Under Isiah Thomas the New York Knicks consistently ranked among the league leaders in payroll. And the Knicks also consistently ranked among the league leaders in losses. In fact, only the Atlanta Hawks and Charlotte Bobcats lost more games since the start of the 2004-05 season (the first full year Isiah Thomas was in New York).
The high payrolls in New York tended to raise the expectations of the team’s fans. Such high expectations, though, kept crashing against the reality of poor play. And this disconnect between expectations and results consistently led to disappointed and angry fans.
Obviously the solution to this problem is to align expectations and results. And this can be accomplished by simply winning more often. Of course, there is also another solution. If you can simply lower expectations you might also lower the level of unhappiness in New York.
Lowering Expectations in New York
Faced with these two choices, the new management in New York – president Donnie Walsh and head coach Mike D’Antoni — has apparently started by pursuing the latter option. Since taking over for Isiah Thomas, Walsh and D’Antoni have
- drafted Danilo Gallinari, who Erich Doerr compared to Andreas Bargnani (Bargnani was the least productive player in the NBA last season)
- traded Renaldo Balkman – one of the few above average players on the team in 2007-08 –to the Denver Nuggets to make room for Gallinari (and did I mention that Doerr comparied Gallinari to the least productive player in the NBA)
- signed Chris Duhon, a player who was benched in 2007-08 by the woeful Chicago Bulls
- traded for Patrick Ewing, Jr. And no, that’s not the same as taking Patrick Ewing Sr. to the fountain of youth and bringing him out of retirement.
The Knicks only won 23 games last season. And when we look at these moves, it’s hard to see how this team is going to improve.
Fortunately for the Knicks, though, it seems hard to imagine that Knick fans are going to think that the additions of Gallinari, Duhon, and Ewing Jr. are going to transform the Knicks into a contender.
The one position that seems to exemplify the drive to lower expectations is at point guard. Stephon Marbury – as noted last November – entered the 2007-08 season with a 0.107 career WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. Average is 0.100, so Marbury has essentially been an average NBA player in his career.
Chris Duhon posted a 0.088 mark last year in Chicago, but has a career mark of 0.127. This looks like a slightly better career average than Marbury, but essentially should be thought of as a similar level of productivity. In sum, the Knicks appear to be replacing a slightly above average point guard with another slightly above average point guard.
The advantage of this move is that people think Marbury is Starbury. So when Starbury is average, and his team fails to wins (a scenario that has happened across much of his career), people are disappointed. In contrast, no one thinks Duahon – who has only averaged 6.9 points per game in his career – is a star. Consequently, few people (primarily just a few people who read The Wages of Wins Journal), think Duhon is anywhere near average or that his addition will make much difference. In fact, many people might think Duhon makes this team worse. So when the team loses with Duhon, no one will be disappointed.
Looking for Results in New York
But will the Knicks keep losing in 2008-09? To answer this question, let’s look at what exactly happened last year.
Last year the Knicks only won 23 games. The team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of -6.9 was the worst mark in franchise history (at least history since 1973-74, the first year we can measure this differential).
Table One: The New York Knicks in 2007-08
When we look at the team’s players in 2006-07 – reported in Table One — we see the Knicks were not supposed to be quite this bad. Had the team’s players maintained what they did two years ago, this team should have expected to win about 35 games. Unfortunately, Quentin Richardson got hurt and that injury lowered his productivity by nearly six wins. And David Lee – who was amazing in 2006-07 – was merely very, very good in 2007-08. The remaining players on the roster, given what they did in 2006-07, were expected to produce 11.2 wins last year. When we look at what they actually did in 2007-08, though, we only see 10.2 victories. Yes, that’s about the same.
Despite the poor performance of most of the Knicks last season, Walsh and D’Antoni are choosing to bring back most of these players. To the extent there is a plan, it appears to center on the abilities of Coach D’Antoni. Over the last four seasons the Knicks have averaged 28 victories per year. Across this time period, D’Antoni’s Phoenix Suns averaged 58 victories.
When we look at these Phoenix teams, though, we see that 81% of the team’s wins can be tied to the productivity of just three players: Shawn Marion (74.2 Wins Produced), Steve Nash (70.9 Wins Produced), and Amare Stoudemire (43.3 Wins Produced). And none of these players -as of yet – are joining D’Antoni in New York.
Now one might suspect that D’Antoni is the reason why these three were so productive. And therefore D’Antoni will be able to transform existing players in New York into what he had in Phoenix. Certainly Nash did play better under D’Antoni (although does anyone see Duhon becoming another Nash?). Marion, though, was essentially the same player with and without D’Antoni. In Marion’s first five seasons he generated 86.1 Wins Produced and posted a 0.299 WP48. In the four years under D’Antoni, Marion produced 74.2 wins with a 0.303 WP48. Yes it’s possible that coaches can alter player performance. But in the case of the leading wins producer on the Suns, it doesn’t look like D’Antoni made much difference.
Nevertheless, the coaching of D’Antoni appears to be the plan in New York. And although some might expect this to make a difference, I am skeptical. Given what these players did in the past in New York, it’s hard to see these players becoming winners in 2008-09 (regardless of the coach). This won’t be a problem, though, if no one expects a winner. And with the additions of Gallinari, Duhon, and Ewing Jr., I can’t see why anyone would have such an expectation.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
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 
amazon
September 4, 2008
comparing gallinari to bargnani is a pretty lame comparison. the two have completely different body types. the only reason they are considered similiar is because they are both tall europeans who are supposed to be able to shoot the three. gallinari is much more of a traditional “3” though, unlike bargnani who is more of a PF or C and does not have the movement of a traditional wing player. relying on Eric Doerr’s analysis on this is not the wisest move. I am not saying anything about Gallinari’s success, I am just saying I would not call Eric Doerr an expert on this matter
HL Menken
September 4, 2008
“traded Renaldo Balkman – one of the few above average players on the team in 2007-08”
Any system that even hints that a Balkman could be productive as a Gallinari has some fundamental flaws as a system. All I had to do is see one half of a summer league game to know that Gallinari will be a decent player in this league, and that Balkman has regressed as a player since he first came up.
Evan
September 5, 2008
We judge comparisons based on productivity, not “body types.”
Tball
September 5, 2008
If the Euro comparison is undesirable and/or you need a wing player comparison, we could probably say that Gallinari has a similar game to Adam Morrison. Too caucasian? Todd Day?
The point isn’t who he is being compared to, the point is he is not expected to do well, not unlike other players who projected better than they can perform.
Tom Mandel
September 5, 2008
Mr. Mencken — how great that it only takes you a mere matter of minutes and you know who is good and who is not so good. That’s really a great gift. Congratulations.
As DJ (and Erich Doerr by extension) have often said: numbers are not the total picture of a player; all they are is the best tool we have to examine (and to some degree to predict) their productivity. What they tell us about Balkman — which, by the way I can also see by watching him do the things that lie behind the numbers — is that he is an above average NBA player.
Tom Mandel
September 5, 2008
Actually, Dave’s writing was a little sloppy — Erich did not compare Gallinari to Bargnani, he only noted that their productivity numbers in Europe were close to the same. Doesn’t mean they have a similar game — though perhaps it indicates that their net productivity will be similar.
A contra-indicator might be that Bargnani’s productivity has *dropped* in the transition from Europe to the NBA, and this doesn’t always happen (or at least not so precipitously). Hence, similar numbers in Europe may not lead to similar numbers in the Association.
Makhtar Ndiaye
September 5, 2008
Thoughts on the proposed Zach Randolph to Memphis for Jaric and Darko trade, Mr. Berri?
Jeffrey Siegel
September 5, 2008
Maybe I’m missing a key point here. Since the aging Marbury has been a significantly below-average player the last two seasons, why isn’t the acquisition of Duhon the case of replacing a clearly below-average player with a (roughly) average one? And why should that not be looked at a reason for (some small) optimism? Why would you believe Marbury’s career average is more predictive for 2008-09 than his last two years? Also viz Gallinari, did Erich predict Barnani would be a unproductive player BEFORE he came into the League, based on his Euro exploits? Is the negativity towards Gallinari based upon this one comparable? Is that wise? Actually, if the answer to the “negativity” question is “yes”, then the 2nd question becomes rhetorical.
John G
September 5, 2008
No, they’re not using one comparable. They are very likely to have identified Bargnani as a bust before the draft, although I don’t know for sure.
Jim Glass
September 5, 2008
The Knicks also plainly are clearing cap space, to make room to be able to maneuver to improve in the future.
This objective should be considered when evaluating their moves. (Without doing this, there’s no way they can significantly improve in W-L)
In the this light, the finish of the anticipated “Duhon for Marbury” could be considered a considerable upgrade, and their other moves can look better too.
Quality isn’t just what you get — it’s what you get for how much you pay.
workingsforsuckers
September 5, 2008
In regards to people have high expectations for a team with Starbury at the point, I believe the general NBA watching public has stopped thinking of him as any kind of star at this point.
Harris
September 6, 2008
Firstly, Marbury hardly played last year. So you are comparing having no point guard to having an average point guard. There’s no reason they wouldn’t be as good as two years ago, if not a bit better due to having an actual coach. I read that D’Antoni rarely uses his deep bench, which would be good news for the Knicks. My analysis for http://www.nbagauntlet.com shows that the Knicks bench, with Mardy Collins, Jared Jeffries, and others was among the worst, and significantly hurt the team. Also, Quention Richardson was atrocious. That should not repeat itself. Wilson Chandler is expected to improve.
John W. Davis
September 9, 2008
Please Knicks. Save yourself. Don’t have any expectations. I didn’t.
-Isiah “Zeke” Thomas
Italian Stallion
September 17, 2008
Is there any way you can do an analysis of Wilson Chandler’s WIN contribution based on the last month or so of his play because it seemed like he was improving rapidly?