People tend to think economics is just about stocks, bonds, and money. Certainly these are topics that many economists find interesting (I don’t know these economists, but I have heard stories). The broader subject of economics, though, is about resource allocation. From the perspective of this broader view we see economists look at such topics as the economics of happiness, crime, and marriage. Of course such topics are important. But not quite as important as the impact Stephon Marbury will have on the Boston Celtics efforts to repeat as NBA champions.
The Starbury Consensus
The consensus on this move appears to be as follows:
- Marbury is a very good player. In fact, Paul Pierce said his talent is “undeniable.”
- Marbury does not help a team’s “chemistry.” In other words, his lack of talent as a teammate is also difficult to deny.
Measuring “talent” and “chemistry” is quite difficult. What we can do is think about this move in terms of resource allocation.
The primary resource players wish to consume is minutes and shots. As is often noted, rewards in basketball (i.e. salaries, awards, etc…) are driven by scoring. And players can’t score if they don’t get minutes and shot attempts.
Although scoring leads to more money and attention for players, coaches are rewarded by wins. Therefore coaches should allocate minutes and shot attempts so that the chance of victory is maximized.
Resource Allocation at the Point
With this focus in mind, let’s look at what Marbury brings to the Celtics. Starbury is a point guard, so therefore his minutes will come at the expense of Rajon Rondo and/or Eddie House. Here is how these players compare with respect to WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]:
Rajon Rondo in 2008-09: 0.356
Eddie House in 2008-09: 0.157
Stephon Marbury in 2007-08: 0.036
Stephon Marbury in 2006-07: 0.070
Stephon Marbury Career: 0.105
Average WP48 is 0.100. So Rondo amazing (in fact, he is the most productive Celtic), House is above average, and in recent years Marbury is below average. Such numbers tell us that Boston is not helped by a re-allocation of minutes towards Starbury. When we look at the individual statistics we can see why.
Table One: Comparing Rondo, House, and Marbury
The individual stats tell us why Rondo is so productive. He excels with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, and assists. House is not quite as productive, but because he’s a very efficient scorer and avoids turnovers, House is also above average.
And then there is Starbury. As I have noted in the past (see Starbury Loses His Star and The Wages of Wins is Factorial), Marbury might be “talented” but his productivity is not exceptional. For his career he is below average with respect to rebounds, steals, and turnovers (the net possession factors). He is above average with respect to taking shots, but for his career he is a slightly inefficient scorer.
In addition, when Marbury joins the Celtics he will be the oldest point guard on the roster. In other words, not only has Marbury done less than House and Rondo recently, his age – and performance in recent seasons – suggests he’s getting worse.
In sum, even if Marbury becomes a model citizen, re-allocating minutes to Marbury will not help the Celtics win more games.
The Bigger Picture
Marbury will take his minutes from Rondo and House. But he can take shot attempts from the rest of the team. And as we saw with minutes, such a re-allocation probably won’t help either.
Last year the Celtics won 66 games with 68.3 Wins Produced. Of these wins, 59.4 came from Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, Kendrick Perkins, Paul Pierce, House, and Rondo. As Table Two notes, this year these six players are on pace to produce 66.3 wins. In sum, it is these six that are driving this team’s success.
Table Two: The Boston Celtics after 59 games in 2008-09
Of course some people may not wish to focus on Wins Produced. The conventional wisdom is that scorers are good. And Marbury is definitely a scorer. But for him to score, he must take shots from someone else on the team (assuming the team’s pace is not going to change).
When we look at the Boston-Six we see that all of these players are more efficient scorers than Marbury. So even if you think scoring is all that matters in basketball, shifting shots from the most productive Celtic to Starbury is not going to help Boston win more games.
So even if Marbury is now a model citizen, the resource allocation story suggests this is not a good move. No, it doesn’t mean the Celtics can’t repeat. Starbury, though, makes this task a bit harder. And I’m afraid that conclusion – in the immortal words of Marbury — is simply factorial.
– 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 
PJ
February 26, 2009
One problem with this analysis, I think: Marbury will also likely take minutes from Tony Allen — who is currently injured but had been putting up a .029 WP48 in almost 20 mpg this season — and Gabe Pruitt, who has put up a .066 WP48 in almost 9 minutes per game.
There’s plenty of minutes to take from those two players, and they’re both bad.
PJ
February 26, 2009
And just to clarify: He’ll take minutes from Allen by playing PG with House sliding over to the two, which is his natural position (as a spot-up shooter with only so-so ballhandling skills). Pruitt has been playing PG.
Kevin
February 26, 2009
Great article. I would love to see an evaluation of Rondo and the big 3 in Boston. I have been making the argument that because of Rondo’s productivity, that Boston has gradually become a big 4, not just a big 3, and Rondo’s contributions are of relatively equal importance and relevance to Boston success.
Phil
February 27, 2009
PJ, great point. Also, Tony Allen is injured, so his minutes are definitely available.
Phil
February 27, 2009
One more thing, regarding scoring efficiency: some players, Stephon Marbury being one of them, are valued because they can create their own shot. Others, Kendrick Perkins and Eddie House being two examples, are critisized because they need others to create their shot for them.
While no one would deny that Perkins and House are more efficient scorers than Marbury, there are some people that would argue that Mabury can create his own shot, that he is, situationally, a better scorer.
This is something of a moot point with the Celtics, however, which have several players that can create their own shot, and all more efficiently than Marbury.
Tom Mandel
February 27, 2009
If Marbury takes his minutes from Allen and Pruitt, and is more productive than they, then the Celtics can afford to give him a few of Rondo and House’s minutes w/o losing overall productivity.
The result of that would be fresher legs for Rondo and (especially) House (who is a bit older), and this might be helpful in the playoffs.
That said, Dave’s analysis is certainly correct, and Stephon Marbury is not and never has been as good a player as many people think.
Peter
February 27, 2009
Another thing: The guy hasn’t played in a real NBA game in over a year.
The Celtics are signing a free agent who has produced 0 wins this season with a 0.000 WP48, who could potentially have some rust during the season.
If Starbury was below average when he was playing regularly, is there any reason to believe that he will come even the slightest bit close to that form when he was in exile?
Well, the C’s don’t have a lot to lose by paying him the league minimum. If he misbehaves, the buyout is much cheaper than in New York. Besides, in the minds of the media, having a warm body at backup guard is better than nobody at all.
And Starbury doesn’t have a lot to gain by foregoing the contract; his locker room antics and the economy reduce his market – a lot.
In the end, it’s the old college try for Boston. Weather it will work is anybody’s guess.
Robert
February 27, 2009
I agree w. Tom here, you completely miss the fact he will be taking minutes from Pruitt and Tony Allen rather than Rondo or House. So this move is actually a positive.
dberri
February 27, 2009
Quick comment…
Is there a rule that says Eddie House only gets to play 17 minutes a night? If we look at the past six games when Allen was hurt, Pruitt did play. And yes, he is not a good player. House’s minutes, though, did not change. If Boston felt House could play shooting guard (as is proposed), they could have just shifted House to shooting guard over the last six games and avoided playing Pruitt. They have not done this. This suggests that Marbury will come in and take House’s minutes at the point.
But even if this is not the case, you are missing the last part of the column. Marbury is going to shoot. Given his level of efficiency, his shooting is going to come at the expense of other more efficient shooters. So it is hard to see how this is a positive move.
PJ
February 27, 2009
Thanks for the comment, Dave. I agree on Marbury’s inefficiency as a shooter, and I do fear this won’t help the team — but I think it depends on what Doc does, at least in part. Yes, Marbury is an inefficient shooter, but Boston’s second unit has itself been inefficient, I believe (don’t know the numbers, so I’m just going by what I’ve seen), and this should allow Doc to fiddle with his lineups in more nuanced ways than your post suggests. Eddie has gotten more time this year away from the ball, I think: he’s played at least 88 minutes with Pruitt (judging by 82games.com), plus another 24 at least with Rondo, and when he’s in there with Ray Allen (200+ minutes), Ray sometimes handles the ball.
But you raise a good point about House’s minutes — and Pruitt’s. Of the last six games, I only saw the tilt with the Suns, which wasn’t close, so I don’t have a strong sense of what’s going on. But it’s possible Doc and the front office have been trying to see what Pruitt could offer, and they might decide, with Marbury aboard, that that experiment is over. We’ll see, anyway.
Italian Stallion
February 27, 2009
I think the end result is going to depend on whose minutes he gets and whether being low man on the totem pole causes him to adjust his shot selection a little and become a more efficient scorer and player. If not, he’s going to get yanked from the court and become irrelevant.
Tball
February 27, 2009
Thanks Dave.
I think the only real value Marbury brings to the Celtics is the ability to bring the ball up the court quickly against an extended D. There were times last season, particularly against the Pistons, where House’s ball handling was a significant liability for the offense.
It seems the only positions where the Celtics have good depth for the regular season is at PG with Rondo/House and at PF with KG/Powe, and those are the two positions that Ainge beefed up. It would have been nice to find a wing player to give depth to Ray/Pierce. I also would have liked to have seen O’Bryant get more of an opportunity to play when Perkins was out this season. He was the only shot-blocker coming off the bench and seemed to be a good rebounder.
Hopefully KG comes back from his knee injury bearing a closer resemblence to last season’s KG.
Tball
February 27, 2009
For filing under ‘for what its worth’:
82games has put together numbers for player splits according to time spent with each other teammate on the court. If that explanation doesn’t do it justice, you can look here and figure it out: http://www.82games.com/0809/0809BOSP.HTM
Any way, if you look at last season and this season, the team defensive efficiency when Rondo is on the court is excellent. And its very good when Rondo is on the court with every teammate except Tony Allen, House, and O’Bryant (now in Toronto). That could be a fluke due to small sample size, but the same issue arose last season (another small sample size). In short, I don’t think the Celtics like Rondo and House sharing the court for defensive reasons. I can’t imagine House/Marbury or Marbury/Rondo will fare any better.
brgulker
February 27, 2009
I think everyone here is overestimating how many minutes Marbury will play in Boston. I would be absolutely shocked if he plays more than 10-15 minutes per game against mediocre/poor competition.
And I won’t be at all surprised if he doesn’t play at all against good/elite competition.
Moreover, I don’t think you’ll see much of him at all until he’s had a few practice sessions, including 5-v-5 competition.
In other words, I think Boston is completely prepared to give Stephon a shot, and if it doesn’t work, he’ll ride the pine, and this analysis (although very good) will be a moot point.
Peter
February 27, 2009
Dave, the big problem with House is that, on any given game, he can run the entire gamut.
In 2009 alone, he has scored as many as 28 and as few as 0 points in different games.
Celtic management may decide that Marbury will provide a stabilizing influence on the court when Rondo isn’t around.
Another dilemma is that House’s biggest strength is also his greatest weakness.
Ed is a shooter. Trying to get others involved to a bigger extent is not his style of play. However, at 6-1 and 175, he’s very small for the shooting guard spot.
But Pruitt has not developed into a physical Chauncey Billups or Rodney Stuckey-type that his 6-4 frame would suggest. And his effiency (38.1% adjusted) is downright atrocious.
Boston may very well feel that, in taking House’s minutes at point, Marbury is the most practical solution. And with their lack of depth in the backcourt and their rash of injuries, they’ll take any help they can get.
PJ
February 27, 2009
So, Pruitt was suspended for two games by the Celtics on account of his DUI. With Tony Allen injured, Marbury will by necessity take the minutes that were going to those players — at least for his first two games. (As a Celtics fan, I hope that sets a pattern that Doc sticks to even after Tony Allen and Pruitt return.)
And, sure enough, in his first game with the team, House played 20 minutes, Rondo played 35, and Marbury played about 13, I think. Also, he went 4-6 from the field for 8 points to go with 1 rebound, 2 assists, 1 steal, and 3 turnovers (and so-so defense, to my eyes, though I didn’t see all his minutes). When he was on the court to start the fourth quarter, the Celtics extended their lead to double digits (before the starters came back in and nearly gave it all back). Here’s hoping that was a taste of things to come.
Michael
February 28, 2009
I think sometimes Marbury gets a bad rap. For instance when people talk about teams getting better after he leaves, he was replaced once by Jason Kidd (who the Suns would never have traded if he hadn’t beat up his wife) and then by Steve Nash (who was about to become 2 time mvp.) With those guys coming in after him it’s no suprise the teams improved.
The New York situation is more complicated, I think a lot of people were at fault on all sides, and a lot of what Marbury has said about feeling betrayed etc is justified. With his advancing age and the toxic situation in new york over the last few years it is no suprise his wins produced numbers suffered.
I personally think Marbury has generally been a good (not great) player throughout his career and I hope he succeeds with the Celtics so he can put some of this criticism behind him.
Shek
February 28, 2009
What an irony – Marbury’s ilkid from http://www.databasebasketball.com/ is “MARBUST01.”
jontookem
February 28, 2009
Starbury only needs 15 minutes. That’s all the Celts need out of him… or, they have an actual back up in case something happens to Rondo. We have 2 real point guards on the team now. Thank goodness.
http://nbawithoutcable.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/welcome-starbury/
Westy
February 28, 2009
I agree with the Italian Stallion and suspect that in minutes played when it matters his shot selection will improve and efficiency go up.
Italian Stallion
February 28, 2009
Westy,
IMO, the efficiency/scoring tradeoff doesn’t get enough discussion.
There are obviously loads of players around the NBA that could improve their efficiency if they reduced their shots and increased the overall quality. You can argue that some players are selfish etc… but in many cases they shoot so much because that’s their role on the team. They are more or less the least bad alternative a lot of the time.
I’m not sure how Marbury is going to play in Boston, but they don’t need him to shoot or score a lot because there’s already so much talent on that team. I can’t see why he can’t improve his efficiency unless he’s a total knucklehead. LOL
dberri
February 28, 2009
IS and Westy,
The link between efficiency and attempts has been very much over-stated in some quarters. We will be discussing this in our next book. Quick preview: We looked at an immense amount of data and… okay, the link has really been over-stated.
Mike G
February 28, 2009
I predict Marbury will average > than 0.120 in 16 mpg
Marbury will outperform Cassell’s numbers from last year in the same role
Pruitt’s season is over
Michael
February 28, 2009
Professor since your active on this thread you might find this article interesting.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090227
“Detroit fans all point to the early-season trade of Chauncey Billups for Allen Iverson, and certainly that had a major, major impact. Iverson isn’t Billups’ equal on either end of the floor”
Hollinger’s analysis basically agrees with your assessment on the Detroit situation (even if per would historically show the opposite.)
Italian Stallion
March 1, 2009
dberri,
All IMHO…..
In aggreagte, I don’t doubt the link is overrated.
1. Some high scoring low efficiency players never adjust their play in order to maximize their value to the team because they are selfish or not very smart players etc….
2. Some are NEVER asked to adjust their play because every team needs a couple of high usage scorers.
3. Some low usage high efficiency players have the talent and skill to take more shots and maintain a high efficiency but are on a team loaded with other talented scorers.
However, IMO, as is often the case with statistical studies, what is true in aggregate is not always true if you take the analysis down to a more detailed or individual player level.
IMO, there are numerous players out there right now that are low usuage high efficiency players whose stats would be altered significantly if the coach called upon them to score an extra 7-10 points per night because the “go to” guys were hurt.
On the flip side, no one is ever going to ask Kobe Bryant to only score 10-15 points a night at a much higher eFG% in order to concentrate on assists, rebounding, defense, and other role play etc… because it would hurt the team.
I think the key point is shot quality.
Each player has a level of skill that enables him to get “X” shots that are of reasonably high quality “for him”. The more skill, the more high quality shots he can get and the more he should be used. The problem is that no team can get all high quality shots. Someone has to put up some mediocre and even poor shots from time to time. The guys that are called upon to do that tend to score more, but have lower efficiencies than they would have if they were just trying to maximize their eFG% etc…
I think the trick is to identify guys that have the talent and skill to up their usage and continue to score as efficiently (or close) and those that could easily be much more efficient if their role was reduced a little because they are smart and willing.
In any event, I look forward to seeing your work to gain new insights.
ilikeflowers
March 1, 2009
IS, that sounds like a lot of conventional wisdom. Do you have any evidence?
Peter
March 1, 2009
Before we get into the heart of the discussion, it’s worth getting to the root of exactly why a lot of high-volume scorers are overrated, at least from a Win Score standpoint.
In basketball, you get wins by scoring more points than the other team. It doesn’t matter if you are doing all of the other things that are considered “productive”, i.e. outrebounding the opponent, getting a lot of assists etc., if the team doesn’t get the most points at the end. The non-scoring stats, in the end, contribute to the end goal, which is more points.
Players who score a lot, therefore, are naturally perceived as contributing more towards winning. However, role players are usually not looked at as favorably because their contributions toward more points are usually overlooked. Usually, the media, as well as the casual fan, gets so hyped up about the results (points) that they ignore the processes that lead to the results.
Win Scores are designed to help correct this problem by deliberately valuing non-scoring contributions more than other metrics to help provide a picture of which players are working more efficiently and contributing more and which players aren’t.
Italian Stallion
March 1, 2009
ilikeflowers,
Evidence is sometimes a problem in statistics.
If I were to find examples, it would easy to suggest I was cherry picking.
I think the unfortunate reality is that sometimes it’s difficult to prove or isolate some things statisticly because of the complexity and we are forced to use some common sense.
Does anyone on earth really doubt that if salary structure was based on eFG% that some of our greatest players would suddenly start scoring less and have much higher eFG%s? (of course in some instances their team would be worse off because those extra shots would wind up with worse players)
Italian Stallion
March 1, 2009
Peter,
IMO, the public tends to overrate scorers because it doesn’t focus enough attention on the efficiency of the scoring, not because it doesn’t also notice rebounds, assists, blocked shots, turnovers etc…
On the flip, IMO focusing too much attention on efficiency misses the fact that some players score more because of their specific skill set relative to other players on the team. They are more or less forced to take more low probability shots.
Also, it’s not easy to seperate those that could easily become more efficient with a reduced scoring role from those who would remain just as inefficient with a reduced role because they are foolish, selfish etc…
The problem from a team’s perspective is that unless you have a few super talented players (like the Celtics), somebody is going to have to some shots they probably shouldn’t be taking.
I have suggested that Marbury could increase his efficiency on the Celtics because unlike his past teams, he doesn’t have to take a lot of shots on this one. He can be more selective. It’s loaded with talent and other scoring possibilities. However, if he’s a knucklehead, he’ll continue taking too many stupid ones and some people will say there is no relationship between usage and efficiency when the reason is a personality/intelligence flaw.
axim
March 1, 2009
I think Marbury will be a great test to see about efficiency. He is going from being the star of his team who takes tons of shots to now a back-up role player, who most times is a fourth option at best. If he cant improve his efficiency now, he never will
Golden Graham
March 1, 2009
“IS and Westy,
The link between efficiency and attempts has been very much over-stated in some quarters. We will be discussing this in our next book. Quick preview: We looked at an immense amount of data and… okay, the link has really been over-stated.”
Does the data factor in the coaching decisions to let certain players get more time or does it simply arrive at the conclusion that most players are uniformly efficient, minutes be damned?
I thought you had actually concluded that more minutes = greater production. When people said this was due to coaches selecting players capable of producing at a high level for more minutes, you disagreed. I hope you can elaborate in more detail.
Golden Graham
March 1, 2009
“IS, that sounds like a lot of conventional wisdom. Do you have any evidence?”
A guy like Andris Biedrins, who has no jumpshot, can’t shoot free throws, and has a very rudimentary post game, would have to rely on more jumpshots, double teams, and one-on-one play to boost his point production. If he had to resort to less efficient ways of scoring, his efficiency would drop.
A guy like Jason Kapono, who has an amazing jumpshot but no athleticism, will be very efficient when given open looks, if you make him the number one option, his scoring efficiency will plummet, because guarding him is as simple as having one man shadow him since he has no lift on his shot, he can’t drive past you, and he has no post game.
This would seem like common sense, but apparently not. Many players are limited in such a way that forcing them to take more shots would result in them taking ones outside of their comfort zone.
Peter
March 1, 2009
But IS, efficiency is only part of the equation.
In the end, people tend to notice the output, rather than the efficiency. Plus, it’s tough for a fan to mentally keep track of how many shots a player makes and misses.
And as far as scoring is concerned, usually, NBA defenses try to focus, not necessarily on limiting a top player’s output, but trying to compromise the quality of the shots he takes.
For example, in the 2007 NBA Finals, the San Antonio Spurs swept the series against the Cleveland Cavaliers largely because they turned LeBron James into a mid-range jump shooter. By and large, the tactic worked, as he averaged 22 points on 35.6% field goal shooting for the series.
Also, during a lot of the Pistons-Bulls playoff series of the late 80’s and early 90’s, Chuck Daly’s “Jordan Rules” double and triple-teamed Mike. To their credit, they were able to take advantage of his tendency to shoot the ball a ton in many of the early series.
However, focus too much attention on one guy, and the player could potentially take advantage of the lack of attention on a complementary star.
Part of this dynamic relates to the allowance of zone defenses in the NBA several seasons ago. In earlier years, dominant centers like Shaquille O’Neal and Tim Duncan, who were their team’s top scorers and their most efficient shooters, usually matched up against one defender before they got the ball.
But when the NBA allowed the zone, those guys could be double-teamed before they got the ball. As a result, we have seen a tendency toward a lot of stars being guards and perimeter-oriented forwards, i.e. LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudemire etc.
Naturally, a superstar’s shooting efficiency will suffer because his shots get contested more, and also because taking a high volume of shots wears on the body.
But if high-efficiency scorers get the ball more, they get more defensive attention over time. It’s a very delicate balance.
Ideally, a team’s star is also very efficient, see Shaq and Duncan. However, in the long run, it’s always preferable to idealize the quality of shots rather than the quantity whenever possible.
ilikeflowers
March 1, 2009
IS, I wasn’t looking for anything in-depth. But you have to start somewhere. Does anyone have a single example backed up by numbers? It doesn’t serve as proof of course, but if a single positive example can’t be provided then the assertion is extremely likely to be false.
GG, do you have any data to support your common sense notions? There has been some evidence to the contrary presented on this forum. Do you have anything other than some hypothetical statements that you claim to be self-evident?
JoeM
March 1, 2009
Guards/SFs are typically dumped the ball when time is expiring and thus the position adjustment catches many of the complaints I see here. I have no statistical proof that they are dumped the ball more. Just kinda figured.
The next issue becomes whether or not higher usage players are dumped the ball at a higher rate than other players. I think that Josh Powell would rather dump the ball to Kobe than Derek Fisher.
That doesn’t mean much though because Kobe is a higher usage player ignoring this “dumping” stuff. We can reasonably estimate Kobe shoots 2X more than Fisher when on the court. So the real question would then become… does Kobe get dumped the ball more than twice as much as Fisher late in the clock, becuase Kobe’s FG total is twice as much and common 6th grade math…
Anyway, that is immediately what went through my mind after reading the entry/comments.
When is the book due out?
Jason E
March 1, 2009
The “stuck with the ball at the end of the shot clock” argument has dreadfully little statistical support for it. This year, 10% of the Lakers’ shots are in the last 3 seconds of the shot clock. Kobe in particular shoots 11% of his shots in the last 3 of a shot clock. That difference is pretty minimal. 15% of Fisher’s attempts come in the final three.
As a function of how often they shoot, a larger percentage of Fisher’s shots occur as the clock is running down.
Golden Graham
March 2, 2009
ilikeflowers – 83% of Biedrins’ shots are close to the basket and he makes 65% of them. A mere 16% of his shots are from the mid-range, and he makes a pathetic 15% of them. If it were possible for Biedrins to shoot 50 layups a game, I’m sure he would – but it’s not. If you turn him into a high scoring player, he will be forced to rely on the mid-range game more often because that’s what the defense will be giving him. And because of his reliance on the mid-range game, his efficiency will drop.
Jason Kapono was an extremely effective spot up jumpshooter in Miami where he had two potent stars – Wade and O’Neal – to play off of. The defense would be drawn to those guys, giving him open looks. As a result, he shot nearly 50% from the field and over 50% from behind the 3 point line. He also averaged a career high in 3 point attempts and shot attempts.
Compare that to his seasons in Toronto. Without a dominating interior presence and without a ball-handler who can suck the defense away from the perimeter, Kapono is forced to create his own shots and take contested jumpshots. The change of scenery has highlighted his weaknesses as an offensive player, and the weakness in the argument of those who think field goal percentage is independent of all other variables.
He is taking few 3 point shots. He is shooting worse from under the basket, from the mid-range, and from behind the arc. His lack of athleticism, poor ball handling skills, and lack of creativity have been exposed.
Sure, it’d be nice if you could take a guy who shoots 60% in 5 minutes of play and turn him into a guy who shoots 60% on 30 ppg in 40 minutes — but unless the skillset is there, it isn’t going to happen.
http://www.82games.com/0809/FGSORT12.HTM
Peter
March 2, 2009
“On the flip side, no one is ever going to ask Kobe Bryant to only score 10-15 points a night at a much higher eFG% in order to concentrate on assists, rebounding, defense, and other role play etc… because it would hurt the team.”
You’re right, IS. Bryant is averaging 21.5 shot attempts per game on the season. Not to mention, the Lakers are 48-12 and have the best record in the Western Conference.
However, in those 12 losses, he is averaging 27.3 shot attempts per game. In wins, that average drops all the way down to 20 per. While he may not want 10-15 points, Jackson may very well ask Kobe to take fewer shots.
And Bryant’s adjusted field goal percentage (50.4%) is a career-high. In the latter part of his career, he has focused less on volume and more on value. As a result, the Lakers have found their mojo for the first time since Shaq left.
Italian Stallion
March 2, 2009
Peter,
I agree. IMO, it’s pretty clear that Bryant takes some bad shots even when the situation doesn’t call for it. I think he could do a better job of maximizing his efficiency/scoring tradoff. To me, that kind of thing falls into the category of selfish, foolish etc…
What I have simply argued is that there’s a tradeoff between efficiency and scoring.
ilikeflowers
March 2, 2009
GG, that’s good info on Kapono for Biedrins it’s just speculation – his team can always just try to get him more shot attempts close to the basket and see what happens (perhaps they already do this perhaps not).
On another note, who around here thinks that ‘field goal percentage is independent of all other variables’? I think that the general point on this site is that if a player is a low volume efficient scorer relative to other teammates then the coach should try to get that player more shot attempts, perhaps run more plays that have them as a primary or secondary option or just play them more (all of this assuming that they’re also good overall). And as always strategic concerns aren’t really addressed by the box score. Just because ws is fairly consistent across a player’s teams doesn’t mean that there isn’t wiggle room for strategy to move a player’s performance up or down some.
Peter
March 2, 2009
I don’t know, IS. For every rule, there is an exception.
Shaquille O’Neal has averaged approximately 25 points per game in his career off of a 58.1% career/adjusted field goal percentage (This discussion temporarily suspends the issue of his foul shooting.) Part of the problem isn’t just efficiency or output, it’s also position.
Shaq got a lot of those makes by being bigger and stronger than most of his competition. On the other hand, Gabe Pruitt has taken fewer than three shots per game in his career, but averages just 38.6% adjusted, even with the Big Three diverting a lot of attention.
One isn’t always dependent on the other. A player might not take a glut of shots, but have the sheer awareness to know where to be on the court in order to take those shots. Larry Bird (24.3/51.4%) was arguably better at this than anyone else in his day. He wasn’t the biggest, fastest, strongest, or jumped the highest. But he was one of the smartest.
And Reggie Miller (18.2/54.4%) had outstanding efficiency at the guard spot largely because he was the best perimeter shooter of his day.
Invariably, when you take more shots, more will be of a poor quality than when you take fewer. But just because a player takes more shots doesn’t mean that the overall quality will suffer. The goals aren’t mutually exclusive.
MODI
March 2, 2009
First of all, I am a big fan of this site, and Dave’s work. While never an “end all”, this kind of data is extremely important to bring a baseline to discussions.
As a huge Knick fan, I have watched 90% of all Knick games during marbury’s tenure and would like to fill in some of the blanks that stats just can’t catch. In this post, Marbury’s win production is used from his last two years as a measuring stick. Unfortunately, this is a flawed standard because marbury was so terribly misused and miscoached the last three years, and I have just written about this at length.
http://sportsonmymind.com/2009/03/02/the-incredible-mismanagement-of-stephon-marbury/
Dave, in “Starbury Loses his Star” you write:
“The one outlier was 2004-05, where Marbury posted a 0.208 WP48 and produced 14.19 wins. How did this happen? …the key was a sudden – yet not sustained – increase in shooting efficiency. By increasing his points-per-shot to 1.011, Marbury was able to increase his WP by nearly eight… Unfortunately, Marbury was not able to sustain what he did in 2004-05.”
Well, WHY was Marbury so much more efficient that year (and the previous half-year on the Knicks). Well, I would contend that that year and a half was first and only time in his career that he was used remotely correctly (see Lenny Wilkens). Larry Brown and Isiah Thomas then essentially stripped him of all his assets in a way that would be like taking the pick and roll away from John Stockton.
Marbury’s “penetrate-and-dish” game in style is quite similar to that of Kevin Johnson who achieved perennial success with the Suns. Unlike KJ, marbury was never given complementary players to suit his strengths. IMHO, it is a tragedy of wasted talent, and a commentary on how “pure point guard” bias by coaches and media can kill a career.
Joe
March 2, 2009
Jason E,
That is pretty much what I thought. Thanks for the info.
Funny that Starbury very well may have already cost this team a win. 0-3 from the field, 2 turnovers, 4 fouls aren’t going to help his win score. Those 2 TOs led directly to 4 or 5 points for the opponent.
MODI
March 2, 2009
for what it is worth when Marbs came in the 2nd half the team was down by 7, when he left the game for good they were up by 3.
He was one of only two Celtics with a positive point differential (+6). Of course, there are many circumstantial forces here at work, but it is hard to fault Marbury.
As he gets his legs, timing, acquaintance with new teammates, expect turnovers but he should be okay by April.
Mark T
March 3, 2009
A slightly unrelated link for you Dave.
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/columnists/20090303_John_Smallwood__With_Pistons__aging_Iverson_has_become_shell_of_former_dynamic_self.html
Artice says maybe Iverson has something to do after all with the subperformance of the teams he has been on the past 5 years.
Italian Stallion
March 3, 2009
“Invariably, when you take more shots, more will be of a poor quality than when you take fewer. But just because a player takes more shots doesn’t mean that the overall quality will suffer. The goals aren’t mutually exclusive.”
I agree with this. In one of my prior notes I suggested that quality was related to skill etc…
Antonio Tatum
March 8, 2009
“Quick preview: We looked at an immense amount of data and… okay, the link has really been over-stated.”
That’s all well and good, but which dataset did you use? You can’t look at a subset of all players, because a lot of times usage goes up for a specific reason – a mismatch, a hot hand, development of a player’s skills, etc. – that don’t really let you keep everything constant. I my mind, the only way to shed any light on the subject would be to look at only cases in which a player’s usage went up out of necessity. It could be because someone left via free agency, or an injury, whatever, but only when you find instances where a player had to take a bigger role for reasons completely unrelated to his own skillset and/or that of his opponent(s). In other words, find times when a player stepped outside his comfort zone, not ones where he developed a new, different comfort zone.