 names. as it does for the assist criteria. Lowering the rebounding rate to 10 only adds 1. Lowering the pts rate to 15 only adds 1. Lowering it to 10 per 48 only adds 1 more. At 15 pts 10 rebs 1 assist 1 block per 48 last season and 6-8 or taller their are 37. For 30 teams needing 60 big man starters and plenty of subs. That is scarcity.
Crow
December 27, 2007
At least for modestly “complete” bigs.
Lakersfan
December 27, 2007
wow at folks trying to start the debate of “who is more important”.. can folks ever understand that without an inside-out game, no team is going anywhere? It’s really the combination that makes a team click, especially in this age of zone defense. Bynum is the “difference maker” in that he has stepped up to fill that role. But, soon teams will start to figure out ways to cut off angles for lobs and Bynum becomes part of their scouting plan.. so, the lakers and Bynum will have to adjust.
Oh, let’s not forget the bench having improved a lot this year.
Harish
December 27, 2007
Great. I especially like how you danced around the point that “Kobe needs Bynum to contend for an NBA title”.
RG73
December 27, 2007
Lakersfan–Clearly though the ‘inside’ part of the ‘inside-out’ equation is more valuable. There are very few examples of the perimeter only approach being successful. Go back the last 15 years and 10 of the championship teams featured Shaq, Duncan, or Hakeem. The runners up featured Shaq (twice), Ewing, Camby, Dikembe, Karl Malone (twice), Dirk or Kemp. Of the 5 teams that won and didn’t feature a great center, 4 had Jordan, and the other was the Pistons team that still had solid bigs in the two Wallaces, McDyess and Okur (and, ummm, Darko).
In the last 15 years only 1 team in the Western Conference has made it to the Finals without a great big, and that was the Suns in 1993. Except even they had Barkley, who, though 6’6″, played like a much bigger player. So its really more like zero teams in WC in 15 years have made the Finals without a star big. Zero teams in the WC have won the Finals in 15 years when that big isn’t a center (Malone, Kemp, Dirk, Barkley all failed). In the East, only New Jersey made it without any real impact play from a big (they had Dikembe for 10 games in 03′ in the playoffs, and Kmart both seasons). Even the Jordan Bulls would have been unlikely contenders sans Horace Grant, and, later, Rodman.
The evidence that the ‘outside’ part is more important than the ‘inside’ part is sorely lacking, at least so far as I am aware. This isn’t to say that PFs or Cs can win without quality play at the guard positions–they can’t. But it is hard to argue that a quality 7 footer (or even a 6’6″ behemoth like Barkley who gets 25 and 12) has more impact than a smaller player who plays farther out from the basket and shoots a lower percentage. It is symbiotic–you need both, but a big will generally have more impact/production.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone–its been true all of the history of the NBA. The NBA has always been ruled by the best centers. A few years of dominance by a historically unique player in Jordan doesn’t change that, as much as we might want to believe that the Kobe’s, Wade’s, Lebron’s, Melo’s, AI’s, McGrady’s, Pierce’s, etc. of the NBA can do it without a signficant presence at the 4 or the 5 (and again, I’d argue even Jordan had such a presence in Rodman and Grant).
amar
December 27, 2007
wow, some serious numbers here.
but can you judge games and teams just by numbers? cmon.
to say Bynum is a great big already is doing him wrong. he is still just a huge potential. u cant take his stats at his age and just spread them over 48 minutes and say he has more to do with the Lakers’ success than Kobe. cmoooon
pablasso
December 28, 2007
@RG73
That’s hardly valid to prove a point, name 1 of those champions or runners up, who doesn’t had a star guard or outside player?
Jason
December 28, 2007
“Star” is of course a rather subjective term, but in the Rockets’ first championship season the majority of their backcourt minutes went to Vernon Maxwell (13.2ppg) and Kenny Smith (11.2ppg). Whether or not they were effective, productive players, I don’t know anyone who considered them ‘stars’. In the Spurs first championship, they started Mario Ellie and Avery Johnson, again rarely if ever considered ‘stars’ and in their second championship, Tony Parker and Stephen Jackson weren’t putting up “star” performances.
Crow
December 28, 2007
I see now that 18pts and 12rebs per 48 are probably the averages for players listed at center who qualified with enough minutes played. But this is only 50-60 guys in the league. Others play center. Are they a part of the average? Unless I hear otherwise I’ll guess not.
dberri
December 28, 2007
Crow,
The averages are for all centers from 1993-94 to 2004-05.
Animal
December 28, 2007
Everybody, have a happpy and healthy New Year! :-)
Crow
December 28, 2007
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
I assume it is still guys listed at center and not all minutes played at center but I think I understand what the average is and the rest of the story.
dberri
December 28, 2007
Crow,
I went through the minutes for each year to see who was likely playing center. So the averages for the center position is based on those players assigned that position.
Pete23
December 28, 2007
Animal, best wishes in 2008 to you as well!
Kent
December 28, 2007
Happy New Year to all!
Crow
December 28, 2007
Ok sounds thorough Dave. I guess I try not to assume more than I fully know. But sometines that approach might come across overly skeptical.
Anyways good article … you find and make good use of case studies like with Bynum.
Animal
December 28, 2007
Crow, happy new year to you!
dberri
December 28, 2007
Crow,
Good to be skeptical. There is quite a bit to these calculations and I don’t know what needs more explaining until someone asks.
Crow
December 28, 2007
Thanks Animal. And to you and all.
And you are right Dave and thanks again for the clarification.
My concern with the possibility of the center dataset not being complete was in part from my own experience with pulling data from espn and other places and wrestling with their position definitions and minute standards and making statements about those datasets and needing to insert qualifications about who is covered or forgetting to do so and then feeling a bit regretful for not presenting the data with full and proper disclosure.
But on to the weekend.
Jimm
December 29, 2007
Lakers are 10-2 with Lamar Odom back at the PF position. To some extent, this coincides with him shaking off the rust from rehab and missing training camp, but whatever the reason it’s clear that Odom is starting to return to his normal level of elite play, which makes the Lakers that much more dangerous because his season production so far has been abnormally poor (as seen in all statistical measures including WP).
In fact, if you do a split on NBA efficiency rating for only the last 10 games, the Lakers have two players in the Top 10 (Kobe and Bynum) and three in the Top 25 (Odom at #25).
Odom still isn’t 100% and hasn’t completely figured out how best to play with a new and improved Bynum, but his 17-8-7 last night against Utah bodes well for the Lakers potential this season to become an elite team in contender status.