Way back in the 20th century, the Atlanta Hawks could be counted on to make the playoffs on a regular basis. But in the 21st century, playoff basketball has been non-existent in Georgia.
For much of the first-half of the 2007-08 season, though, it looked like this could change. On January 15 the Hawks defeated the Denver Nuggets to even their record at 17-17. But after this victory, the Hawks won only four of their next fifteen games. Consequently, with a record of 21-28 at the All-Star break, it looked like Atlanta was once again going to visit the lottery.
The Hawks Make a Move
At least, that was the expectation last Friday. On Saturday, though, the Hawks took a bold step to halt the slide. Atlanta sent starting point guard Anthony Johnson, reserve point guard Tyrone Lue, 2006 lottery pick Shelden Williams, and veteran big man Lorenzen Wright to the Sacramento Kings for Mike Bibby.
This is how Jeff Schultz of the Atlanta Journal-C0nstitution described this move:
The Hawks are suddenly a factor. Why? Because Knight, their general manager, acted like a general manager. He acquired a starting point guard (a little late, but let’s not quibble). He admitted a draft mistake (dumping Shelden Williams). He dealt two other players (Tyronn Lue and Anthony Johnson) who were not meant to start NBA games.
Five days before the trade deadline, Billy Knight was a player.
We pause now for a moment of reflection.
Mike Bibby is a legitimate starting point guard, and he, therefore, makes the Hawks a legitimate playoff team.
Writing a few days after the trade, it’s perhaps too late for me to say “before Atlanta fans get too excited, let’s look at the numbers.” My sense is Atlanta fans are already pretty excited. Nevertheless, let’s look at the numbers.
Entering the All-Star break the Hawks had an efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of -1.8. The Kings had a mark of -1.8 last season, and at the All-Star break this year, posted a differential of -2.1. Turning to WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes], we see that the average WP48 of everyone not named Mike Bibby on the 2006-07 Sacramento Kings was 0.088. This season the mark of everyone not named Bibby in Sacramento is 0.086.
For the Hawks, this season the average WP48 of everyone not named Anthony Johnson or Tyrone Lue is 0.087. So it looks like Bibby is leaving a below average team that’s just about the same as the below average team he’s joining. Such a team would miss the playoffs in the West. In the East it can make the post-season and probably lose in the first round. In sum, with this move, Bibby might be able to extend his season by a handful of games.
More Numbers on the Trade
Okay, here are some more numbers. Table One reports the career performances of everyone in this trade.
Table One: Career Performances of Players in the Bibby Trade
The four players Atlanta is sending to Sacramento have produced 54.3 wins in their respective careers. Bibby has produced 56.7 wins, and is the only player with a career WP48 that’s above average (average WP48 is 0.100). So the career numbers tell us that this trade is a winner for Atlanta.
The recent numbers of these players, though, tell a different story. Anthony Johnson was actually an above average point guard this season. In fact, except for his rookie season, whenever A. Johnson averages more than 25 minutes per contest in his career his WP48 has been above average.
When we turn to the individual stats – reported in Table Two – we see why A. Johnson has been above average in 2007-08.
Table Two: More on the Career of Mike Bibby
In term of shooting efficiency and assists, A. Johnson is about average for a point guard. Although rebounds and steals are below average, A. Johnson has done a good job of avoiding turnovers.
Now consider the numbers of Bibby. This season he has been hurt. But in 2006-07 – relative to A. Johnson this season – Bibby offered fewer assists and more turnovers. And his shooting efficiency was not much better. Let me repeat this observation. When we look at point guards we often look at assists and turnovers. For these two stats, though, the point guard Atlanta had is better – at least today — than the one Atlanta is adding.
Of course, Bibby has been better in the past. And he was the starting point guard on a successful Sacramento team. But as I noted last summer – in the post The Return of the Kings – Bibby was not the primary reason the Kings challenged the Lakers for Western Conference supremacy earlier in the decade.
The following tables – first posted in the earlier column — report what the Kings did from 1997-98 to 2006-07.
Tables 3-6: The Kings from 1997-98 to 2004-05
Table Seven: The Kings in 2005-06 and 2006-07
Bibby was added to the Kings in 2001-02 and that season Sacramento won the most games in franchise history. When we turn to Wins Produced, though, we see that Kings were led that season by Doug Christie, Chris Webber, Peja Stojakovic, and Vlade Divac. In other words, Bibby was not the primary reason this team was successful.
As time went by, Bibby did play better for the Kings. Unfortunately, the leaders of the 2001-02 season eventually got old and left the franchise. When that happened, the days of the Kings contending also left.
Although the numbers tell us Bibby was not the driving force behind Sacramento’s success, people still perceive Bibby as a player that’s well-above average. When we look at the individual stats – again, back in Table Two – it’s hard to see where Bibby is exceptional. His career shooting efficiency is somewhat above average. His career numbers for assists, rebounds, and steals, though, are below average. When you put the whole picture together, what emerges is a point guard who has been slightly above average for his career, and more recently, below par. In sum, Bibby appears to be a player who has managed to create the impression of being well above average without actually being well above average at any aspect of the game.
So what does this mean for the Hawks? Atlanta will probably make the playoffs. The Eastern Conference is very weak and this trade doesn’t seem to hurt Atlanta’s chances. But this team may have made the playoffs without this move. So Atlanta has added quite a bit to the team’s payroll in 2oo8-09. But it’s not clear that this cost is going to yield much of a benefit.
At least, that’s what the numbers suggest. It’s important to emphasize, though, that this move is not just about the numbers. The fact Atlanta made this move tells us that the front office of this team – who did very little for a very long time – is at least trying. And the fact that Atlanta is now trying to build a winner, might be the best news about this trade.
About Sacramento
Now what does this move mean for Sacramento. At the All-Star break the Kings – relative to the Hawks – had a better won-loss record and a similar efficiency differential. But the Kings play in the West, where a losing record means you are most definitely going to be in the lottery in 2008.
Earlier in this column I noted that A. Johnson has been at least as productive as Bibby this season. But I also noted that A. Johnson seems to play better the more he plays. Unfortunately in Sacramento, A. Johnson will not be the starting point guard. Beno Udrih will probably get most of the minutes at this position. So A. Johnson will go back to the bench, where he has generally not played well throughout his career.
A similar story can also be told about Lue and Wright. Again, these players are probably not going to get minutes in Sacramento, and so the Kings will not get much production from either player.
What this trade does for Sacramento is provide a little bit of salary cap relief this summer and a chance to see if Shelden Williams – who was above average his rookie season – can actually play. Of course, to see if Williams can play the Kings will have to actually play Williams. This means the Kings will need to send Mikki Moore – the prize free agent from 2007 – back to the bench.
Will that happen? It might, although it didn’t happen tonight. In his first game in a Kings uniform, Shelden Williams logged five minutes (with a zero Win Score). The Kings did defeat Portland (although Portland didn’t have James Jones, a story I should talk about sometime). So the first return on this move is both positive and meaningless.
The same can be said for the Hawks first game with Bibby. Losing by 29 to the Lakers isn’t good news, but it is also doesn’t mean much. Again, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Hawks in the playoffs (despite what happened tonight). But I don’t think this trade actually helps Atlanta see the post-season.
The Kidd Trade
Although the Bibby-A.Johnson swap is big news, it’s not the biggest point guard trade in the news these days. My next column will look at the Jason Kidd trade. That should be posted in the next couple of days.
– 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 
andrew
February 20, 2008
Am glad the Cavs didn’t trade Gooden for him, for both money reasons and productivity reasons.
Westy
February 20, 2008
But won’t it help Atlanta to have two main scoring options rather than one? It would seem that no longer will other teams’ defense be able to focus as solely on Johnson.
I saw the following quote about the trade that I thought said it well:
“The pressure Bibby will take off Joe Johnson will be enormous, as teams will no longer be able to constantly double team Joe. Bibby also gives the Hawks what they desperately need in the fourth quarter and that is a point guard that can pull up and shoot.”
James
February 20, 2008
Wow, what a breakdown.
actually overwelmed me and shut down my brain.
Bibby gives them a set up man that can score. The Hawks needed this for their young players.
It will give them confidence.
No one expects them to do anything in the playoffs this year.
But going there and actually winning some games would be huge for this team’s growth.
Pete23
February 20, 2008
Wow, generic box scores now include +/- … http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=Am._yU1CxbUUS2LswZ._gqGLvLYF?gid=2008022021
Now they need to add pawsmin and I’ll be really happy. :-)
Pete23
February 20, 2008
If Harold A had his way box scores would omit rebounds. jajajajaja ;-)
Harold Almonte
February 21, 2008
No, but I would include rebounds against (O-DRebA). More important than that BA stats.
Harold Almonte
February 21, 2008
Look at the boxscore again, and tell me what was more weighted in the final result of the game: the Lakers being totally outrebounded, or the Suns being handicapped at scoring? It was the Bell scoring performance that bad? He just missed 3 attempts, that couldn’t be so bad, others players lost more possessions than that, he even commited four less TOs than Kobe, to make up for his lack of rebounds. No, they lost because he wasn’t able to create seven more points for his team, that be scoring them, or stopping Kobe…..stopping Kobe?
Jason
February 21, 2008
The Suns lost because they surrendered more points than they scored. This outcome was a product of many things. Had they had a few more defensive stops, this would not have been true. Had they made a few more shots, this would not be true.
Christopher
February 21, 2008
What are BA’s anyway?
Owen
February 21, 2008
Blocked attempts I think…
The Suns did not look good to me. The Lakers with Bynum will easily be the best team in the league I think if he comes back healthy….
Jason
February 21, 2008
“Blocks against.” It is the number of times a player had his shot blocked.
Ken
February 21, 2008
Harold,
You can’t be so fixated on rebounds. Rebounds, in this model, are a portion of a player’s productivity on a large scale, and a portion of total posessions on a small scale ((REB + STL ) – TO). Even if you grab 10+ boards, you’re not gauranteed to have a high win score. You still must shoot effeciently, keep your turnovers down, stay out of foul trouble, etc. In other words, you have to be a complete player to get a high Wp48.
And Steve Nash, by the way, had a very high win score last night, despite getting only 2 rebounds. As a matter of fact, I believe his WP48 is over .300, and yet he averages only 3.5 rebounds per game.
BTW, I’m getting tired of all this fuss over rebounds not being as valuable as the data show; anyone who’s played at least pickup ball knows how dominant a great rebounder can be …
“DAMN! Somebody box that #%$&* guy out!!”
Who hasn’t heard that yelled out on a rec court???
Guy
February 21, 2008
“BTW, I’m getting tired of all this fuss over rebounds not being as valuable as the data show”
Ken: I think you’ve misconstrued the discussion. The point is that the DATA shows rebounds to be have less value than they receive in Wins Produced. And the point applies only to individual player rebound totals. A rebound gained by a team is very valuable, and I don’t believe there’s any dispute about that at all. The problem is that the players you call “great rebounders” do not add as many rebounds to their teams as their individual rebound total seems to show — again, that’s according to the data. And I’m sure you would agree that rebounds taken from teammates are considerably less valuable than those taken from the opposing team. The challenge is figuring out what the ratio of those two are, in general and — if possible — for individual players.
dberri
February 21, 2008
Unfortunately I was traveling the past few weeks and couldn’t chime in on this issue.
The DATA, as Guy puts it, does not support the argument Guy has been making over and over again in this forum (and that I am getting tired of reading).
There are serious econometric problems with the studies Guy keeps referencing. And because of these problems, what Guy keeps saying (again, over and over) is incorrect. Sorry to kill the debate on this.
Quick comment on the comments… I barely have time to post these days. I certainly do not have time to participate in on-line debates (especially about proper econometric methodology, which I sense many people do not understand). I will do my best to read the comments and serve my function as nominal policeman.
Harold Almonte
February 21, 2008
“((REB + STL ) – TO). Even if you grab 10+ boards, you’re not gauranteed to have a high win score. You still must shoot effeciently”
(Reb – RebA + STL – TO)=(Sucess-Failure+Sucess-Failure), remember you need to rest the respective skill failures or preferably the opportunities in order to rate, otherway you are just saying that the rebounding rating of all players is 100% (overrating a 43% from reality). What do you think of a frountcourt which grabbed 13DRebs, but allowed 12ORebs to the opponent frountcourt?. Did they have a 100% rebounding rating, when they were supposed not to allow more than 5? You still must be efficient at every basketball skill with respect to the LgAVE. I suspect that Bell with seven or eight rebounds more, even with his zero points, would appear with a higher WS than Barbosa who scored 17 points.
But look how not rating rebounds deforms the scale of player total performance: The starting Lakers frountcourt was outrebounded by 17 rebounds (literally), but they even appear with +17 in this department of the metric, while the opponents are rewarded +34 (everybody is allways guaranteed to be positive and overrated). The real math is -17 and +17, and if you take off the shot defense from the rebound stat, the reality is -8.3 and +8.3 points produced by rebounds only.
Then according to this point of view, wich only sees successes at rebounding, the Lakers frountcourt as a whole appear something like two times more productive than Kobe, but when you account the failures against the opp., Kobe appears like four times more productive than the whole frountcourt.
Harold Almonte
February 21, 2008
Then Ken, is more simple than that. An OReb is supposed to be a new possession, then it’s a lost possession for the defensive team that were obligued to gain that easy gift, and for the player who was more directly responsible of not to allow that rebound. Why this lost of possession doesn’t appear in the metric?
antonio
February 21, 2008
either I am an idiot, or you need to work on your english. It is extremely hard for me to follow any of your posts
Oren
February 22, 2008
“What do you think of a frountcourt which grabbed 13DRebs, but allowed 12ORebs to the opponent frountcourt?
The starting Lakers frountcourt was outrebounded by 17 rebounds (literally), but they even appear with +17 in this department of the metric, while the opponents are rewarded +34 (everybody is allways guaranteed to be positive and overrated). ”
First of all, if you give up a lot of offensive rebounds then I would think one of these two things are going to happen. Either you’re not going to get many defensive rebounds or your opponent is missing a lot of shots presumably due to good defense. If it’s the former, it will hurt your WP score and if it’s the latter then you deserve to be rewarded for making your opponent miss.
I thought that this system was designed so that the average(mean) score was .1? Therefore, there is a position adjustment for each position.
If there was a team that allowed a lot of rebounds, then wouldn’t this simply raise the position adjustment for positions that typically received many rebounds? Therefore, wouldn’t this devalue the rebound scores of the team that allowed a lot of rebounds(because they can’t play themselves) and therefore make their own Wins Produced Scores Lower?
Here, let’s suppose that teams started getting 70 rebounds a game instead of 40. Presumably, Centers and Power Forwards would still get the bulk of those rebounds. In order to keep the mean Wins Produced Score at .1, wouldn’t that just require a larger position adjustment at the positions that typically receive many rebounds? And wouldn’t that devalue rebounds?
Harold Almonte
February 22, 2008
“First of all, if you give up a lot of offensive rebounds then I would think one of these two things are going to happen. Either you’re not going to get many defensive rebounds or your opponent is missing a lot of shots presumably due to good defense. If it’s the former, it will hurt your WP score and if it’s the latter then you deserve to be rewarded for making your opponent miss.”
Let’s imagine this game (without TOs, nor STLs): In an Off Team A, ave. shooting have an imagined 100 attempts, which will produce 50 FGMade and 50 FGMissed. From those misses, ave. rebounder teammates will recover around 30%, that is 15 OReb = 15 more attempts = 15 more points. What Def. Team B obtains?, 50 attempts from the other team’s 50 FGMade, 35 attempts from DRebs. They are still trailed by 15 attempts=15 points. But when Team B shoots, it happens the opposite. Then, in the end of the missing chain, what you’ll have is that two average teams cancels scoring and rebounding each other, that is you need to rate the player rebounding against the opponent action, substracting the rebounding misses or opp.’s rebounds, that’s so simple (Reb.Points – Rebattempts = RebMade*1 – opp.Reb – RebMade). Since you already have other things more than rebounds accounted inside your regressedDRebs, of course you’ll have a lot of problems doing that.
“In order to keep the mean Wins Produced Score at .1, wouldn’t that just require a larger position adjustment at the positions that typically receive many rebounds? And wouldn’t that devalue rebounds?”
That’s a right procedure, because total rebounds and the rebounding usage are closedly attached to positions, and players’s skill is compared against their positions. That can make up the diminishing return, but it doesn’t solve neither the rebounding rating, nor the rewarding scale, since you still are accounting total rebounds (sucesses) only. What is not a right procedure is to do a position adjustment to scoring, since neither total points nor scoring attempts are attached to positions. A scoring usage adjustment, is what it’s needed to apply to PPS here.