Thoughts this week have turned to the NCAA tournament. At least – thanks to Erich Doerr – that has been the case in this forum.
For most people – including President Barack Obama – the tournament is watched with one eye on the TV and one eye on their brackets. While the teams battle for a title, everyone else is battling for the all-important bragging rights (and hopefully Erich’s analysis has helped on that quest).
For many NBA fans, though, the focus is a bit different. The NCAA tournament provides an opportunity to see a wide variety of players — who might someday contribute in the NBA – compete against top college talent. So for NBA fans one eye is on the game, one eye is on the brackets, and one eye is dreaming about how such and such talent will impact their NBA team’s fortunes for years to come (did I just give NBA fans three eyes?).
As all of our eyes watch these future prospects, I wanted to take a look back on a time when at least some prospects were evaluated without the benefit of watching the player.
Drafting Russell
This story was originally told in “Let Me Tell You a Story: A Lifetime in the Game” by John Feinstein and Red Auerbach (a great book that I highly recommend).
Auerbach became the head coach of the Celtics in 1950. Actually Red was not just the head coach, he was also – as his book describes – “general manager, chief scout, and marketing guru”. For the first six years with Auerbach calling the shots the Celtics were consistently good, but never able to advance past the Eastern Division Finals.
Then in 1956 Auerbach got a call from his Bill Reinhart, his old college coach. Reinhart had just visited the West Coast and seen a player from the University of San Francisco named Bill Russell. When Reinhart returned from California he called Auerbach and said: “I’ve seen this guy who can make you into a championship team. You have to get this guy.” Reinhart went on to discuss the defensive skills of Russell. He also added that Russell didn’t have much of an offensive game. But Auerbach – as his book notes – needed a center who could rebound. Yes, rebounding is kind of important and the Wisdom of Red Auerbach — as detailed previously — minimized the importance of scoring.
Feinstein and Auerbach noted that teams in the 1950s didn’t have a scouting department. Often Auerbach simply relied on his friends for advice. And consequently, without ever seeing Russell play, Auerbach did the following to acquire the center from the University of San Francisco.
- The Celtics had the 7th pick in the draft. This pick was sent to the St. Louis Hawks, along with Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan, for the 2nd pick.
- The Rochester Royals had the first pick. Auerbach had the owner of the Celtics (Walter Brown) call the owner of the Royals (Les Harrison) with the following deal: Brown — as president of the Ice Capades — would send the show to Rochester for one week if the Royals didn’t take Russell. Harrison agreed and the rest is history.
Any fan of the NBA draft today can’t help but be amused by the story Feinstein and Auerbach tell about the acquisition of Russell. It’s unlikely that any team can acquire Blake Griffin (not that Griffin is going to be as good as Russell) for a draft pick, two players, and one week of the Ice-Capades. And one would also expect that any team drafting Griffin would have at least seen him play before the draft. The world was obviously a bit different in 1956.
Auerbach and the 1977 Draft
It would be great to look back at those drafts from the 1950s and see how well Auerbach chose relative to his peers. Unfortunately we don’t have complete NBA data back to 1956. The data needed to calculate Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] was not available until the 1977-78 season. Consequently, the first draft we can look at via Wins Produced is the draft that took place in 1977.
To understand the 1977 draft one has to look back at the 1976 NCAA tournament. That year the Indiana Hoosiers took the championship after completing an undefeated season. The Most Outstanding Player in that tournament was Kent Benson. After Benson graduated from Indiana in 1977 he was taken with the number one pick in the NBA draft by the Milwaukee Bucks.
This selection repeated a strategy Milwaukee followed eight years earlier. In 1969 the Bucks also had the number one pick and selected an outstanding college center named Lew Alcindor. Alcindor – better known as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar – led the Bucks to the NBA title in 1971. The results with respect to Benson, though, were not quite the same. Benson lasted less than three seasons in Milwaukee before being traded to the Pistons for Bob Lanier. Benson did manage to surpass the 0.100 WP48 mark (this is average) in four seasons in Detroit [1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-83, and 1985-86] but his career average was only 0.071. In sum, Benson was not exactly a stellar number one choice.
So who would have been a better choice? If NBA teams in 1977 could predict the future exactly, and Career Wins Produced was their metric of choice (two big ifs), then the first round in 1977 would have played out as detailed in Table One.
Table One: Revisiting the First Round of the 1977 Draft
The first choice would have been Jack Sikma, the center from Illinois Wesleyan who the Seattle Super Sonics took with the eight pick. After Sikma we see the Bucks actually redeemed themselves somewhat with Marques Johnson (when went third in the draft).
After these two players we see a player selected by Red Auerbach. The Boston Celtics won the NBA title in 1976. And in 1977 the team finished with a winning record. Consequently the Celtics only had the 12th pick in the 77 draft. With this pick, though, they selected a forward out of UNC-Charlotte named Cedric Maxwell. When we look at Wins Produced we see that Maxwell produced 88.6 wins across his career. This surpassed the career marks of Otis Birdsong (selected 2nd), Walter Davis (selected 5th), and Bernard King (7th). Each of these players were
- taken before Maxwell
- averaged at least 20 points per game in a season at least four times
- appeared in at least four All-Star games
- and never played on a team that won a title.
In contrast, Maxwell – who was selected lower, scored less, and never appeared in an All-Star game – produced more wins and played on two NBA title teams. In sum, Maxwell was the type of role player celebrated by the Wisdom of Red Auerbach. Of course one does have to ask, did Auerbach actually see Maxwell play before he was drafted?
– 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 
TK
March 19, 2009
The link to Table One is broken.
dberri
March 19, 2009
Oops!! Fixed now. Thanks.
mrparker
March 20, 2009
Nothing like a little red auerbach to strengthen an argument that doesn’t need any strengthening. Good read as always
Michael
March 20, 2009
Hi Prof Berri……
How about a post on Shaq Vs Kareem?
Given his recent resurgence and it seems valid.
You could even include Mutombo and make it about the best players over 35?
Seems like it could be interesting!
Peter
March 20, 2009
I think an even more fascinating story would have been the 1980 NBA draft, when Auerbach traded the top pick (Joe Barry Carroll) to the Warriors in exchange for Kevin McHale (the third pick) and Robert Parish.
Across his career, Carroll produced an estimated 26.9 wins with a .057 WP48 as a center. As a power forward, McHale produced 136.9 wins wins an estimated .218 WP48. He was also an integral part of the Celtics three NBA title teams.
Jason E
March 20, 2009
There is no need to bring up just how poorly Warrior management has been over the years. Fleecing fools is rarely fascinating.
Tom Mandel
March 20, 2009
I lived in SF back then and was a Warriors fan. Also in the trade was a mid-round pick, who turned out to be Ricky Brown (if I’m remembering the name right). I believe he had asthma.
The Warriors coach and GM was Al Attles, and Red fleeced him more than once (traded him Jo Jo White who was at that point nearly in a wheel chair). Al drafted a guy a couple of years later in about the 6th position in the draft who didn’t make it through 2 seasons, maybe not 1, in the league.
Italian Stallion
March 20, 2009
I believe it’s very likely that some of the other systems out there overrate inefficient scorers because credit is given to ” high volume shooters” even if their eFG% is BELOW average.
However, there does seem to be some dependency on scorers to win.
If a team has a whole bunch of high efficiency, low usage, non creative, role players like Maxwell, it’s not going to be a very good team despite all those supposed Wins Produced he earned as part of the Celtics.
From time to time someone has to be able to create their own shot, take a tough shot, score despite tough defense and put up 20+ almost every night etc…
I am uncertain that any of the stats guys have mastered the interelationship between the need for scoring/scorers and the desireability of efficient scoring at the “individual player” level.
A lower scoring guy like Maxwell can be extremely valuable as Wins Produced suggests, but only if there are other members of the team picking up the scoring slack (and perhaps either being overrated or underated for their efforts depending on the model being used).
JoeM
March 20, 2009
IS,
I think the problem here is how you think the “slack” is picked up. Players who are below average scorers who shoot a lot aren’t picking up any scoring slack. They are just shooting a lot… they are scoring some points too. At the end of the day, they are sucking at their “role” of scoring and they are hurting their team a lot.
You seem to want to say that players who are in the role of “scorer” should be given a break if they suck at it because they are filling such a “hard role.” Why? Rebounding is hard. I wouldn’t just give a center a pass for trying to rebound and failing.
I tend to want to reward players who are doing the things that win. And WP has done this with box score statistics.
Jason
March 20, 2009
“If a team has a whole bunch of high efficiency, low usage, non creative, role players like Maxwell, it’s not going to be a very good team despite all those supposed Wins Produced he earned as part of the Celtics.”
How do you know this to be true? Are there any such examples? Or is it merely speculation along the lines that “if they shot more, they’d be less efficient?”
Michael
March 21, 2009
Jason,
“I would argue that a team has to have both “scorers” and “role players” to be successful”
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/
“Scorers tend to produce the majority of wins in the NBA”
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/07/23/scorers-and-role-players-in-the-nba/
I swear these boards go round and round in circles sometimes.
Italian Stallion
March 21, 2009
Joe,
I think there are efficient scorers, self centered inefficient scorers, and scorers that would/could probably raise their shot selection standards and efficiency on a different team.
Since most teams aren’t loaded with efficient scorers (like say Boston), somebody usually fills the scoring gap.
If it’s a self centered idiot, he’d probably be an idiot on any team. I’m not concerned with players like that. But if it’s an intelligent player, he would/could adjust his game to the circumstances. Those guys are also role players.
I think many if not most ofthe low usage non-scoring players don’t have the talent and skill to step into the scoring role and that is especially significant when comparing them to the intelligent players that could easily adjust on other teams.
Jason,
I can’t prove it statistically, but let me suggest that if you could put together a successful team with all these low scoring low usuage players, some brilliant coach at some level of basketball would have already figured it out by now despite the fact that common sense suggests it would be a hopeless cause.
Italian Stallion
March 21, 2009
Think about this way.
If I was an owner and gave just my two leading scorers incentives that would promote a much higher eFG% and TS% would I actually produce a better team?
I would argue that as long as those two guys were actually the best shooters and shot creators on the team the answer would typically be NO (as long as they are reasonably intelligent players to begin with).
What I think would happen is those scoring stars would refuse to take some of the shots they currently take because of the new incentives.
As a result, a worse alternative would wind up taking those shots and sometimes an even worse shot (because they aren’t good creators).
The idea is to get the best possible shot, but sometimes the best shot is not a very good one. It’s someone’s role to take it because they are the least bad alternative.
mrparker
March 21, 2009
The argument is about who is most valuable to teams. It has been shown that teams who consistently value efficiency over “scoring” tend to be more successful. I don’t think it has ever been suggested that a gm select a team of 11 cedric maxwells. It has however been suggested that cedric maxwell was a superior choice to the other available alternatives.
Why does this always have to degenerate into an argument that was never presented?
Michael
March 21, 2009
“If I was an owner and gave just my two leading scorers incentives that would promote a much higher eFG% and TS% would I actually produce a better team?
I would argue that as long as those two guys were actually the best shooters and shot creators on the team the answer would typically be NO (as long as they are reasonably intelligent players to begin with).
What I think would happen is those scoring stars would refuse to take some of the shots they currently take because of the new incentives.”
Stallion, I believe that there was an article at freedarko which I think offers the same basic argument as you do here. I think the crux of the matter comes down to the reason why scoring has become so highly rewarded in basketball. On the one side is the WOW argument that this is due to a failure of understanding as to what produces wins in the nba, and on the other is the freedarko argument in which scoring is an uncertain variable and therefore difficult to price effectively. It also states that scorers must be highly compensated to justify the risk involved in focusing on production in this area.
As you ,mention here, the outcome of implementing a ‘wins produced’ based salary structure would result in even the most efficient scorers underproducing in favour of less risky endeavours such as trying to grab a rebound.
Whether or not that would be a bad thing is I think still up for debate.
Anon
March 21, 2009
How do these arguments take into account situations like when Lebron shoots a 30 foot 3 pointer with 20 seconds left on the shot clock because he’s “feeling it.”
Also, why would any team need more than one low efficiency scorer. Like if we buy the argument that there is a large amount of bad shots that SOMEONE has to take, and the lower percentage of makes on these shots is why scorers don’t score efficiently, wouldn’t it make sense to have one guy who takes every terrible shot and then aim to have everyone else be a solid roleplayer? Would this be the “2001 sixers” model?
Mark
March 22, 2009
Erich,
Are the pomeroy rankings strength of schedule adjusted or just point differentials?
Caleb
March 23, 2009
Everyone knows that a team full of Joakim Noahs or someone along those lines would never even get close to a championship. Nor would a team of Ben Wallaces or whatever… all you need is common sense to know that, not stats.
Caleb
March 23, 2009
But true dat, Mr Parker, true dat.
Jason
March 23, 2009
“Everyone knows that a team full of Joakim Noahs or someone along those lines would never even get close to a championship. Nor would a team of Ben Wallaces or whatever… all you need is common sense to know that, not stats.”
And with this, we have another entry into the long list of strawmen arguments proposed.
Caleb
March 25, 2009
@Jason… uh, its not a strawman argument because its not an argument at all. I was simply replying to an idea that someone else had brought up, not offering a criticism of wins produced.
Fact is… I dig Berri’s work… I dig it a lot.
Jason E
March 25, 2009
Sorry, I’ve seen that sort of thing posted as an argument for why wins produced is bunk for quite some time. It’s a pretty common response in the threads that goes something like “we all know that 5 Rodmans couldn’t win it all, therefore the whole thing is trash”. Didn’t realize that you weren’t suggesting the same.
Caleb
March 25, 2009
Yeah I hear ya.