This past week we have seen Cleveland acquire Shaq and Orlando acquire Vince Carter. We have heard that Amare Stoudemire might be going to Golden State and Yao Ming might be done for awhile (if not forever). And on top of all this we had the NBA draft.
All of this news gives me plenty of topics to discuss. But despite this abundance I want to choose an item off the menu. About a week ago, Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo! Sports reported that the Celtics were shopping Rajon Rondo. And the potential trading partner was the Detroit Pistons. Here was the specific proposal:
The Celtics send Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen to the Detroit Pistons for Tayshaun Prince, Richard Hamilton, and Rodney Stuckey.
Let’s look at this proposal in term of each player’s Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] from last season:
Rajon Rondo: 18.3 Wins Produced, 0.332 WP48
Ray Allen: 9.8 Wins Produced, 0.163 WP48
Tayshaun Prince: 7.3 Wins Produced, 0.114 WP48
Rodney Stuckey: 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.077 WP48
Richard Hamilton: 1.9 Wins Produced, 0.040 WP48
So the Celtics were offering two players who produced 28.1 wins for three players who combined for 13. 2 Wins Produced. Of course Ray Allen – who turns 34 in July – is ancient by NBA standards. But Stuckey is only two months younger than Rondo. So Rondo is not only the most productive player in this proposed trade, he is nearly the youngest.
Despite what we can see about productivity and age, though, it was the Pistons – according to Wojnarowski – who rejected this proposal. Here is what Wojnarowski said a week ago:
For the Pistons, this deal makes little sense, unless they wanted to let Allen’s expiring deal gain even more salary cap space for the free-agent class of 2010. The idea of trading his three best returners for an expiring contract and one good young player wasn’t worth considering for Dumars, sources said.
So Wojnarowski argues – and apparently the Pistons agree – that this deal makes little sense for Detroit. In fact, it wasn’t worth considering. Let’s try and understand this reasoning by focusing on points scored per 48 minutes
Rajon Rondo: 17.3
Ray Allen: 23.9
Tayshaun Prince: 18.3
Rodney Stuckey: 20.2
Richard Hamilton: 25.8
When we focus on scoring, the worst player in this transaction is Rondo. Given this lack of scoring, it’s hard for some to see Rondo as anything more than just a “good” player who might have some maturity issues. In fact, such was the recent argument of Tony Massarotti of the Boston Globe. Massarotti argued that Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are the key players on the Celtics and Boston could win another title without Rondo.
To be fair to Massarotti, if the Celtics find someone as productive as Rondo, what he says is true. But here is the list of point guards who produced more wins than Rondo last year:
Chris Paul: 29.4 Wins Produced, 0.471 WP48
Jason Kidd: 21.0 Wins Produced, 0.349 WP48
Yes, that’s the list. And Kidd is now 68 years old. After Rondo we see the following five names on the Wins Produced ranking of point guards in 2008-09:
Jose Calderon: 12. 4 Wins Produced, 0.255 WP48
Andre Miller: 12.2 Wins Produced, 0.197 WP48
Steve Nash: 12.0 Wins Produced, 0.232 WP48
Deron Williams: 11.9 Win Produced, 0.228 WP48
Chauncey Billups: 11.2 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48
As one can see, after Rondo there is quite a drop-off. And despite this drop-off, the Celtics appear to be casually throwing his name out there in the trade market.
Of course, players are not evaluated in terms of Wins Produced in the NBA. When we look at player evaluations (from the draft, voting for the All-Rookie team, free agent market, and assignment of minutes played), scoring dominates the story. And Rondo is not a scorer.
Unfortunately for Boston fans (but apparently not fortunately for fans of Detroit), the over-valuation of scoring by talent evaluators in the NBA might end up costing the Celtics their most productive player from last season. And despite the arguments of Massaroti, if Rondo is allowed to depart Boston can probably look forward to a longer wait for their next NBA title.
– 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 
DSM
June 29, 2009
Good article… I thought the rejection of that trade by Detroit shouldn’t have been so resounding. Rondo is perhaps the current poster-child for the mis-evaluation of NBA talent.
Is there anywhere you have your wins produced data online? It would be very nice to have access to the data….
Robert
June 29, 2009
I actually think it was more of an Ainge-ploy to lower Rondo’s expected value, and put himself in a position of leverage when meting out his contract extension. (He has said repeatedly Rondo will NOT get a max deal)
I doubt Danny actually wanted to deal Rondo, but who knows…
Peter
June 29, 2009
Even from the perspective that scoring is overvalued, there would still be ramifications from the Rondo trade.
Consider what would have been the key contributions if the deal went through:
Tayshaun Prince, 29 years old
Rip Hamilton, 31 years old
Kevin Garnett, 33 years old
Paul Pierce, 32 years old
When three of your four top players are over 30 years old and the fourth is agonizingly close to getting their, your window is going to be pretty darn small.
Stuckey’s A/TO ratio is a ways away from Rondo’s last season, and between Stephon Marbury, Gabe Pruitt, and Tony Allen, the backup ballhandler pickings look pretty slim for Boston.
On the other hand, the Pistons would have had to break in an radically revamped lineup from last season, with three starters traded in the deal, and a fourth, Rasheed Wallace, having a massive contract coming off the books. So I can see why Dumars would have some reason to hesitate on a deal.
Nevertheless, the Pistons would have had a promising young star in Rondo, an aging but still dangerous vet in Allen, and not to mention, $20m of cap space to spare with a deep class coming up. In any case, that’s a good deal for Detroit.
kevin
June 29, 2009
Wait wait wait. Andre Miller is the 5th best PG in terms of wins produced? Does your formula not consider defensive prowess (or lack thereof) AT ALL? I’d bet $100 you could score on Miller 4 out of 10 times down the court – and I have never even seen you play. Hell, I think Stephen Hawking could slip past him.
As a Sixers fan and Philly resident, I’ve been happy to actually have a floor general out there who looks for his teammastes… but they guy is freaking abysmal on the defensive side of things.
DSM
June 29, 2009
@ Kevin
It considers steals, rebounds, and blocks, but that’s about it. That’s about all we have in terms of defensive stats, other than the notoriously noisy adjusted +/- stats.
In other words, we have relatively little in terms of defensive stats for backcourt players available at all.
anonymouse
June 29, 2009
Good point Kevin/DSM…Rondo is probably a great defender but it could explain why Dumars was so hesistant in pulling this deal, all 3 of those guys have great defensive reputations
Russell Barksdale
June 30, 2009
I don’t like the tone of these articles. Until the WOW guys can come up with a calculation for defense, they need to write with some humility. Prince is considered by many who “watch the games” to be an outstanding defender. That should count for something. Defense is 50% of the game.
Furthermore, who you play with has an effect on your WP48. Allen, Garnett, and Peirce’s FG%s have all benefited from playing with each other. Look at their stats, all three of them have had some of their highest FG% (which factors into the WP48) since they started playing together. However, WOWs ignores that when making their loud and bold statements about how stupid GMs are and how everything we know about the NBA is wrong.
I wish WOW would make more predictions and chart their success against the predictions of the traditional commentators who base their systems on the often criticized (at least on these boards) methods of “watching the games”. I don’t think WOW would do any better.
The WOW formula is good for selling books, but I don’t see much use for it beyond that.
When grading in D-Wades performance, the Heat look at the shots that he takes that he wouldn’t normally take if he had a better supporting cast. Not only WOW devotees, but the writer himself flame people who bring up the fact that the best offensive players have to take shots that they wouldn’t take if they are the best player on the team. I think there is a lot of hubris involved when casual basketball fans presume they have a better understanding of the game than Pat Riley, who has taken three different teams to the NBA’s finals.
Please don’t respond with “you haven’t read the book” or some asinine link to a code that premptively dismisses relevant criticism. Why would I spend time and money on a book when its writer can’t offer a valid rebuttal to obvious criticism of his work posted on a website that he created?
DJ, until you can quantify defense (it is a pretty important part of the game), you should lay off the constant Dumars criticism.
Sam
June 30, 2009
@Russel,
Why is defense 50% percent of the game, and
how do you define(quantify) defense.
“I wish WOW would make more predictions and chart their success against the predictions of the traditional commentators who base their systems on the often criticized (at least on these boards) methods of “watching the games”. I don’t think WOW would do any better.”
You obviously haven’t read that many posts on this blog.
The WoW people came out with the best game theory that I know of.
And that’s what it is a theory and based on the theory a lot of predictions were made and most of them turned out to be pretty close to what actually happened.
I haven’t seen a lot of game’s in a while, as to understanding the game and predicting outcomes watching this blog helped me more than watching game’s.
greetings from Europe.
Johnny Y.
June 30, 2009
The funny thing is, out of they 5 players in that trade, the best defender is RONDO and by a huge margin. Granted, there aren’t very many good defensive measurements, but if i take a look at say, DCS, which combines a few of the popular defensive metrics available, rondo still wins by a huge margin. Hell, these metrics show that prince is only about average, and that hamilton is a terrible defender.
http://www.82games.com/nichols1.htm
Granted, these stats are a couple years old, but if anything, rondo has improved since then, and hamilton / prince have declined.
So in short, dumars is an idiot and deserves to be criticized. I do agree, that Defense should have a larger impact in the WoW method, but atm, i think all the current defensive measurements are a bit too noisy to be reliable.
Jay
June 30, 2009
Although there is apparantly no interest from the Hawks in shopping Joe Johnson, if the Celtics were interested in such a trade with the Pistons, what do you think of a trade with the Hawks – Rondo, Ray Allen and possibly a pick, for JJ and Maurice Evans?
I think that it would be a win-win for both organisations (if the Celtics are indeed open to trading Rondo).
The Hawks may be a playoff team, but they are not good enough to challenge as for the title as they are currently made up, and JJ will never the man to lead them to the promised land, so I think that major moves need to be considered.
Rondo is a young but legit elite point guard who will spread shots around (especially important now that Crawford is in the fold), push the pace, improve the team rebounding and defend the wings. Meanwhile Allen is another legit scoring threat in the short term maintaining the Hawks position in the playoff picture.
Alternatively, Allen could be used as a trade chip to go to another contender if that’s what he preferred, leaving cap space for the Hawks to acquire another legitimate all star if not this year, then next. Obviously Bibby would not be resigned with this trade happening, leaving plenty of money on the table to resign Murray & Williams for team depth.
Positive for the Celtics is that although JJ is not a true point guard, he is a good ball handler, young enough to provide a long term upgrade over Ray Allen, but also an all star in the present who provides another major scoring threat. Evans would be used to balance the books and provide additional depth to the Celtics, that they lost with the departure of Posey. The only issue remaining that the Celtics do not have a feature pg following the trade, although JJ could handle these duties on occassions…
Am I being unrealistic in proposing this trade in any way?
Zach K (formerly just Zach until a second Zach started commenting)
June 30, 2009
First of all, can someone who knows Ainge’s email address, please send him this article. If the Celtics trade Rondo, I will never forgive them.
Second, it’s time to repost jbrett’s suggestion from the May archives:
It seems to me your blog could benefit from posting, at the beginning of each Comments section, a list of time-saving conventions for the new or unindustrious poster. I only found it a few months ago; I spent a long time reading the older articles, and eventually I bought the book. This seemed the sensible approach, though, judging from the tone of many of the comments left, not the favored one. For the benefit of the many posters who consider this site homework-optional, I submit the following list of generic positions that NEED NOT EVER BE ELABORATED UPON EVEN ONE MORE TIME:
A. I have little or no training in statistics (me, for one)
B. Obviously, any metric that says Player A (let’s say, oh, Jermaine O’Neal) is not as good as Player B (how about, um, David Lee) is clearly flawed
C. Anyone who’s ever watched a game can see that Superstar A (Allen Iverson, anyone?) is ten times the player that Serviceable Role Player B (Chauncey Billups, maybe–or how about Andre Miller?) will ever be
D. Superstar A and his ilk cannot be quantified in the same way as mortal players can; they only shoot 42 percent from the field and 28 percent from 3-point range because their teammates DEMAND they do so, by leaving them with the tough shots at the end of the 24-second clock
(See how much space that one will save, when all you have to type is ‘D’?)
E. My friend/ brother-in-law’s boss/ opinionated alter-ego hasn’t read or studied your work, but I told him the results say Mike Miller is way better the Richard Jefferson OR Rip Hamilton, and he says you’re clearly deluded
F. I haven’t read THE WAGES OF WINS, nor am I likely to, and as a result I will begin by gainsaying basic tenets of the book
G. I read your book, and I say “Nunh-unh.”
I’ll stop there–but, obviously, as other arguments become hackneyed, they can be assigned the next letter. Think how much easier it will be to find the genuinely interesting discussion when the endless repetitive jabber is distilled to a handful of letters one can note and skip past. It seems like an idea whose time has come. Any thoughts?
Italian Stallion
June 30, 2009
“When grading in D-Wades performance, the Heat look at the shots that he takes that he wouldn’t normally take if he had a better supporting cast. ”
Rusell,
I have long assumed that at least a couple of the better managements have access to stats that measure things that the fans that frequent these blogs often discuss.
There are things you can see while watching NBA games regularly that you just know impact the available stats, but without the data, you can’t measure what you know to be true.
I would love to see some of those stats for a handful of very high usage scorers that tend to be controversial (among other things).
Italian Stallion
June 30, 2009
IMO, Rondo is almost obviously underrated around the NBA.
Part of the reason he’s underrated is almost certainly that he’s not a big scorer on the Celtics. But I think the fact that he’s a young player on a team of several future hall of famers has a lot more to do with it.
Let’s set up a hypothetical situation.
Rondo is traded to the NY Knicks (for whoever).
Rondo would immediately become the best player on the team. IMO his reputation would soar because he would be seen at the leader, critical to the success of the team etc… He would be the biggest spoke on a small wheel instead of a small spoke on a giant wheel and his contributions would get noticed more.
It might also be a very good experiment.
We’d get to see if his scoring would rise a little and his efficiency and assists would fall a little when surrounded by a bunch of role players instead of a bunch of hall of famers.
John Giagnorio
June 30, 2009
Many of the NBA front offices have much more detailed/advanced statistics. It is likely that there are more complicated ways of getting a more precise idea of a player’s value. The nice thing about WOW is that it’s relatively easy to understand/calculate and appears to have some – or a lot, depending on your pov – very powerful insights into the game.
RY
June 30, 2009
When I first heard of this potential deal, I was also surprised by how people perceived this as a “low ball” offer by the Celtics. I agree with DJ (though probably less strongly) that the deal would likely improve the Pistons.
It’s particularly interesting in this case that Prince and Hamilton are two players who are perhaps better in real life than by the traditional stats.
Prince is Shane Battier/Bruce Bowen like in his ability to disrupt the shooter in ways that does not count as a steal nor a block. The great NYTimes article about Battier showed that some teams such as the Rockets are independently tracking these touches.
Hamilton, on the other hand, is clearly hurt in most statistical measure by being just a scorer. His peripheral stats are lacking. He does, however, get a bit undervalued for being an efficient scorer (great shooting percentages across the board for a guard).
Clearly, despite WoW’s great track record in correlating WP to actual wins, you can’t build a team just one dimensionally by Win Score alone. Nevertheless, this would have been quite a good haul for the Pistons.
It is a curious discussion whether Rondo is really max contract worthy, and how much of Rondo’s great steal and assist numbers are due to the Celtics system. I do feel he might be a bit overvalued by WP, akin to how guys who steals a few bases have much higher values in fantasy baseball than in real life because SBs (like Steals and Assists in basketball) are scarce.
simulator
June 30, 2009
In all fairness, Rondo is a great defensive player, so in this case, I wouldn’t fault Wow for not correctly computing defensive contribution. I too think that Rondo is possibly the most important player in Celtics, and I think Detroit is stupid not to take him.
However, Berri usually doesn’t mention anything but WOW related stats when evaluating players. Meaning, he apparently has no interest in trying any different model. What he’s doing is not really research at this point. It’s more like advertising.
Anon
June 30, 2009
That’s because his real research is done in academic journals and such. This blog was created to promote his book….
romalley
June 30, 2009
Why does anyone have a problem with his tone? Almost every blog or commentator on basketball on the web takes the same tone. I don’t see why anyone is complaining about Berri doing it, at least he uses data and models to back up what he says instead of “RONDO IS NOT IMPORTANT – TRADE HIM.” And that’s it. Like the guy who said they don’t need him to win a championship. You guys should really lay off Berri here, because he’s not close to the only one presenting his opinions in this kind of tone. Wojnarowski, Hollinger, Broussard, Smith, Pelton, Gassaway, etc etc etc all do the same thing.
simon
June 30, 2009
Yup, everyone uses their own models for evaluating players, and why not? They must have something to believe in it if they had developed a model, yet dberri is really the only one to get criticized for needing more “humility.”
In any case I agree that Rondo is being underrated because of his lack of scoring. Also it’s because of his uniqueness. He does a lot of point guard duties well but he seems a bit too different from other PGs in things he does, so evaluators often do not see the true value of Rondo.
I suspect if the Celtics had Stuckey instead of Rondo and played him a lot, Stuckey’s value would’ve been higher than Rondo’s current value.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
Of course the blog is to cross-promote his book! DUH!!! It does not follow that because the blog does some advertising that there’s no merit to what is being said.
@ Russell: Dr. Berri addresses all of your arguments in his previous writings; check the archives of this blog, and seriously, read the book. You may or may not become a believer in the WoW metrics, but your perspective will be different as a result.
@ Dr. Berri:
I’ve been waiting for this post for what seems like forever!
I was blown away that Detroit turned this trade down, full-stop. They didn’t even make a counter offer? Wow. Obviously, Rondo is a tremendous player, and clearly, Rip is overrated (as much as it pains me to say it, because I love the way he plays offense).
Anyway, I couldn’t figure out why we didn’t explore other options to acquire Rondo… unless Joe thinks Stuckey is really that good, which if true, is scary.
Christopher
June 30, 2009
Well, it’s linked to your metric. We can look at WinShares and imagine a blog post with a different take. Here are the top players by WinShares (a value of 10 means that player “caused” 10 wins etc.) for last season:
1. LeBron James-CLE 19.6
2. Chris Paul-NOH 17.5
3. Dwyane Wade-MIA 14.4
4. Pau Gasol-LAL 14.3
5. Dwight Howard-ORL 13.9
6. Kobe Bryant-LAL 13.0
7. Brandon Roy-POR 12.7
8. Ray Allen-BOS 11.0
9. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 10.9
10. Chauncey Billups-TOT 10.4
11. Yao Ming-HOU 10.4
12. Paul Pierce-BOS 10.2
13. Chris Bosh-TOR 9.7
14. Rajon Rondo-BOS 9.7
15. Tim Duncan-SAS 9.7
16. Rashard Lewis-ORL 9.6
17. David Lee-NYK 9.5
18. Nene Hilario-DEN 9.5
19. Mo Williams-CLE 9.4
20. Gerald Wallace-CHA 9.2
Here Allen and Pierce some out on top but Rondo is still the 3dr best PG (not incl. hybrid types like Roy and Wade) behind Paul and Billups). So which metric is right? I don’t know. It would be interesting to have a site that lists all these advanced stats side-by-side. I don’t think this exists yet…
Ethan
June 30, 2009
As a Boston fan, I would be hugely disappointed to see the Celtics trade Rondo. I think what we are seeing here is that the Celtics are scared of having to pay Rondo when he comes off his rookie contract, and don’t trust him to be a franchise guy.
I’m somewhat sympathetic to that point of view – Rondo is a uniquely talented player, but at least at this point his leadership ability is questionable at best – it’s hard to imagine him mentoring younger players right now. He’s just a kind of surly guy, and that can be a real problem. But he’s young himself and getting better at this aspect of the game, so to me that isn’t reason enough to let such a supreme talent slip. I can understand why Ainge doesn’t want to give Rondo a max contract, but if it comes down to it I think you bite your lip, hope for the best, and pay him.
Jeremy
June 30, 2009
Berri nails it again!! Been waiting for something on Rondo ever since his name came up in the trade rumors. And of course, only one man has hit the nail on the head: Professor Berri.
Jeremy
June 30, 2009
and to Russell Barksdale, the proof is in the pudding. Whomever Berri picks to win the championship wins it, unless there is some kind of gargantuan fluke. To be honest this site is a tremendous gambling tool and I am sure others besides me have used Berri’s statistics to grow their bank accounts.
Ethan
June 30, 2009
When Berri gets it wrong, Jeremy, it isn’t necessarily a “fluke”. That statement is way too strong – no system of statistical analysis is so perfect that any deviation from it’s predicted outcome can be described as a fluke.
Berri’s ranking system certainly has a lot of merit, but particularly on individual players it has proven hit-and-miss. An excellent example is Kevin Durant, of whom Berri was relentlessly critical in his rookie season, and who has since proven the dominant player many of his supporters said he was.
Dr. Berri argued in later posts that he had simply said Durant did not deserve rookie of the year because he was not efficient or producing wins in his rookie season – this explanation was unsatisfying to many people, though (myself included) who felt that Dr. Berri was trying to disown some of his pretty bold ( and pretty foolish) predictions that Durant was, and would remain, vastly overrated. There are other examples of these kind of oversteps as well, and I think it is important to recognize the limitations of this method of evaluating players, both in terms of the here-and-now and in predicting their chances of future success.
That’s not a slap at Dr. Berri, it’s just to point out that while his system has merit, it certainly isn’t the holy grail of statistical analysis. I think that Dr. Berri does very well in analyzing the likelihood of team success (although he has his misses here too), and does just a fair job in evaluating players individually. The problem with his player evaluations is that they do not take into account the different types of situations which can influence individual production (quality of teammates/offensive burdens/playing out of position/etc), and, like the other major systems of analysis (PER, WS), does not incorporate adequate defensive metrics. This would not be such an issue of Dr. Berri more frequently included some discussion and subjective analysis of intangibles in his player evaluations, but he sticks very forcefully to his statistical guns. Unfortunately, he seems reticent to include any”soft” data, and this puts him a step behind Hollinger when it comes to player evaulations, at least in my mind.
Long story short, I agree with most of what he has said here about Rondo, but wouldn’t look to Berri for the best analysis of individual players. On predicting team success, I think his model is the best one out there.
Ethan
June 30, 2009
Lest what I wrote come off sounding too harsh, I do think Berri does a better job evaluating talent than the majority of NBA scouts, coaches, and sportswriters. He, at least, isn’t married to the idea that whoever scores the most is best, regardless of how they get there. But I do think there are better judges of individual players than Berri – Hollinger and David Thorpe being two good examples.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
That’s not a slap at Dr. Berri, it’s just to point out that while his system has merit, it certainly isn’t the holy grail of statistical analysis. I think that Dr. Berri does very well in analyzing the likelihood of team success (although he has his misses here too), and does just a fair job in evaluating players individually. The problem with his player evaluations is that they do not take into account the different types of situations which can influence individual production (quality of teammates/offensive burdens/playing out of position/etc), and, like the other major systems of analysis (PER, WS), does not incorporate adequate defensive metrics. This would not be such an issue of Dr. Berri more frequently included some discussion and subjective analysis of intangibles in his player evaluations, but he sticks very forcefully to his statistical guns. Unfortunately, he seems reticent to include any”soft” data, and this puts him a step behind Hollinger when it comes to player evaulations, at least in my mind.
Actually, he does. In the book.
Ethan
June 30, 2009
Well br, I appreciate that, but the posts that he puts out on the journal encompass new information and new conclusions. So while WoW does include some concessions to the importance of intangibles, I would argue that those same concessions should be present within new posts.
And, to be frank, even when Dr. Berri does try to incorporate intangibles into his analysis (as in the book), I don’t feel he displays the same authoritative understanding of basketball nuances that make people like Hollinger and Thorpe such astute judges of individual talent. Again, not a slap at Berri, but I do think his limited knowledge of basketball skills and nuances is his major weakness as an analyst, and is the reason he analyses the whole (team) much better than the individual parts (players).
brgulker
June 30, 2009
Ethan,
What do you mean by intangibles? WoW certainly address that in some respects in the opening chapters by discussing how statistics simply track what players are doing.
I’m curious specifically what you mean by intangibles, how they could be measured (since they obviously are not now), and how they would contribute to a team winning more games.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
Let me say it better, or try to.
What do you think players are currently contributing to their teams that are not tracked statistically? And could that contribution be tracked? If so, how? If not, then what does it really contribute to winning?
romalley
June 30, 2009
I don’t remember Berri ever saying he didn’t think Durant would ever be good. I’m almost positive he commented on the current state of Durants productivity at the time. Actually the only quote I could quickly find regarding his opinion on Kevin Durants future is
“3. And to the argument that Durant might someday be better…I think that is entirely possible. But again, this is an award for what a player did as a rookie. And as a rookie, Durant was bad. No matter what he does going forward, that fact is not ever going to change.”
Seems to me he’s commenting on Kevin Durants rookie performance, not his future. He even concedes it is entirely possible for Durant to improve. Please someone post a quote of him saying Durant would not improve.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
I’m with romalley. Seems like he said the same exact thing about Rose this year: he could be good, but as of now, he’s average.
Tball
June 30, 2009
The Celtics-Pistons trade talk is a bit overblown. According to those that broke the story, it was Celtic management subordinate and a Pistons management subordinate talking. Ainge hadn’t made any decision he was willing to do the deal. Dumars hadn’t tried to communicate directly with Ainge.
I keep hearing people suggesting Ainge is criticizing Rondo and offering him out to teach him some humility. Maybe not. Maybe Ainge is just being honest. I heard the interview and, while he had some constructive criticisms, Ainge’s tone was respectful. Who’s got the cap money to offer Rondo a max contract now? Maybe Ainge is just having underlings assess with them whether the league considers him a max contract guy. If no one in the league would pay him max money, then it would be foolish for the Celtics to give him a max contract (this is true whether he is worth 10 wins/year or leads the league in wins each year).
One of the two PGs Rondo is behind here, Kidd, is being discussed as midlevel exception guy for a number of teams (linked ESPN article says his eight-figure/yr days are over). And the skill set is comparable (not the same, don’t get all excited). There is nothing wrong with doing a little homework to try to determine who would pay Rondo. And measuring trade interest is probably the only way he can really how much other GMs value Rondo’s unique skill set. He can’t shoot from the outside, but was .001 off the FG% lead among PGs this season. He can take his man off the dribble at-will to get to the basket (what PG can’t in this league), but can’t adequately convert an open shot if his man stops defending him. A smart man would do some type of research before starting a negotiation this summer (although it’d be nice to keep it out of the press).
brgulker
June 30, 2009
He can take his man off the dribble at-will to get to the basket (what PG can’t in this league), but can’t adequately convert an open shot if his man stops defending him
So, he has a very good field goal percentage for a PG, yet somehow, he lacks the ability to put the ball in the basket?
That makes sense.
Sure, Rondo can’t shoot long jumpers. But he makes a lot of layups, and he makes a lot of floaters. I think both of those count as made baskets, and they usually come off the dribble.
Ethan
June 30, 2009
Well, the problem with intangibles is that we haven’t figured out how to measure them yet. Really, you could almost describe them as qualifiers – for example, a player who draws multiple defenders, creating opportunities for teammates to score. Or Kevin Durant playing out of position as a shooting guard and being asked to bail the team out with difficult shots. I’d also throw defense in there, since we haven’t found a great metric for that yet. A player is “doing” all those things, and besides saying things about a players potential, they contribute to (or take away from) a teams ability to win games. Dr. Berri pays occasional lip-service to these ideas, but I don’t think he incorporates them well into his player analysis. The point I was making about Hollinger is that, because he has a strong basketball background, he is capable of pointing out specific intangible contributions a player is or isn’t making, and then subjectively factoring them into his explanation of his analysis. I understand why some people flinch at this, but I think the end result is a more accurate judgement of a players worth than sticking entirely to an incomplete system of statistical analysis without factoring “softs”.
Thorpe isn’t a stats guy, but I referenced him because I respect his ability to analyze particular skillsets that would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify through statistical analysis. He’s proven very adept at predicting which players are most likely to improve, and pointing out the way a players unique skills serve to set him apart. Especially with young players, I think I trust Thorpe’s analysis more than anyone else, because while he appreciates the importance of simple production, he also understands that a player with skills that can’t be taught ultimately has a chance to be much far better than a player who has teachable skills, but little that makes him unique. You can’t analyze stuff like that statistcally, so it can be frustrating to deal with, but you can’t ignore it either. And too often I think Dr. Berri tries to ignore it.
Ethan
June 30, 2009
By qualifiers, I meant that in the sense that you qualify an argument. As in qualifying analysis by saying “Durant has not produced well this season. But we must consider that he is being asked to play out of position and is facing constant double teams as a rookie. Hence, while he has not been efficient, considering the circumstances his production has actually been impressive.”
And I agree that Berri never said “Durant will never be good”. But he did imply that Durant had probably been overrated, and punted on trying to analyze the relevance of current statistical data to predicting future success. To me, when your talking about a rookie, that very much diminishes the value of any type of statistical analysis.
Another Pete
June 30, 2009
@Ethan,
Dr. Berri was trying to disown some of his pretty bold ( and pretty foolish) predictions that Durant was, and would remain, vastly overrated
Where did you see his predictions that Durant would remain vastly overrated? What I remember is a bunch of articles where he very carefully said “Durant hasn’t played well; he might play well in the future, but we haven’t seen it yet.”
Here are two actual quotes from his posts on Durant, during and just after his rookie season:
Durant, so far, has simply not helped Seattle win games. And although he might someday, the story today is quite different from these dreams about tomorrow.
And to the argument that Durant might someday be better…I think that is entirely possible. But again, this is an award for what a player did as a rookie. And as a rookie, Durant was bad. No matter what he does going forward, that fact is not ever going to change.
Another Pete
June 30, 2009
Oops, looks like I’m way behind in reading comments…
Joel W
June 30, 2009
I basically agree with DBerri, however, it’s important to distinguish between contracts and players. When we talk about Rondo v. player Z what we really mean is Rondo for X years at Y money v. player Z for X years at Y money. These are two distinct concepts.
romalley
June 30, 2009
“Durant has not produced well this season. But we must consider that he is being asked to play out of position and is facing constant double teams as a rookie. Hence, while he has not been efficient, considering the circumstances his production has actually been impressive.”
For some reason this statement screams apologetics to me. Why does Berri have to go out of his way to say Durant was productive or “impressive” when his model states otherwise? No wonder you like Hollinger so much. The “If popular opinion is this then it must be true” line of reasoning.
You don’t adjust your results to fit your preconceptions.
And all those things could very well have contributed to Durant playing poorly. But it also could have been that he didn’t rebound, didn’t generate steals, couldn’t hit a three, and didn’t really get assists for his teammates. You have to consider everything here and I feel Berri did that based on what you can quantify.
Also your argument doesn’t really hold up. If Durants reason for struggling his rookie year was all those things, then why did he improve so much in his sophomore campaign with essentially the same team and role?
Bottom line is it is completely fair for Berri to have said Durant was playing poorly…because he was. And Berri is bound by law to make excuses for him just because it goes contrary to popular belief.
romalley
June 30, 2009
Berri isnt*
Italian Stallion
June 30, 2009
” Especially with young players, I think I trust Thorpe’s analysis more than anyone else, because while he appreciates the importance of simple production, he also understands that a player with skills that can’t be taught ultimately has a chance to be much far better than a player who has teachable skills, but little that makes him unique. You can’t analyze stuff like that statistcally, so it can be frustrating to deal with, but you can’t ignore it either. And too often I think Dr. Berri tries to ignore it.”
This is basically the argument being made in support of Rubio.
It’s difficult to find a player with great floor vision, basketball IQ, passing skills, ball handling skills, team oriented thinking, the ability to understand a teammate’s skills and make them better etc…. Those are the skills Rubio appears to be overflowing with.
Other than that, he does not look like much of an athlete, shooter, etc… He would probably score very poorly on most statistical models based on his European stats (and even worse if they were adjusted to their NBA equivalents)
On the flip side, rebounds are very important statistically, but good rebounders are a dime a dozen and a lot of it is simply effort.
John Giagnorio
June 30, 2009
The draft analysis published on this very site said that Durant was one of the best college prospects the year he entered the draft. Berri has also repeatedly stated that rookies usually aren’t very good. Connecting these points, it’s hard to conclude Berri would’ve advised “giving up” on Durant or that he “punted” on analyzing Durant’s value as a prospect.
Caleb
June 30, 2009
“No wonder you like Hollinger so much. The “If popular opinion is this then it must be true” line of reasoning.”
Since when does Hollinger’s work always conform to popular opinion? PER angers almost as many people as Wins Produced does…
John Giagnorio
June 30, 2009
“Other than that, he does not look like much of an athlete, shooter, etc… He would probably score very poorly on most statistical models based on his European stats (and even worse if they were adjusted to their NBA equivalents)”
Not true, Rubio was a dominant defensive player and passer as an 18 year old. He grades very well as a prospect.
John Giagnorio
June 30, 2009
Forgot to include this analysis of Rubio (he’s the #1 prospect):
http://hoopsanalyst.com/0809ew7.htm
Ethan
June 30, 2009
“Also your argument doesn’t really hold up. If Durants reason for struggling his rookie year was all those things, then why did he improve so much in his sophomore campaign with essentially the same team and role?”
Well no, it isn’t the same team and role. He was shifted to the three and immediately improved. Some of the smarter analysts, including Thorpe and Hollinger, were shouting all of his rookie year that it was a bad idea to play a rookie Durant at the two – I agreed, and was disappointed that Berri didn’t really spend any time on it. His teammates are also better; Westbrook was undeniably an important pick-up, Jeff Green became serviceable, and the situation as a whole was just much more conducive to Durant’s success. Throw a significant coaching change in there, and no, the situation is not identical.
It isn’t apologetics to observe those issues – that’s just writing with your eyes open to how and why things are happening on the court. And it isn’t trying to mold things to fit your preconceptions either. If a player is playing outside his position, that needs to be taken into account. Ditto if a player is handling a large offensive or defensive load because of his teammates inadeqaucies. If you watched a runner compete in a marathon with a parachute on his back, and he was beaten out by an opponent in best gear, getting water and rest the whole way, would you really conclude “man, I guess that guy with the parachute really sucks”? No, you’d take into account the circumstances under which he ran, and include those considerations in your analysis.
I’m in no way saying that Berri was wrong to say Durant didn’t deserve rookie of the year – to me it was a difficult call, and Durant is just one example anyway. But I don’t see how you can deny that his tendency to stick to straight numbers and avoid intangibles hurts his credibility as a judge of individual talent and potential. If nothing else, Berri’s analysis of individual players (particularly young players) simply provides a statistical snapshot – there is little context provided, and until a player has a long track record (Iverson) he doesn’t try very hard to predict what their future will hold. To me, that just isn’t very useful.
Finally, the idea that Hollinger is a mouthpiece for the company line doesn’t make any sense. He certainly isn’t perfect, but he isn’t any parrot either. He has been saying for years that Kobe is no longer the best player in the league, that in fact Chris Paul is significantly better, and came out strong in Kevin Love’s corner last year when he was getting shafted by basically everybody.
Ethan
June 30, 2009
“The draft analysis published on this very site said that Durant was one of the best college prospects the year he entered the draft. Berri has also repeatedly stated that rookies usually aren’t very good. Connecting these points, it’s hard to conclude Berri would’ve advised “giving up” on Durant or that he “punted” on analyzing Durant’s value as a prospect.”
This is sort of my point, actually. Berri’s analysis is almost entirely within the moment. Durant had great numbers out of college, so he was going to be awesome. Durant’s numbers dropped off, so he must have been a huge disappointment. Berri didn’t spend much time at all looking at why Durant may have been less productive than college, and absolutely punted on his predictions for Durant’s future. If you look at his posts from that period they all basically said “maybe he’ll get better someday, but he sure sucks right now”. To me, that is just worthless analysis. Usually he’s better than that, but his work on Durant really didn’t provide any insight into what was going on with his game at all.
John Giagnorio
June 30, 2009
Fair enough. I thought Berri implied he was still a top prospect, but it was never clearly stated in that way.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
@ Ethan
Well, the problem with intangibles is that we haven’t figured out how to measure them yet. Really, you could almost describe them as qualifiers – for example, a player who draws multiple defenders, creating opportunities for teammates to score.
Okay, I understand what you’re saying more accurately now. If that type of intangible did have a drastic effect on wins, then one way that it seems we should be able to measure it is as follows:
Because Durant draws so many defenders, we should see an increase in his teammates’ shooting percentages, because they will take more uncontested shots.
Dr. Berri does address this in the book, and he found that the impact was so small that it wasn’t statistically significant (iirc).
This is sort of my point, actually. Berri’s analysis is almost entirely within the moment.
The greatest single predictor of future performance is past performance. So, the best way to predict (if you had to choose one) would be to analyze the present/past. Makes perfect sense to me.
Ethan, I feel like we’re talking past each other. Durant was not productive as a rookie, and the rookie of the year goes to the most outstanding rookie, not the rookie with the most potential. I suspect that we’ll see something similar with Rose over the next couple of years. Yes, he will most likely improve and become a productive player, but it seems very silly to give an award out based on future potential not present production.
adwmu
June 30, 2009
http://pistonpost.com/2009/06/23/why-bostons-offer-should-have-been-accepted/
Italian Stallion
June 30, 2009
“Not true, Rubio was a dominant defensive player and passer as an 18 year old. He grades very well as a prospect.”
There are obviously a lot of people that like Rubio a lot (including me), but I don’t think it’s based on the type of statistical model that is used by the popular stats gurus.
Those models don’t weight defense highly because of the lack of availalable stats and tend to weight scoring and/or scoring efficiency very highly.
So basically, all the things that Rubio does well other than his assist totals don’t have a huge presence in those modesa and all the tings he does poorly (like scoring and shooting) carry a lot of weight.
That’s why I am suggesting that his current popularity and the case for him is based on the perception that he has some unique talents that can’t be taught and they will eventually translate into superior production. I agree with that view.
Tom Mandel
June 30, 2009
1. WP doesn’t measure who is “the best player” or even how good a player is. Good is an abstract term. It leaves you having to ask “good for what” or “good at what”?
2. WP measures how much a player contributes to winning (or losing games), a very different matter. Anyone with eyeglasses on could see that AI was a great basketball player, for example. He was enormous fun to watch. But, he had deficiencies (many of which were functions of his size; others not) which meant that he didn’t contribute as much to winning as he did to entertaining. But, his being great, in the sense I mean, does not argue against the WP metric, it just makes it clearer what the metric is.
3. No the WP metric is not falsified because it doesn’t take this or that defensive or “advanced” stat into account. A theory isn’t falsified that way. It’s falsified only by results.
4. WP correlates at @95% to team wins (if I recall the book correctly). I.e. when you add up all the Wins Produced of all players on the team, the result hovers about the actual team wins.
5. If you can find another set of metrics that correlates at a higher rate, lets have ’em. If you can’t, what’s your problem with WP?
Tom Mandel
June 30, 2009
As for Dave’s tone, if you don’t like the blog don’t read the blog.
I think Dave gets a little “flip” from time to time, but hey this blog is something he does in between things. Cut him some slack.
Italian Stallion
June 30, 2009
BRGULKER,
“Because Durant draws so many defenders, we should see an increase in his teammates’ shooting percentages, because they will take more uncontested shots.
Dr. Berri does address this in the book, and he found that the impact was so small that it wasn’t statistically significant (iirc).”
I can’t dispute this because I don’t have the data to back it up.
I only have my peceptions (like watching Kobe Bryant repeatedly draw double and triple teams during the playoffs, finding a way to get Trevor Ariza the ball while he was wide open, and then watching him sink 3 pointers at a significantly higher rate than when they were contested ).
The problem I have with saying it’s not significant is that I think the only way you can know that is to actually sit and watch 82 games and the playoffs and track every single time Kobe/Durant etc… get doubled, create a wide open shot for their teammate, the % of the time the teammate hit the shot, and then compare that to the % of the time that same player hits a shot from a similar location when covered.
I don’t know of anyone that’s tracking something like that other than perhaps some advanced stats guys working for NBA teams.
Intuitively, I don’t think it happens very many times each game and may only add between 5%-10% (wild guess) to the probability of an outside shot being made and open the occasional dunk/layup opportunity, but I think it does matter and should be part of the evaluation of a player’s value. To me, it seemed like Kobe drawing double teams was a pretty crucial part of LA’s attack.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
Italian Stallion:
I hear what you and Ethan are saying. Is there some value to a guy who draws double teams? I tend to think so
But Ethan’s objection has been that it’s possible to argue against WoW, which uses tangible statistics that can and are tracked and thus can be measured, by employing ‘intangibles,’ which are by his definition things that are not (and cannot?) be tracked and thus cannot be measured.
To me, that seems like an awfully tough argument to make.
Plus, Dr. Berri does address this in his book directly, and Ethan has accused him of ignoring it.
Let’s use Kobe as the example. Ariza gets open shots because Kobe gets doubled. If the primary reason, then, that Ariza has a high shooting % is because he gets open shots as a direct result of Kobe being doubled, then we should see a significant decline if/when Kobe is no longer his teammate. I can’t recall the examples in WoW off-hand, but they did analyze several such situations — in fact, there’s a whole chapter dedicated to the question of whether or not great players make their teammates better or not.
Again, iirc off-hand, what they found was that when they analyzed guys like Ariza, there wasn’t any statistical evidence to support the conclusion that Kobe makes Ariza better.
He also talks about the insufficiency of how players defensive contributions are tracked; but, you can’t blame Dr. Berri (or Holinger or Statistician X) for that. That’s an NBA issue.
The problem I have with saying it’s not significant is that I think the only way you can know that is to actually sit and watch 82 games and the playoffs and track every single time Kobe/Durant etc… get doubled, create a wide open shot for their teammate, the % of the time the teammate hit the shot, and then compare that to the % of the time that same player hits a shot from a similar location when covered.
To me, that’s the biggest problem with the argument, as I suggested above. You can’t argue against a metric that analyzes data that actually exists with hypothetical data that isn’t tracked; it’s little more than guesswork at that point.
But another point to consider. Let’s take a guy like Chris Paul. CP3 doesn’t go into the post and get doubled like Kobe; however, he does have an uncanny ability to break his defender down off the dribble and thus draw multiple defenders (so the same result as a post double). When he passes out of that double team to an open teammate, and that teammate makes the open shot, CP3 gets the assist. So does Kobe. So, even though we don’t have the complex system as you just described, we do have something, i.e., the assist, and although Kobe does get his fair share, he’s no Kidd or CP3 with respect to assists.
So how valuable is getting double-teamed if you don’t generate assists out of it? Same can be said of Dwight Howard, I think, as he was especially prone to turning the ball over out of a double team rather than generating an assist. So in that case, a guy getting double-teamed actually hurt the team, rather than helping it.
Italian Stallion
June 30, 2009
BRGULKER,
“Durant was not productive as a rookie, and the rookie of the year goes to the most outstanding rookie, not the rookie with the most potential. I suspect that we’ll see something similar with Rose over the next couple of years. Yes, he will most likely improve and become a productive player, but it seems very silly to give an award out based on future potential not present production.”
I agree with you 100%, but sort of understand where others are coming from.
To me, it couldn’t have been more obvious after his rookie season that Durant was going to become a star in the NBA. I feel the same way about Rose now.
Yet when I read some of the evaluations here, I didn’t come away from them thinking the criticisms of their rookie production were just a critcism of that snapshot in time. I felt like they were saying these kids were mostly hype, wildly overrated, and were no more likely to become stars than lots of other players with similar or better rookie production etc…
Perhaps, that was just my perception and not the intent. If so, then I am wrong. But others seem to feel the same way.
To me, these kids were MASSIVELY more likely to become stars than some other players with better rookie production.
That kind of projection may not be easy to formulize, but sometimes it’s very obvious to an astute and experienced observer. I think if the analysis contained that kind of thing, it would seem more balanced while simultaneously making the appropriate case that they didn’t deserve rookie of the year.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
I agree with you 100%, but sort of understand where others are coming from.
I hear where others are coming from, too. I, too, watch the NBA with my eyes, and I am just as wow’d as anyone by the talent that the Durant’s and Rose’s of the league possess.
And I too have preconceptions about basketball. I was fortunate enough to play in college at a small NIAIA school, and I like to think I have a fairly decent talent radar.
That said, for every Durant — a rookie who possesses great promise and eventually becomes a very productive player — there are five Harold Minor’s and Richard Dumas’s. In other words, sometimes the talent and potential we perceive just doesn’t pan out.
I mean, I thought Minor was going to be sweet. Baby Jordan, right?
Anyway, I guess the point is that our eyes can deceive us, and we tend to ignore the times our eyes were wrong and emphasize the times they were right.
rumplestiltskin
June 30, 2009
82 games did a study showing that shooting percentage on all assisted shots (any shot attempt coming directly after a pass) are significantly higher than shooting percentages not coming after a pass, actually using many people at many different games to gather the data which had to that point had never been gathered before:
http://www.82games.com/assisted.htm
An average increase of 8.2% seems entirely not negligible to me.
The other thing you could do is personally to just make mental notes of when such auxilliary players like Ariza get an open shot and take it and when they pass up an open shot, take a dribble and then end up taking an impossibly hard shot instead. The latter was quite a common move for Ariza during the regular season, and not at all common for him to do in the playoffs.
Now if he passed the ball when he passed up the shot, that would be the type of decision that does not show up in current statistics, but contributes to all sorts of bad things. Turnovers (most 24 second shot clock violations are caused by such decisions, but the player who receives the turnover is the player with the ball in his hand), and extremely low percentage shots. Players who are responsible for taking shots at the end of the shot clock also take their fair share of low percentage shots.
Look at Jason Kidd’s rise in percentages since coming to Dallas, especially his three point percentage. That’s because he’s taking a lot more assisted spot up threes than he was in the past.
Another thing that is very interesting thing about Jason Kidd that you’ll notice is that he’s completely stopped drawing fouls. Why? Because he no longer gets in the lane. He’s no longer putting that much pressure on the defense offensively. He does some things extremely well. Shoots threes. Rebound (especially for his position.) Plays passing lanes. Lead the fast break. Makes good decisions, knowing the limits of his body. And those things all get factored into these metrics. But they absolutely ignore the fact that he has no foot speed and has trouble staying in front of even the slowest point guards or two guards (which he often guards, though against two guards, they often think they have a size advantage on him and try to take him down low and he is actually very good at using his body as leverage and therefor forcing difficult post shots), and can’t break down a defense. Jason Kidd as the second best point guard in the league is absolutely laughable.
Though in response to this post. Almost anyone who intuitively understands basketball and the salary cap would have understood that this would have been a good move to make, but it also would have been really hard to sell fans on such a move, especially when the Pistons seem quite likely to lose Rasheed to a contender, and really who is Detroit going to attract in free agency when half the league is going to be under the cap? It’s doubtful anyone significant. And neither Boozer (always injured) or Turkoglu are likely to be worth the contracts they are going to receive. It’s why Philadelphia kept Allen Iverson so long. He sold tickets. Believe it or not that happens to be important to general managers because it happens to be important to the guys who cut their checks.
dustin
June 30, 2009
Every team has a player that can “create shots” like that. Also, does it not take skill to read the play and put yourself in a position where you are “wide open” and the person getting double teamed can still get you the ball?
If every team has a player who can “create shots” it is not a rare ability. Why do people think that is more valuable than rebounding?
brgulker
June 30, 2009
@ rumplestiltskin
It’s why Philadelphia kept Allen Iverson so long. He sold tickets.
Yes, he did sell tickets. Except he sold tickets when his team was playing on the road, not at home.
Didn’t read the book, I assume?
<i.
Every team has a player that can “create shots” like that. Also, does it not take skill to read the play and put yourself in a position where you are “wide open” and the person getting double teamed can still get you the ball?
If every team has a player who can “create shots” it is not a rare ability. Why do people think that is more valuable than rebounding?
Good point, dustin. I would only add this:
Anyone in the NBA can ‘create a shot.’ The players who are very productive players are the players who can make the shots they create….
(which is why AI is not really a great player, and Manu is, even though intuitively, that claim makes very little sense)
John Giagnorio
June 30, 2009
“There are obviously a lot of people that like Rubio a lot (including me), but I don’t think it’s based on the type of statistical model that is used by the popular stats gurus.
Those models don’t weight defense highly because of the lack of availalable stats and tend to weight scoring and/or scoring efficiency very highly.
So basically, all the things that Rubio does well other than his assist totals don’t have a huge presence in those modesa and all the tings he does poorly (like scoring and shooting) carry a lot of weight.”
What popular stats gurus are you referring to? Rubio has a very high number of assists, a solid assist to turnover ratio, and records a very high number of rebounds, steals, and blocks (these seem to have at least some correlation with defensive ability). Further, he did this at age 18. I don’t know the exact translations for European stats, but he sounds somewhat similar to Jason Kidd, who posted a .350 WP48 while shooting 41% from the field.
jbrett
June 30, 2009
Ethan,
I’m a little late to the party, but I find your preference for Hollinger’s approach interesting. I would venture that no one gets more mileage out of a formula than Hollinger does out of PER, what with his stranglehold on ESPN. If you haven’t read Berri’s mathematical demonstration of the fatal flaw in PER, it’s a must. (Cliff’s Notes version: unless you’re the worst shooter the league has seen since the 1950’s–under 32% or so, if I remember right–all you have to do to increase your PER is shoot MORE.)
I can allow that Hollinger might devote more space to waxing prosaic about the less-definable aspects of a player’s game–but it’s frequently employed to buttress his evaluation by a system that doesn’t work. If you want to argue that his eyeball take on players is superior to his lopsided system, I can only hope you’re right, and that it helps you in some way not readily apparent.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
HTML tag fail. I was trying to quote Dustin above.
rumplestiltskin
June 30, 2009
Another player who was laughably overrated by this metric was Shawn Marion.
The conclusion has been drawn since almost all players’ stats are not affected by changing teams that it is utterly insignificant (though a lot of this happens to be do to the fact that almost all NBA teams are constructed in a similar manner and play a very similar style of basketball, not because it is necessarily the best way to play but because it is just the way it is done, there is a lack of innovation of strategy on this level of basketball, especially defensively) but this was of course very significant with Shawn Marion who went from an exceptional player on Phoenix, due to role to play multiple defensive positions at an at least average level (I don’t personally think he was exceptional at any, but he was pretty good at 1-4), rebound on absolutely anyone, and produce offensively at especially high efficiencies when he was a third option, or when he was guarded by a player much larger than him, but when his team changed he’s basically gone back to pre Nash levels of production and efficiency.
Nash is a good example also of a player whose value was changed by system. Going to a system that placed him at the focus of the offense instantly raised his field goal percentages from very good for a point guard to some of the best all time. And at ages where most point guard, especially less than athletic point guards are generally forced out of the league.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
(Cliff’s Notes version: unless you’re the worst shooter the league has seen since the 1950’s–under 32% or so, if I remember right–all you have to do to increase your PER is shoot MORE.)
That about sums it up. It’s a devastating argument against PER.
As an aside, I was looking at ESPN’s trade machine, and I noticed Tyson Chandler had a PER of only 10.something. I am assuming that his win score might tell a different story.
brgulker
June 30, 2009
@ rumple
About Marion, I think his incredible productivity did have something to do with playing for the Suns, and I think you have a fair point.
One critique I would offer, however, is that Marion’s productivity depended largely on his freakish athletic ability — which is declining rather rapidly. I think that has as much to do with it as anything.
rumplestiltskin
June 30, 2009
Wasn’t Marion athletic when he first came into the league? Why do his shooting percentages shoot up so much when Nash get there? Look at two years ago before and after the trade from Phoenix to Miami? Better yet, look at any time San Antonio decided to guard him with Bruce Bowen and not help on Nash and Stoudemire (they changed this strategy in their more recent playoff battles for some reason, but the 2005 playoffs are a good example.) Specifically compare that against when he was guarded by Nowitski or a Dallas big and they did help on screens or switch them. He just goes off. With Marion a lot of it has to do with playing with Nash and Stoudemire and a lot of it has to do with D’antoni going undersized and playing him at power forward and the rest of the league not adjusting to Phoenix. One team that actually did very well without adjusting was the Lakers because they had Odom who could guard Marion and rebound like a power forward, which accounts a lot for how hard LA pushed Phoenix in the playoffs despite being outgunned talentwise.
“If every team has a player who can “create shots” it is not a rare ability. Why do people think that is more valuable than rebounding?”
1) It would be hard for you to find where I said it was more important than rebounding. But is rebounding more important than being a player that allows penetration every possession?
2) Isn’t creating fouls important and doesn’t creating fouls often increase other players ability to score easily? The bonus anyone? Fouls created is not a statistic that is kept (though I am sure NBA teams keep it.)
3) It really depends on how define rare. And how you define “create shots” For example if there is only one player on each team that could do the task, I would say it is exceptionally rare.
As for the second point. Dallas has tons of players who can create shots for themselves. Nowitski, Howard, Terry. But aside from Kidd in the fast break and occasionally Barea, they have massive amounts of trouble creating shots for anyone else. That was always the amazing thing about Dallas under Avery is that their offense was always almost entirely created one on one, and yet they still managed to be efficient. A question, if Kidd really is so good, why is the team not any better than when they had Harris instead?
4) The thing is that all players in the NBA are role-players, for some their role is scoring, for others their role is rebounding, or whatever it is. Ideally your scorer would score efficiently.
5) The problem with Mr. Berri is not that his metric is not useful, it is, but it is not an end all be all. There are players who are significantly overrated by the metric, just as there would be players overrated by any metric, and there are players who are significantly underrated by it.
Kidd post micro-fracture surgery is a player who has been consistently overrated, namely because his most significant deficiency, defense, is just totally not considered by the metric. Over night he went from one of the best defenders at his position to quite possibly the worst.
Marion was a player who was quasi-overrated. That is, I think on the Suns he was every bit as valuable as the metric suggested (though his value was definitely dependent on this situation), but independently of the Suns, his value was significantly lower.
The Suns were an exception though, in that they were constructed slightly differently than the traditional NBA team. Their was this very slight innovation there in playing a rebounding small forward at power forward and a supremely talented offensive power forward at center. No other team does that, save Golden State who plays a small forward who doesn’t rebound exceptionally well at power forward, and a power forward who doesn’t score exceptionally well at center. If Shawn Marion ends up on Golden State, I’d expect him to play better than he’s played the last year and a half.
simon
June 30, 2009
rumple’s argument is both right and wrong. Even before nash, Marion was a 18/10 player, but Marion did shoot better with Nash around.
Also Marion played fairly well with Toronto and Toronto was a lot better team with Shawn. He struggled with his offense didn’t grab as many rebounds but still was a great rebounding SF.
However the fundamental point here still remains. Nash’s arrival didn’t really change Marion that much and Marion was already very very good player before Nash. He was more efficient shooter overall with Nash but ironically Marion had his best three point shooting year before Nash’s arrival yet he shot horrible with Miami and Toronto. He didn’t go back to pre-nash production, he got a lot worse. Thus simply pointing it to Nash to explain Marion’s success is too simplistic of an argument.
Anon
June 30, 2009
so really the big issue people have is with a few isolated cases where someone’s production was not 100% independent of his situation. As I understand it, WP only measures what a person contributed towards their team’s wins in the past, without taking into account how their role may have hurt or helped their analysis. Two assumptions are that production is generally about the same regardless of team, and that players are pretty consistent from year to year. You can obviously find cases where this wasn’t the case. Marion is one example. He was a very good player pre-nash. Nash made him a great player, and after leaving Nash he was merely a good player (having lost some of his athleticism). I don’t know that it’s possible for any purely statistical model to take that into account. And if you are basing your analysis totally on your model (as berri likes to do), you can’t really do much besides say that Marion is extremely productive and that it is likely that he will remain extremely productive. In some cases this will be wrong, but usually it won’t, and it’s certainly understandable to ignore the nonstatistical issues, especially if one is not an expert of basketball. Berri is an economist. He sticks with the numbers, and it’s understandable that he would do so. If you don’t like it, read David Thorpe. I like them both, despite the fact that their methods of analysis are completely opposite. I like that Berri sticks with what he does best.
And in the same line of thinking, a lot of people say that it is not fair to scorers that they get penalized for the hard shots they take at the end of the shot clock and such. Two things regarding this: first off, I watch a lot of basketball, and bad shots by primary scorers at the end of the shot clock aren’t THAT common. And secondly, if they “create” a shot that doesn’t go in, that does not help to produce wins. Even if having him shoot those shots is optimal for his team, the times where he misses it does not help the team win. Is that “fair” to the shooters? Maybe not, but a model that ignores individual and team situations (having decided it generally doesn’t make much of a difference) is not going to do anything to give bonus points for taking and missing hard shots.
If you make shots at an above average percentage you’ll get credit for that. If you’re not making shots at an above average percentage, let someone else shoot. If no one on your team can make an average percentage of shots, then your team probably sucks.
Jonathan
June 30, 2009
Sigh. Statistical arguments for roster transactions, whilst interesting, should never be concluded so indiscriminately.
For Detroit (who with their cap space have plenty of other options to choose from in retooling their team) that’s not a good trade. Here are a few of the things GM Dumars has to consider–which aren’t accounted for in WOW–in no particular order of importance:
*Brand strength
Only one team can win the championship–what’s more important to a franchise is brand strength. Basketball was so popular at the turn-of-the-90s because a large selection of teams–Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Pistons, Jazz, Rockets, Blazers, Knicks etc–had consistent identities and franchise players. Fans feel no emotional attachment to teams like the 2006 champion lease-a-star Miami Heat. Dumars has a Pistons identity in place and does not want to trade away what’s left of it to lease Ray Allen for a year–it makes it less meaningful of a fan experience. The Billups-Iverson trade was as much leeway as he’ll afford himself.
*Chemistry
As in, how the roster parts fit together. A team–and teammates–are always greater than the sum of their parts. For a GM this is a combination of calculated shrewdness and luck. Every player becomes overrated or underrated because they were in a particular situation that helped/hindered their success. The hard part is that so many variables influence the situation. Rondo could thus be a disaster to build around, whilst similarly, adding the right players around Prince, Hamilton and Stuckey could again account for their weaknesses and bring out their strengths.
*Team rapport
Rondo has a reputation as an unforgiving competitor and sour locker room presence. Dumars has signalled that from here on out, he’s building his roster based on character.
mrparker
July 1, 2009
re Shawn Marion,
he is the anti-rashard lewis. He is player with prototypical small forward size who has played much better as a (4) than as a (3) according to wins produced.
brgulker
July 1, 2009
@ rumple:
Wasn’t Marion athletic when he first came into the league? Why do his shooting percentages shoot up so much when Nash get there? Look at two years ago before and after the trade from Phoenix to Miami?
What I heard when reading this entire argument was this:
For a couple season, Sean Marion produced at an incredibly high rate. He shot very well from the field, including three-point range, and he grabbed a lot of rebounds.
He was also ranked highly in terms of win score.
I don’t see any problems there…If he produced a lot of wins during those seasons, and his win score demonstrated that clearly in numbres, then what’s the problem? What am I missing?
It seems that you are basing your objection on the idea that Dr. Berri diesn’t acturately predict how productive players will be in the future. I don’t think that’s the fault of the metric; that’s just reality. Players can be inconsistent, i.e., their statistical contributions can vary immensly from year to year. Any metric that uses statistics in some way will obviously and necessarily demonstrate that variance.
In other words, when Marion was ranked highly in terms of win score, it’s because he was producing a lot of wins. If his win score declined later, it’s not because the metric’s bad; it’s because he stopped producing at the same rate.
mrparker
July 1, 2009
SEAN MARION IS A GREAT POWER FORWARD AND IS AN AVERAGE SMALL FORWARD!!!! THE OPPOSITE OF RASHARD LEWIS!!!!
there i said it.
mrparker
July 1, 2009
Here are his numbers with Miami as a small sample of Marion’s difference when he plays pf vs. sf.
Pos eFG% Reb Ast TO Blk PF Pts PER*
SF .43 9.6 2.8 1.9 1.2 2.4 13 13.7
PF .57 15.2 1.8 1.6 1.8 3.8 21.6 24.5
I want people to stop saying Steve Nash made Marion better. D’Antoni made Marion better by playing him at the position he was better suited to play. BTW, these are his Miami numbers. All the others tell a similar story.
Italian Stallion
July 1, 2009
“(Cliff’s Notes version: unless you’re the worst shooter the league has seen since the 1950’s–under 32% or so, if I remember right–all you have to do to increase your PER is shoot MORE.)
That about sums it up. It’s a devastating argument against PER.”
I agree, but I wonder how many players are actually shooting a lot of 35% 2 pointers just to raise their PPG and PER?
If they did, they’d probably get benched.
More likely, they are shooting a couple/few extra marginal shots (like 40% 2 pointers etc..)
I suspect that the theoretcial argument against PER is a lot stronger than the reality.
That’s not to say I think it’s capturing efficiency/scoring perfectly or that I have a better formula. I agree with the consensus here that it tends to overrate inefficient high scorers.
However, I think rewarding low usage efficient scorers without the skills to score more just because of their excellent shot selection or proximity to the basket is just as big a problem.
It’s overrates their abilities.
IMO, a team of 5 very low usage but highly efficient role players that all average 10 PPG would not do so well in the NBA. Someone would have to step up and score more and it would involve taking some extra difficult shots.
brgulker
July 1, 2009
IS,
I don’t think players are shooting more shots in hopes of inflating their PER. Al tough when you look at guys like Jamal Crawford, you have to wonder.
Regardless, I think the theoretical objection still works, doesn’t it? I think you’re right; I doubt players are intentionally jacking more shots to boost their PER (although perhaps they are to boost their scoring averages), but I don’t think that undermines the point, frankly.
The way to boost your PER is to score more points, i.e., take more shots, and because Berri demonstrates in the book (very effectively in my view) that PER and public perception, i.e., player evaluation, tend to coincide much more often than not, it seems that the best way for a player to raise his value is to score more points, hence taking more shots.
I probably didn’t come close to explaining it as well in the book, but at least we don’t have to take my rambling words for it :)
Oren
July 1, 2009
“I agree, but I wonder how many players are actually shooting a lot of 35% 2 pointers just to raise their PPG and PER?”
The thing is that nearly every player in the NBA shoots better then 35%. Thus, this would mean that the more one shoots, the higher his PER would become.
Take a guy like Baron Davis. He shot 38% last year. He still got nearly 35 minutes per game.
Take Westbrook for example. Apparently he had a great season even though he only shot 39%. He’s the reason that OKC didn’t take Rubio. He averaged 33 minutes per game and was in the top thirty in attempts.
How about Randy Foye? Lou Williams? Tracy McGrady? All shot around the 40% mark, none were benched, according to PER all of their shots helped them. In reality, they probably should have been told to shoot less. Maybe their teammates weren’t going to hit shots either, but I can note that they didn’t.
Anon
July 1, 2009
houston did pretty well in the playoffs with a team of role players.
simulator
July 1, 2009
Nash wasn’t the only reason for Marion’s prime years. It was the whole system – running and gunning, trying to score in transitions.
Marion’s not a very good half court player. He excels when he’s slashing in open court transitions.
Anyways, the whole point is that players productions ARE conditionally affected. It’s just that nobody has bothered to come up with a better statistical model to explain them.
John Giagnorio
July 1, 2009
mrparker wrote:
“Pos eFG% Reb Ast TO Blk PF Pts PER*
SF .43 9.6 2.8 1.9 1.2 2.4 13 13.7
PF .57 15.2 1.8 1.6 1.8 3.8 21.6 24.5
I want people to stop saying Steve Nash made Marion better. D’Antoni made Marion better by playing him at the position he was better suited to play. BTW, these are his Miami numbers. All the others tell a similar story.”
simulator,
How do you respond to this with regards to your statement that “Nash wasn’t the only reason for Marion’s prime years. It was the whole system – running and gunning, trying to score in transitions.”? The PF numbers seem very similar to the ones he put up with the Suns.
Ethan
July 1, 2009
This is a great discussion. I want to clarify my position on a few things. First of all, I recognize that PER has flaws (although I agree with IS that those flaws are more from a theoretical standpoint, and that the system works better when applied to reality). And I actually would credit Berri for coming up with, to date, probably the best statistical system for predicting team success or failure (win shares is also good). If I were a GM, I’d try very hard to get him on my staff.
My issue with his approach to player evaluation is that, while he does recognize some of its limitations in his book, he does not apply an understanding of those limitations to analysis of his numbers. When I say Hollinger is superior at evaluating individual players, I am not saying that his PER system is better than WP – rather, I am saying that Hollinger better understands and accounts for the inevitable deficiencies in his statistics.
This is especially important when dealing with rookie and sophomore players. Frankly, the role of a rookie is rarely to contribute to wins right away- the best rookies usually end up on bad teams that pick early in the lottery, and get asked to do way too much way too early. So understanding why Kevin Durant is turning into a superstar, and Darius Miles turned out to be Darius Miles, demands more than just a glance at the stats. You need to dig a little deeper, and I get the sense Berri isn’t equipped to do this, so he avoids it entirely. Berri pretty much just gives you the numbers, and says that he agrees with them. The model is nice, but in his posts Berri doesn’t really add anything much to it.
I think the ideal approach to this kind of statistical analysis is to combine an effective model with some humility and a deep understanding of the nuances of the game. In summary, Berri certainly has the model, I just think he could afford to develop the latter part of the combination a bit more.
simulator
July 1, 2009
Giagnorio,
That actually supports my argument. Whether the guy plays a SF or PF, whether he plays a C or PF – those things are external factors that affect a player’s productions. I.e., a player’s productions are NOT independently determined.
ilikeflowers
July 1, 2009
Ethan, That was quite a bit of verbiage just to say that you like the model but you don’t like that dberri doesn’t tell you why a player is productive…and that because of this he should use softer language. Why not go to a stats site for the stats and a strategy/tactics site for the why’s?
jbrett
July 1, 2009
Oren,
You have it exactly right. And for those who think the ‘glitch’ in PER is largely theoretical, consider: If you and I have identical numbers in every statistical category EXCEPT shooting percentage–say you’re at 50% and I’m at 48%–I can post a higher PER than you simply by continuing to increase my shot attempts. I’m not going to get BETTER at shooting; I may very well get worse–but unless I stop making shots entirely, I will eventually out-PER you. I doubt I’m helping to win any games, either.
My point is not that Danny Granger is out there making himself look like a better player than Rajon Rondo by jacking up more shots. My point is Danny Granger ALREADY shoots more than Rajon Rondo, and PER says he IS a better player. If you believe that is the case, you are banging your head against a wall here.
Joe
July 1, 2009
So Ben Gordon is now a Piston. And Charlie V. is on the way as well.
My condolences Prof. Berri.
Palamida
July 1, 2009
Joe, that’s unreal… Could the Pistons possibly have done worse? The famous Iverson cap room which was supposed to entice Boozer (who opted in), Lee , or even Hedo went to Charlie V. a scorer albeit an inefficient one and to Gordon whom not only is a one dimensional player, he doesn’t even do a good job in that dimension!
with 18M or so locked long term for the two of them the pistons are going to see quite a few bad years. Anyone has any idea how they will deploy the guards? I mean you don’t pay Gordon 11M a year to come off the bench, so where does that leave rip? With sheed leaving and Charlie V. taking his place, Amir johnson shipped off the pistons are a lottery bound team: Pg – stuckey Sg – Gordon – SF Prince – PF- Villanueva C – Oberto\Kwame brown, and nothing promising on the bench either nothing there that even resembles production – we’re probably looking at a very poor team. A nice case study for WoW btw:
Most pundits would probably think of the Pistons as a slightly worse team than last year.
Gordon is good, right? and so is Villanueva? and Amir? he doesn’t matter, just a role player. If things go “well” for them, with the Kings\Wolves\Okc\Mem\Was\ Lac all improving the Pistons will probably battle (assuming no other major addition will be made to this roster) with the Nets for the worst team in the eastern conf.
Nice move Dumars :p.
BTW the Randolph trade takes Memphis out as a suitor for Lee’s commendable services. so whose left?
Thoughts?
Joe
July 1, 2009
Pala,
They said Gordon signed with the intent of coming off the bench.
If McDyess doesn’t come back, well, I’m sure Berri will eventually cover this story once the dust settles.
palamida
July 1, 2009
Totally forgot about Dice… not that in he’s age he’ll be the difference maker. Also I read they plan to buy out Oberto… Who do they intend to play at Center? Maxiel? :p.
The Gordon thing is whack. I thought half of his issues with Chicago stemmed from his ego and him seeing himself as a starter as opposed to a 6th man, but I suppose 55M of guaranteed money can do that to you :p.
Michael
July 2, 2009
Great post Professor. This is one of those cases that really does illustrate your point about scoring in talent assessment in the N.B.A. It’s crazy that a few short weeks ago Rondo was near on averaging a triple double in the playoffs. Now he’s suddenly not worth Tayshuan Prince and some change to the Pistons.
It’s sad to see them ruin their franchise in the last few years. Kind of makes you think they never really knew what they were doing when they put the championship team together. Still the Celtics are lucky they didn’t pull the trigger on this one. Although if I was Rondo I would be pretty mad right now.
Leon
July 2, 2009
That’s crazy. So detroit turn down a deal to get (arguably) one of the best backcourts in the league and use their cap space to sign one (or two or more) of the many many free agent forwards (and very good ones as well). Instead they sign two players who are worse than those they are replacing. Detroit are heading straight for the lottery.
brgulker
July 2, 2009
As a Pistons fan, like Dr. Berri, who really does buy into WoW, I can’t be more disappointed.
Essentially, we turned Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace, Amir Johnson, and (probably) Antonion McDyess INTO Ben Gordon and CV.
What a fricking nightmare.
Dr. Berri, I’m anxious to see your analysis… Unless we can turn Rip/Tay into a very productive big man (Center), I’m guessing we’re a 30-35 win team?
palamida
July 2, 2009
The pistons have the following players under contract for next season:
Rip – 11.5M Gordon – 11M (reportedly) ; Prince – 10M ; Charlie V – 7M (reportedly); Maxiell – 5M ; Brown – 4.1M ; Oberto 3.5M (will be bought out?) ; Stuckey 1.8M ; Afflalo – 1M ; Bynum – 0.8M ; Sharpe – 0.75M.
That’s already about 56M in guaranteed money locked over 11 roster spots. None of these players should be considerably better than average next season and a few will be worse.
naturally the Pistons have a gaping hole at Center, but really have mediocre players across the board. We’l have to wait for Dumars to fill the rest of the roster spots and\or make more moves, but barring anything dramatic I doubt the Pistons would come near the 35 Wins mark and will possibly be a hell of a lot worse.
brgulker
July 2, 2009
palamida:
I suspect that Gordon’s deal is an ascending deal (9, 10, 11, 12, 13) or something thereabouts, which does leave a little bit of wiggle room over the next two seasons to either trade or add a veteran big man.
According to NBA roundtable, we have more like 50 mil. guaranteed after the 09-10 season, which should leave 8-10 mil. for next summer as well.
I suspect we’re moving Rip (which will be a good thing, I think), but it’s hard to say what we can get in return.
But, it’s truly disappointing to me. I only discovered WoW this season, and it’s the first season in recent memory that we’ve had a lot of money to go after FA’s. And Joe D truly disappoints by constructing a team of average-ish players.
A true bummer.
Here’s hoping we can find a way to squeeze Rondo out of Boston some other way…
Ethan
July 2, 2009
I was absolutely floored by those signings. I guess all that talk about Dumars being some kind of genius is put to bed, eh? Drafting Darko, trading Chauncey for Iverson, signing Rip to a mega-deal, and now this…. wow. My guess is they will be just good enough to sneak in as a 7 or 8 seed every year, missing on the chance to draft a lottery talent and getting bounced in the first round. Awesome.
Enjoy the Charlie V/Ben Gordon era Detroit, methinks it will be a long one.
brgulker
July 2, 2009
Ethan,
I think you’re probably right, unless something else happens.
However, I’m still holding out hope that we’ll be able to move Rip/Tay (or possibly even CV at some point this year or next) for a productive big man.
Rip had one of his worst years, so I don’t know about that. But Tay is productive by just about any metric and is still relatively young with a movable contract.
I’m holding out hope that we can make a move for a quality big. But even with that type of trade, I don’t see how these signings make a ‘chip a realistic possibility anytime soon.
Ethan
July 2, 2009
Yeah, Prince is great, after Chauncey he’s always been my favority Piston. I hope he winds up in a good situation, because he deserves it.
You definitely need a quality big, but I don’t have a clue who you would target. Maybe take a shot at Biedrins in GS? Regardless, barring getting an uber-talented big, this roster just looks ugly to me. The pieces don’t seem to fit.
brgulker
July 2, 2009
Well, it’s hard to say for sure what could happen.
Rumors have been Tay to the Clips for Kaman.
I’m an advocate of going after Gortat somehow (although that seems impossible given how we’ve chewed up our cap space). There’s also been talk of a sign and trade with Sheed to Cle for Varejao, but we don’t have the cap space to give Sheed as much as he wants.
The only thing I can think of is re-signing Dice, who was our most productive player last year, but it’s not as if he puts us over the top or anything. For his sake, I’d like to see him go play for a chip somewhere.
There’s also some hope and rumors that we might be able to move Rip for Brand or Rip + Max for Amare.
That seems like best case scenario, but it’s nowhere close to championship-caliber.
I fear you are right; it could be a very long few years as a Pistons fan.
Ethan
July 2, 2009
I think we could very well see Dice and Sheed in Boston next year – the culture is perfect for Dice, and Rasheed and KG have a positive history. While Orlando and Cleveland are both formidable, if that happens and KG gets Sheed motivated, I think those moves would put Boston in good position to make a serious bid for the championship.
Ethan
July 2, 2009
And I can’t imagine how you resign Dice, he was pretty upset with the attitude last year, and unless Dumars works some magic on him I don’t see how these signings could possibly make him feel better.
I hope your Pistons find a way to get it together though. The league isn’t as fun when the Bad Boys aren’t competitive.
brgulker
July 2, 2009
Dice’s agent released a statement today that Curry not being the coach will affect his decision.
I imagine Sheed being gone will have something to do with it as well, as Sheed clearly mailed it in last season.
brgulker
July 2, 2009
Dice produced 10 wins last season. Any team of the aforementioned that is able to acquire him will become a very serious contender, indeed.
Simon
July 2, 2009
It looks as if though the signings are hated by most Pistons fans not just wow fans. Does Joe D really think this is a contending team? why did he all of sudden develop a taste for scorers of questionable attitudes?
Palamida
July 2, 2009
Simon, Personally I think the Pistons fans that by now are used to success are having a hard time taking this. What I mean by this is that the Pistons who were contenders\a solid playoff team for quite a while now under the Dumars reign see this team as a similar team to last years squad, perhaps somewhat inferior ; they think : Iverson, Sheed (the two most notable subtractions from this season’s roster) are superior to Gordon and Charlie V. While that is true, they aren’t actually ALL that superior to them. They expected Dumars to get a “big name” FA with that money and not two “mediocre” players. Naturally even with the FA’s who were on the market this offseason the Pistons could have made choices that would not have “moved” the fans, but would result in a better team, for example : Millsap, Lee as replacments to Sheed and other viable options at other positions of need. I think the media still sees this squad as the marginal 8th seed they were last season, when in fact they possess gaping holes in their roster: No truly productive player at any position, no Starting quality big men and no one on the bench either and the same goes for the backup PG spot which is now… Bynum.
These gaping holes, I suspect would push them farther down the rankings, presumably – much farther down. Again as I said, some roster spots still need to be filled so we’ll see, but it’s looking badly, no doubt.
todd2
July 3, 2009
I hate to say it, but it looks as if Ainge might be following Pat Riley’s management style: win today at the expense of the future. That could be one take for trying to trade Rondo for some “proven” veterans. Time will tell. I don’t understand why Dumars didn’t pull the trigger on the deal, Rondo can play. And based on the professor’s subsequent Pistons post, it looks like Joe is going to run the franchise into the ground.
brgulker
July 3, 2009
@ Palamida:
No offense intended, but you’re dead wrong about us Pistons fans. Even those of us who don’t like/know about WoW are glad to see AI leave. Remember, we had the Bad Boys in the 80’s and 90’s and then the Going to Work group of 03-just short of present.
In other words, we knew without WoW that defense, rebounding, and efficient scoring wins games and championships, and also knew that AI didn’t do those things.
We are not for one second sorry that he is leaving. And we are also very skeptical of BG and CV, because we worry about those exact same things.
Ethan
July 3, 2009
I don’t think the Celts were necessarily serious about trading Rondo. All the reports indicate that the trade you are referring to was discussed by a lower level C’s rep.
My guess would be that the trade discussion was just a feeling-out type of thing, sort of taking the temperature of a team to learn a little bit more about the general perception of Rondo around the league.
Italian Stallion
July 5, 2009
“The thing is that nearly every player in the NBA shoots better then 35%. Thus, this would mean that the more one shoots, the higher his PER would become.”
“If you and I have identical numbers in every statistical category EXCEPT shooting percentage–say you’re at 50% and I’m at 48%–I can post a higher PER than you simply by continuing to increase my shot attempts. ”
I agree with both these points, but I think there is some tendency to overrate the impact.
No one is actually shooting a lot of these 35% 2 point shots. The extra shots are more marginal, like low 40% shots.
If you could get incremental shots at a 48% clip, IMO that would actually say a lot about your skill level and also suggest you are being underutilized by your team!
It’s not easy to simply decide to shoot a lot more shots and continue making them at a 48% or other high rate.
Most of the guys that are low usage scorers with very high FG%s would love to be able to take more shots and maintain their efficiency. Their coaches, teammates, agents, and fans would love it too.
Heck, if David Lee really wants to make 12 million or more a year why doesn’t his agent just tell him to take an extra 10 shots a night and maintain his 59 TS% and go to the Hall of Fame? :)
The problem is that most of these guys don’t have the skills to create or get more shots at those same high rates. Maybe some of them can be used more, but typically it’s correct for them to defer to other players that can get those extra shots at higher but still reasonable rates on some occasions.
Those are the guys that tend to be higher scorers that can and often do get overrated by PER. But IMO it’s not as much as you think because it takes incremental skills to get and make those shots at what can still be called a satisfactory rate.
Mind you, I am agreeing with the consensus here. I am just saying that the theoretical problem is greater than the real problem.
A team needs to take “X” shots during the course of the game. The idea is to get the best shot available. But the best shot available is not always a high percentage one, a very good 3 point attempt, or a shot where you will get fouled a lot of the time.
Sometimes it’s a 40% 2 pointer that “someone” has to take. That guy will get rewarded with a higher PER, but if the alternative was David Lee taking the same 2 pointer from just inside the arc at 25%, shouldn’t he get some reward for some of it because he’s a better shooter and scorer?
It’s the real chuckers, self centered players, bad decision makers etc….that can get unjustifiably
rewarded by a large amount for their extra scoring that are the real problem with PER.
Oren
July 6, 2009
IS,
The fact remains that there are some players who shoot considerably worse then the league average, considerably worse then the average for people who shoot many shots, that lead the league in attempts. I don’t think we disagree on this.
The way I understand it, most statisticians believe that there is no correlation between shooting attempts and shooting efficiency. That said, if you want to argue that there is a correlation, you’d have to change PER so that the average shooting percentage is different for players that shoot many shots and those that shoot few shots. That way, PER would make more sense.
Still, I suspect you’re understating the problem. Even presuming that some players have bad shooting percentages because they’re forced to shoot, we can still note that most shots are taken with more then 5 seconds on the clock. I’m not convinced that it’s such a big deal.
brgulker
July 6, 2009
The way I understand it, most statisticians believe that there is no correlation between shooting attempts and shooting efficiency.
AI’s season this past year makes for an interesting case study. His shot attempts dropped drastically; in other words, his team asked him to shoot less (although I’m not sure about shots per minute, so I’m making an educated guess) in those moments that IS described.
Yet, his below-average shooting percentage hovered right around his career averages.
Oren
July 7, 2009
It’s the same with Mike Miller. He shot less per forty-eight minutes and his shooting percentage actually dropped. This despite the fact that his assists increased which implies that he was trying to pass up the bad shot. I’d note that he also got on the US olympic team to be a shooter.
One would have thought that his shooting percentage would have skyrocketed since he shot less often. Guess not.
John W. Davis
July 10, 2009
When you put it that way Prof. D I think I would have taken that trade.
I dont think Stuckey is a Point Guard anyway!