One of the very first papers I ever published was “Trading Players in the National Basketball Association: For Better or Worse?” Co-authored with Stacey Brook, it appeared in Sports Economics: Current Research (edited by John Fizel and Larry Hadley) in 1999. Stacey and I wrote this paper early in our careers (I was a graduate student and he was a young professor) and looking back, one can tell. As is often the case, graduate students and young professors (and of course undergraduates) are not the best researchers in economics and the social sciences (and we can frequently see evidence of this observation on-line). This is because research isn’t just about playing with spreadsheets. Like much in life, research requires experience. And back in 1997 – when this paper was originally written (and yes, it often takes two years to get your work published) — Stacey and I were short on experience.
Today both Stacey and I have done a bit more. Between the two of us, we have more than 40 publications (and an excellent book). So it’s possible that we could go back today and revisit the subject of our first publication in the field of sports economics. Certainly I think, given our skill sets today, we could write a better paper. Unfortunately, basketball has changed some since the 1990s and our visions of a better paper might be hard to realize.
In our paper we looked at the outcome of NBA trades. The focus of these trades – again, back in the 1990s – was the specific players involved. Today, though, often the focus appears to be less about players and more about cap space. And with this new focus, it is increasingly difficult for researchers to evaluate whether or not a specific trade made sense.
The Billups Trade As It Was
To illustrate, consider the recent trade of Chauncey Billups for Allen Iverson. As I noted when this trade was made, trading Billups for Iverson is not a good move for the Pistons. Billups has consistently been more productive than Iverson. To see how much “more productive”, let’s look at some numbers.
Last year the Pistons won 59 games with 60.6 Wins Produced. As Table One notes, given the performance of its current roster last year, the Pistons should expect a Wins Produced of 49.6 when the 2008-09 season ends. In sum, the team has lost about 11 wins from last year. And almost the entire decline is due to the fact Billups is more productive than Iverson.
Table One: The Detroit Pistons in 2008-09 after 54 games
This year Iverson and Billups have played 1,938 minutes for the Pistons (this is after 54 games, or after Sunday’s embarrassing loss to Cleveland). In 2007-08, Chauncey Billups posted a 0.304 WP48. Had Billups played those 1,938 minutes – and posted a 0.304 WP48 – he would have produced 12.3 wins after 54 games this season. Across an 82 game season, this production would be worth 18.6 wins.
Now let’s look at Iverson. Last year Iverson posted a 0.134 WP48. Across 1,938 minutes that level of production is worth 5.4 wins. Or across 82 games, that’s 8.2 Wins Produced. A bit of simple subtraction reveals the difference between Billups and Iverson – across the entire 2008-09 season — is 10.4 Wins Produced. In sum, virtually all of the difference between what the Pistons did last year and what the team should have expected this year is tied to the trade.
Of course the Pistons are not on pace to win 49 or 50 games this year. After Sunday’s devastating loss to the Cavaliers, the Pistons have fallen back to the 0.500 mark (and after tonight’s loss to the Heat, the mark is now below 0.500). And with a negative efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) the team is actually on pace to win less than 41 games.
If we look back at Table One we can assign responsibility for this outcome as well. And again, part of the answer is Iverson. As noted, Iverson posted a 0.134 WP48 last season. This year he is only posting a 0.070 mark. Consequently his expected Wins Produced is 3.7 off what we would expect given what he did last season.
We should note that Pistons are also getting less from Richard Hamilton and Amir Johnson. But fourteen of Detroit’s lost wins in 2008-09 can be tied to the Answer. And that means Iverson is the indeed the primary reason the Pistons have slipped.
The Billups Trade As It Is Imagined
The team — and many observers of this team — has trouble with the Iverson answer. The latest story – from Antonio McDyess – is that the Pistons are suffering from a lack of leadership.
For a different take, we turn to Reggie Miller. During the television broadcast of the Pistons loss to the San Antonio Spurs on Friday, Miller argued that Piston’s supporting cast (the cast supporting Iverson) is not good enough. He even argued that Chauncey Billups has a better supporting cast in Denver. Miller was not dissuaded from this argument even when Marv Albert noted that Denver lost Marcus Camby this past summer. Consequently, it seems likely – as Albert noted — that the supporting cast Chauncey has in Denver in 2008-09 is less capable than the cast Iverson had in Denver in 2007-08. Again, Albert’s observation failed to persuade Miller.
This leads us to wonder, how could Miller offer such a story? The problem Miller has – and other observers of the Pistons share – is that he “knows” Iverson is one of the all-time great players. Given this belief, Miller has to find another explanation. And even if that explanation makes little sense, it’s preferable to admitting that Iverson is not the answer.
The Billups Trade As It Can Be
One person who does seem to get the story of this trade “as it was” is Joe Dumars. Thanks to Iverson’s expiring contract, the Pistons will be well below the NBA’s salary cap this summer. Dumars was asked if he plans on spending this money in 2009, or if he is going to wait for the much anticipated free agent market in 2010.
“Given the fact we have to play a season next year, I think I need to use that money,” Dumars said of the expected $20 million or more the Pistons are expected to have available under the NBA salary cap.
“If we weren’t going to play next year I probably wouldn’t do anything with it, but I think we’re going to tip it off next year so I’m going to try and put a (good) team on the floor.”
Dumars said options will be plenty in the summer, and that could mean a trade or trades. He laughed when asked if he might wait for the much-ballyhooed free-agent class of 2010.
“You can’t wait,” he said. “You can’t sit here and two years down the road hope we get somebody. You have no idea what could happen. We’re not going to shut down. We’re going to keep going.”
Here is how I read this statement from Dumars:
1. The Pistons – as currently constructed – are not good enough.
2. Although some believe Iverson is Detroit’s best player (Marv Albert claimed he was definitely a first-ballot Hall-of-Fame player), Dumars did not indicate that re-signing Iverson was in his plans.
3. Assuming point #2 is true, ultimately Dumars has traded Billups for whoever he can get in the free agent market – and/or via trade – next summer. In sum, we shouldn’t look at this trade as it was, or as it is imagined. We must look at what this trade can be.
So let’s do some imagining. When we look over the 2009 free agent market, one player stands out (from a Wins Produced perspective).
Carlos Boozer entered the league in 2002-03. Through the 2007-08 season Boozer posted a 0.262 WP48. To put this in perspective, Billups came to the Pistons in 2002-03 and across the next six seasons he posted a 0.238 WP48. Boozer is also five years younger than Billups. Yes, he might ultimately be more expensive. And yes, Boozer might not be healthy (and as people in Utah suspect, he might have an attitude problem). But if the Pistons had traded Billups for Boozer at the start of the season (and Boozer stayed healthy), this would have looked like a much better trade than the trade for Iverson.
Again, Boozer does have some problems. So it’s possible the Pistons will look elsewhere. The elsewhere list includes Trevor Ariza (unrestricted free agent), David Lee (restricted free agent), and Josh Childress (restricted free agent). And if these players are not available, the Pistons – as Dumars suggests – do have options in the trade market.
In sum, Dumars has some options to turn what looks like a bad trade into a very good transaction. So evaluating this trade – at this point – is quite difficult.
Dumars Hypothetical State of the Pistons Speech
Let me close by noting that as I write this, President Barack Obama is explaining his plans to resolve our current economic problems. One can imagine Dumars making a similar speech to fans of the Pistons. Such a speech might be as follows:
“As we look at the Pistons fall below the 0.500 mark tonight, it has become obvious to all fans of the Pistons that our team is not what it was last year or in recent seasons. The days of title contention have clearly passed.
As I come here tonight I acknowledge that the trade for Iverson was not the Answer we advertized. I say that not to pass blame, or to focus on the past, but to make clear that I understand where we are today. And with a complete understanding of the current state of the team, I want to assure fans of the Pistons that I do indeed have a plan to bring this team back to heights we have come to expect.
This plan begins with the money we have available to spend this summer. I come here tonight to make it clear that it is indeed my full intention to spend our money to restore the Pistons to the title contenders we demand and deserve.
Yes, I know I have claimed to have “the Answer” before. And yes, I understand the skepticism. Yes, I get it. But I assure each and every fan of our team, we do have a plan to turn today’s losses into tomorrow victories. And I can assure fans of the Pistons that tomorrow is not far away.”
Now some will read this speech and note
a. I clearly need to avoid watching political speeches as I write.
b. Dumars may not believe Iverson is the problem. Dumars might be passing on Iverson strictly because he is old. So Dumars might not “get it.”
Regardless of what we believe about Dumars, I do believe that the Pistons will emerge stronger from the 2008-09 disaster than they were before (okay, I really need to stop listening to these speeches).
– 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 
workingsforsuckers
February 25, 2009
A current paper on the value of trades might be tougher, but if done with a model for the expected value (in wins) of a free agent dollar, it could be pretty interesting.
Peter
February 25, 2009
A big part of Joe-D’s assessment involves, if nothing else, the sheer uncertainty of the 2009-10 season.
If he waits to dip into the free agent class, that puts the Iverson-less Pistons at risk of entering the lottery. And historically, Dumars has not drafted well in the lottery.
Also, if he does not get the free agency process right in 2010, it could screw up a potentially great trade.
This is likely Dumar’s thought process entering the offseason.
Interesting subplot: Grant Hill, one of Dumar’s old teammates, is one of the free agents available. However, his return to Detroit would not be a very happy one.
Mike G
February 25, 2009
You should track a new variable. Perception gap.
Big name but less than 1.0 wpg.
These players are thought of as problems, but in a way, they are an asset, like an expiring contract.
Examples:
Richard Jefferson, Kenyon Martin.
Ie, you can get rid of him and get value, because the Reggie Millers of the world are attracted to the name.
Iverson is probably the top of the perception gap list.
*Your next post: Rockets dump Skip To My Lou to promote above average Aaron
Tball
February 25, 2009
Dumars promised big changes after last season as well, but the changes did not occur until the season was underway. I have a bad feeling Dumars may not get the players he wants at the dollars he wants and, as a result, may resign Iverson to a one year deal and wait it out for the big free agent class.
John Galt
February 25, 2009
I have no idea why Hussein the foreign national sitting illegally as POTUS was mentioned in an otherwise interesting article
Dr. Taitz is reporting that Major General Carroll D. Childers P.E. [Professional Engineer] (Retired) and Major James R. Cannon (USMC, Retired) have both agreed to become Plaintiffs in her upcoming case requesting that the President furnish his vital documentation.
The other Plaintiffs involved with this upcoming lawsuit include the following:
* New Hampshire (1 State Rep)
* Tennessee (4 State Reps)
* Oklahoma (unverified 1 State Rep)
* Missouri (1 State Rep)
* Army:
o 1st Lt. Scott Easterling
o Col. Harry Riley, NSA (Retired)
Here are both of the Consent forms along with Major General Childers’ letter, below:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=4066
Daniel
February 25, 2009
It seems to me the biggest problem is a faulty perception of Stuckey. Billups was let go because there was a strong sentiment that Stuckey was just as good and much cheaper. In reality, the only upgrade the Pistons could have made at point guard (wins/$) is trading for Chris Paul, Calderon, or Rondo. Or waiting for them to opt out and throw money at them (which can’t happen for quite some time)– unfortunately the only PG who produces more wins than Billups just got torched by Tony Parker for 37, 12, and 5 and looks happy to retire in Dallas.
Tball
February 25, 2009
It is amazing as well that a team will have change one player out of the 8 man rotation, and then blame an 18 game drop in the standings on things like chemistry, leadership, the bench, or coaching.
Rob O'Malley
February 25, 2009
John Galt, really? It would probably be more appropriate to keep your comments to Youtube conspiracy videos, this is a statistics blog. Anyways…
I think an interesting thing that could have been noted on in this post would have been Reggie Millers production. Like how Kenny Smith and Chris Webbers production coincided with their opinion on whether or not good players on bad teams could be all stars. I think mentioning the production of Miller might have been interesting if it were the same perspective.
Italian Stallion
February 25, 2009
I agree that Iverson is the major reason the Pistons are doing so poorly, but I am less certain that it can all be traced to some intrinsic difference between Iverson and Billups.
Iverson has had a few years with fairly impressive adjusted +/- stats. That suggests to me that some of the positive attributes that his biggest fans point to were not captured by the boxscore and that he’s actually better that portrayed here (even if not as good as some in the media think).
This year, no matter how you slice he has been terrible.
However, playing terrible this year is totally unrelated to his ability relative to Billups in an average year. Clearly Iverson has just stunk out the joint this year for whatever resason and I think that’s the real issue to be discussed. Why has his game deteriorated so much on the stats favored here, but even more so on some other measurements?
Anon
February 25, 2009
I’d guess it’s because he’s shooting the same crappy percentage but taking fewer shots, although I haven’t actually checked.
Iverson was so fun to watch when he was on philly though, I don’t care if he was actually bad.
Andrew
February 26, 2009
I’d like to see Iverson coming off the bench. He’s never been a great half-court player, and the Pistons are a consummate half-court team. Maybe the Pistons could go to a system in which their second unit is some combination of Iverson, Jason Maxiell, and Amir Johnson, with two of the regular starters (Prince and Hamilton seem like the better bets, since they both have length and can stretch the court).
That way, they’d have plenty of legs to go small and run with Iverson. Maxiell isn’t getting enough minutes as it is, and Johnson could use to play in a system in which he is allowed to use his athleticism more.
Iverson is a declining player, but he put up the best rate stats of his career last year. He’s got something left in the tank, but he thrives in an open system, and the Pistons currently don’t have anything of the sort. Having Iverson play with some of his more athletic teammates could open the court up and allow him the freedom he needs to be more productive.
Hell, it can’t hurt them. They’ve got a killer schedule, and could fall out of the playoffs if they take a few bad losses.
Michael Penn
February 26, 2009
Iverson nearly 34 years old and barely 6 feet tall in sneakers. He’s a small guy who relies on quickness who got old. Maybe he never was as good as people thought but I think he should be cut a break at this point of his career rather than continuing to serve as the poster boy for the wage of wins premise.
I don’t think it’s Iverson’s fault that people think he was great. (Unless you want to blame him for all those spectacular games he had back in the day.)
Peter
February 26, 2009
What Iverson lacked in efficiency, he more than made up for in output. A.I. leads the draft class of 1996 in scoring – which includes Kobe Bryant.
Also, during his younger days, he was notorious for being able to get to the free throw stripe almost on command.
Given that scoring is highly valued, Iverson was rewarded accordingly (or, to some, undeservingly) with a fat contract.
However, in the minds of many, his unorthodox behavior and the lack of team success, even in spite of a Finals appearance, will always be strikes against him. It doesn’t help that the Pistons, the NBA team that the media sees as lacking in individual superstars, have lost 8 in a row.
Jocko
March 8, 2009
When looking at CB and AI, you have to look at eFG and TS%. In both cases, CB is the superior player. AI has just about the lowest eFG% on the Pistons and he takes the most shots for them. That is a recipe for poor offense, which is exactly what their problem is this year. They have become much less efficient. And other players on the team thrive when he’s out because they no longer get terrible passes to them when AI runs into a dead end and the shot clock is running out.
John W. Davis
March 18, 2009
I dont know how I missed this but yes… Chauncey was way better and is way better than Iverson. Hopefully a post player like Bosh or Boozer comes to fruition from this Chauncey trade.
This 2009 Playoff run is a toss up.