Avery Johnson – the head coach of the Dallas Mavericks – sat Jason Kidd in the final minute of a nationally televised game against the San Antonio Spurs. Mark Stein – of ESPN.com the Daily Dime – explained the rational for this move as follows:
Johnson explained afterward that he wanted to make sure Nowitzki was surrounded by shooters after catching the ball to discourage San Antonio from double-teaming, leading him to hold Kidd out because he feared Spurs coach Gregg Popovich surely would have ordered Kidd’s defender to immediately double Nowitzki.
Later in the same column, Jalen Rose indicated that Jerry Stackhouse was put in the line-up for Kidd.
Let’s review this decision.
It’s true that Kidd is not a good shooter. His career adjusted field goal percentage is only 45.3%. From three point range, again for his career, he has only hit 33.5% of his shots.
So it might make sense to sit Kidd for a great scorer. The problem with this logic (beyond all the problems that both Stein and Rose noted) is that Stackhouse is not a great scorer. Stackhouse has an adjusted field goal percentage for his career of 44.5%. From beyond the arc Stackhouse only hits on 30.5% of his attempts.
In sum, Johnson sat Kidd – the player they need at the end of the game – because Kidd doesn’t shoot well (which everyone knew before the Mavs traded for Kidd). And the player Johnson put in for Kidd, is an even less efficient scorer. Wow!! Obviously this is not a decision that is making its way into the next coaching textbook.
By the way, for those who want even more on the problems with Stackhouse, see the following posts:
June 15, 2006:Myth and Measurement after Game Three of the NBA Finals
July 20, 2007: Stackhouse vs. Jordan
October 14, 2007: Looking Back at the 1995 Draft or An Antidote for the Potential Drug
November 29, 2007: Re-Hashing Durant, Melo, and Stack
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
John
February 29, 2008
You know, I was wondering about that exact same thing last night. I’m a pretty big Spurs fan, so I might be biased, but at the time when I saw Stackhouse coming out I was pretty excited.
I could have understood if they sat Kidd for a player who had been shooting lights out in the game, but Stackhouse wasn’t even having a particularly good game, as I recall.
Westy
February 29, 2008
Obviously Stackhouse was a poor replacement for Kidd.
But, it begs the question, in a situation where you only have one possession, are you better off putting your best shooters on the floor? Obviously Kidd brings something to the table in terms of playmaking, and that value may be hard to quantify. But in large part, his value per WP is due to the fact that he rebounds well for his position. In a situation where a rebound isn’t likely to matter, is it better to put out there someone else whose strength is shooting?
dberri
February 29, 2008
Westy,
Kidd is also great at assists. And at the end of a game, passing is important.
You are correct, though, that having Dennis Rodman out there when you only have time for one shot is not a good strategy. Of course, if there is more time — and you need an offensive rebound — then a player like Rodman has more value.
MarkT
February 29, 2008
I’ve nevre seen Stack make a big shot at the end of the game. Maybe he has, I don’t know. 82games.com has a table on “clutch” scoring and Stack does not show up in it, whereas Kidd is there –although not terribly high (Dirk, Terry and Howard are all ahead of him, and ironically, considering the reasons given for the trade Devin Harris is significantly ahead of him (22.7 points per 48 minutes vs. 14 for JKidd.)
Dennis Johnson used to have a very low shooting percentage – until the 4th quarter.
Kent
February 29, 2008
Isiah Thomas says Knicks would be 6 games better if (healthy) Marbury’s performance this year was as good as last year,
“If he was healthy and not had such an emotional year and would have had the same type of year he had last year, I think it’s safe to say we probably would have won five to six more games and be right in the thick of things,” Thomas said.
Harold Almonte
February 29, 2008
I think without mattering that Kidd was moved for a similar efficient scorer (and efficiency is just half the skill language), what the coach seems liked to avoid was the ” suposedly predictable” passing decission making (Kidd’s mind), which “suposedly” leads to an automatic double team. Putting another “supossedly less hesitatant” scoring threat on the floor, would leave more freedom for Nowitsky and co.
Patrick Minton
February 29, 2008
Nice post.
When the trade first hit the news, and before George nixed its first iteration, I blogged about how it was a GREAT trade for Dallas not only because they got Kidd, but because they got Stackhouse and his 25 min/game of negative productivity off the books:
http://unexpected-value.pminton.org/2008/02/kidd-to-dallas-winwin.html
Ironic that in the next iteration of the trade Stack was not included, apparently because Mark Cuban thinks he is so valuable.
For an owner/GM, there is huge value in making sure your coaches are not “tempted” to use players like Stack by getting rid of them. This game was a prime example.
Kent
February 29, 2008
Harold A, if the folderol you write is true then the best move for the Mavs would have been to leave Kidd in and design the play for him to shoot when (as you predict he would be) open.
Harold Almonte
February 29, 2008
I tranlated “folderol”, I’ll let it pass coming from you (you don’t give neither worthy, nor level debate).
The best move could have been to leave Kidd in because there was more than 24 seconds (a life), and aside all his recent TOs, you would like the ball on his hands, although never an attempt in crunch time. He overcoached by more than 10 seconds away.
Harold Almonte
February 29, 2008
And what the Mavs need is to re-design all his crunch time plays from with a former scoring PG, to with a not scoring one.
Animal
February 29, 2008
“you don’t give neither worthy, nor level debate”
Harold, no need to adopt such a shrill tone!
Kent is one of the more objective and keen guys who frequents this site.
Pete23
February 29, 2008
Harold:
Just because Kent doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make him unworthy and biased.
Harold Almonte
February 29, 2008
He lost his diplomacy, and got to loose mine. If I’m not bad remembering, even in my stronger critics to the metric, the lack of rebounding zero sum, the inbounding compensation, the PER’s lack of scoring zero sum, the PER’s arbitrary rebounding zero sum, or any other poster’s point, includding Berri personally; I’ve never attacked nobody’s intelligence, probably finantial intentions (which are fair thing btw), but not intelligence.
But, let’s not be deceptive, the object of a debate is to try to convince the other and his followers of your point of view. To debate is just to debate, although it could look like trying to teach something that everybody intuitively knows.
Harold Almonte
February 29, 2008
It’s true that after a long time posting, I haven’t worry to better dominate the language, making you suffer to understand me here and in other sites. I will apologize for that, and only for that.
Animal
February 29, 2008
Harold,
You have nothing to apologize for other than a strange obsession to keep posting over and over again without statistical evidence that rebounds are overvalued as if the repetition will make it true.
Kevin Lee
February 29, 2008
If Greg Popovich knew the wages of wins theory or he knew kidd’s and stackhouse’s shooting stats, he would not have ordered kidd’s defender to double team. However, in all likelihood, neither Popovich nor Johnson know the wages of wins theory. Therefore, both of them probably have this peak preservation memory of Stackhouse as a great shooter because of one great shooting performance in some game. Ironically, it then makes sense for Avery Johnson to send Stackhouse in because Popovich will order the defender to stay on Stackhouse and not on Kidd, because everyone thinks Stackhouse is the better shooter. unless they read this blog
Another Pete
March 1, 2008
I think that both Kevin and Harold touch on a good point in these comments: sometimes perception (or mis-perception) of abilities matters as much as actual abilities… a good coach should not only be able to assess accurately, but also be able to use the mistaken assessments of other coaches. A GM with this ability is probably even more valuable!
Pete23
March 1, 2008
Another Pete,
I just wanted to say that you have a really cool name. I’m proud to share nomenclature with you.
Animal
March 1, 2008
How Dirk Nowitzki is a much better player with Jason Kidd, http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nba_experts/post/Has-Jason-Kidd-rsquo-s-passing-helped-Dirk-Nowit;_ylt=Aiw5pU3BLuGVNgJ4APEtwMO8vLYF?urn=nba,69353
Take that Harold A! :-)
mrparker
March 2, 2008
Avery Johnson might be one of the worst coaches when it comes to tinkering with lineups.
I will always judge him by his decision to barely play Erik Dampier during the Golden State series last year while boosting the minutes of Stackhouse.
I loved the Kidd trade when they were getting rid of Stackhouse. Now not as much, though I still think Kidd + Dirk is a championship combination.
Harold Almonte
March 2, 2008
Animal. What should I take? Nobody has questioned the Kidd’s PG abilities, he’s still all time top 3, or top 2, in what a PG is supposed, and really called to do: ballhandling and playmaking help. I just echoed other analysts’s question about Kidd’s agging, and his ability to defend this PG generation, specially in playoff teams.
BTW, your example is irrelevant in a game where Terry and Dirk shot 20% and 33%, and the game was lost at the scoring SG matchup. Dallas still needs to demonstrate that the trade wasn’t even.
Animal
March 2, 2008
Harold you have to look at Dirk’s effective shooting percentage. He went 17 for 21 from the line. By being fouled he missed out on some easy baskets off Kidd would-be assists.
Owen
March 2, 2008
“Kidd is also great at assists. And at the end of a game, passing is important.”
As he just proved in spades with a great dish to Dirk for an open three. Great game. Kidd also just stole the ball at the end of regulation to prevent the Lakers from shooting at the end of regulation. Avery seems to have learned your lesson…
Brad
March 2, 2008
Great game. If only Stackhouse hadn’t gone 2 for 12 from the field we might have won! Sigh.
Harold Almonte
March 4, 2008
Animal. Don’t tell that to me, tell it to 82games.com who has a study which says exactly the opposite you are approaching: “potential assists lead to less fouls drawings”.