Back in 2004-05, the Atlanta Hawks won 13 games with a -10.2 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency). Looking at the ten players who led this team in minutes played, we can see why Atlanta failed so miserably (WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes).
Al Harrington: 2,550 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.003 WP48
Josh Childress: 2,376 min., 10.8 Wins Produced, 0.218 WP48
Antoine Walker: 2,128 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.002 WP48
Josh Smith: 2,050 min., 8.1 Wins Produced, 0.189 WP48
Tyronn Lue: 1,528 min., 2.4 Wins Produced, 0.076 WP48
Pedrag Drobnjak: 1,435 min., -2.7 Wins Produced, -0.091 WP48
Tony Delk: 1,340 min., 0.3 Wins Produced, 0.012 WP48
Boris Diaw: 1,201 min., 1.1 Wins Produced, 0.044 WP48
Jason Collier: 942 min., -3.1 Wins Produced, -0.158 WP48
Royal Ivey: 809 min., -0.7 Wins Produced, -0.039 WP48
The Wins Produced of this collection sums to 16.0, telling us that this team failed because the players it employed were generally (although not always) unproductive.
Over the next three seasons the Hawks improved, winning 26, 30, and then 37 games. Last season the Hawks took another step forward and won 47 games, advancing to the second round of the NBA playoffs.
When we look at the players who led the Hawks in minutes played we can see who is responsible for this outcome.
Joe Johnson: 3,124 min., 8.6 Wins Produced, 0.131 WP48
Mike Bibby: 2,740 min., 7.8 Wins Produced, 0.136 WP48
Josh Smith: 2,421 min., 5.9 Wins Produced, 0.116 WP48
Al Horford: 2,242 min., 9.4 Wins Produced, 0.201 WP48
Marvin Williams: 2,093 min., 6.5 Wins Produced, 0.149 WP48
Ronald Murray: 1,975 min., 1.4 Wins Produced, 0.035 WP48
Maurice Evans: 1,840 min., 2.1 Wins Produced, 0.055 WP48
Zaza Pachulia: 1,473 min., 2.7 Wins Produced, 0.088 WP48
Solomon Jones: 675 min., -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.012 WP48
Acie Law: 560 min., 0.5 Wins Produced, 0.040 WP48
If we look over these two lists we note that only Josh Smith appears both times. This suggests that the Hawks improved because different players got to call themselves Hawks.
Now the Hawks wish to take the next step. Steve Aschburner of Sports Illustrated, though, tells us — in Can Hawks evolve into contender? — the plan is now changing.
The Hawks, for the most part, have had a “stay-cation” summer. With Rick Sund passing his one-year anniversary as GM this offseason, Atlanta diligently has kept intact the nucleus assembled by predecessor Billy Knight. …”Yeah, I like our club,” Sund told the AJC. “The only reason I say that is there’s still growth from within.”
The Hawks have not entirely stood pat. The team traded Acie Law and Speedy Claxton to the Golden State Warriors for Jamal Crawford. On draft night the Hawks chose point guard Jeff Teague. And in the past few days the Hawks signed Joe Smith.
Judging by what he did last year in college, Teague is not expected to be a major producer of wins next season. The following numbers from 2008-09 suggest the same story can be told about Crawford and Smith.
Jamal Crawford: 2,479 min., 1.2 Wins Produced, 0.023 WP48
Joe Smith: 1,102 min., 1.2 Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48
Given the quality of players added, it does look like the Hawks are simply expecting the players currently on the roster to get better. Now this is possible. Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Al Horford are still in their early twenties. Improvement at that age does happen.
But we should be realistic about how much improvement is likely. Basketball players – relative to what we see in baseball and football – are very consistent over time. So although there is a standard age profile in basketball (players first improve and then decline), the slopes up and down are gradual. Consequently, a dramatic change in player productivity is not something one should count upon.
Let’s imagine, though, that a dramatic change did happen. Specifically, what if Williams, Smith, and Horford all boosted their WP48 by 50% (a fantastic percentage I just made up)? These three players produced 21.7 wins last year. Therefore, a 50% jump would result in 10.9 additional wins. Such a leap moves the Hawks from a 45 win team (that is what their efficiency differential said they should have won in 2008-09) to a 56 win team. Had this happened last season, the Hawks would have moved from the 4th seed in the Eastern Conference all the way to…. okay, the 4th seed. Yes, the Cavaliers, Celtics, and Magic all won more than 56 games last year. And these teams have all made moves this summer that will likely increase their win totals in 2009-10.
So a 50% improvement in the three young players the Hawks are counting on to evolve (as Aschburner put it) would not be enough to overtake the top teams in the East. And even if that improvement happened, the Hawks are still likely to lose production from players like Mike Bibby, who are on the wrong side of the age profile.
If we put it all together, the Hawks plan to contend in the East appears flawed. Improvement from within is probably not going to close the gap between Atlanta and the top teams in the East. This team might as well hope the Cavaliers, Magic, and Celtics suffer major injuries. Certainly if such a hope was realized, the Hawks could also rise to the top.
As the saying goes, though, hope is not a plan. And at this point, it doesn’t look like Atlanta really has much of a plan. This is a team that has risen from the ashes because it acquired more productive players. To move on, more roster changes are needed.
It’s possible fans of this team might disagree. Two years ago Boston Celtics needed seven games to eliminate the Hawks in the playoffs. This year, injuries to the Hawks appeared to derail their post-season run. Despite such evidence, we must remember that the 82 game regular season is the better measure of a team’s quality. In 2009-10 the Hawks finished with a win total in the mid 40s. To seriously contend in the East, the team needs at least 15 more wins. Improvement from existing players should simply not be expected to close this gap. Yes, one can hope. But again, that’s not really a plan.
– 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 
Jimbo
August 17, 2009
Presumably when Crawford is playing on a team with other legitimate scoring weapons (suc as Joe Johnson, Bibby etc) and one that is taking its championship credentials very seriously, his shot selection will improve which will improve his WP48. He may be a better player next year, than he ever was – I think that is the hope in Atlanta.
brgulker
August 17, 2009
Don’t count on it. I’ve been watching him since his days at U of M (as a U of M fan). The man is in love with shooting the basketball.
Italian Stallion
August 17, 2009
The funny thing about Crawford is that his shot selection is not his worst quality. He plays no defense.
Michael Penn
August 17, 2009
This is a good article, and it raises an interesting issue; if a team stands no chance reasonable chance of becoming extrinsically dominant, should it concern itself with intrinsic improvement?
Should NBA decision makers adopt a more consequentialist utilitarian position, or is the pursuit of success a virtue in the deontological sense, regardless of the subsequent outcome?
Obviously the position in the article is the former, but doesn’t the latter still have value, in the spirit of competition if nothing else?
Nice critique Professor!
Tball
August 17, 2009
I don’t think the Hawks went into the offseason as a team that had “no-chance” to become dominant. The starters are all above average and the bench is entirely below average. Thus, the goal of the offseason should have been to find a way to strengthen the bench (or improve upon a rotation player who could then be shifted to the bench).
In that sense, the team could have gone out and signed Andre Miller or Ramon Sessions to strengthen itself at the point position, brought Childress back to give the team depth at the wing, and retained Pachulia (as it did) for the post and wound up with an 8-man rotation that is entirely above average (save for Pachulia who is about average). The result could have been a ten win improvement, plus growth from the younger stars.
Bearing in mind that the Magic were the third best team in the Eastern Conference last season before the playoffs, is it so hard to imagine a fourth seed getting as far? With good health, in-season acquisitions, and a little luck? The younger players will only get more expensive, so the window to win with this team can be short. It behooves management to give them a chance. Not for virtue, but with one of the most talented starting fives in the league, they do have a chance to win it all, if they position themselves to take advantage and if an opportunity presents itself.
mrparker
August 17, 2009
I was wondering if anyone had a chance to check out basketballstatistics.com. I can’t remember the writer’s name but he had a couple of statistical studies on the effects of three point shooting percentages by position. He didn’t necessarily draw any conclusion but the data is pretty counter-intuitive. It might be worth it for readers of this blog to take a look at that site.
D Fitzpatrick
August 17, 2009
Hi, Got a question on Ariza. I lwent to the basketballreference.com website(cause I am arguing with someone abotu how much better he is then artest) and they have him averaging 8.9 points per game. If i can ask, how are you adjusting this to get to the 17.5 a game you have. Is it per 48 kinutes , or what am I missing? I know I need to buy the book, I am asking for it for Christmas
D Fitzpatrick
August 17, 2009
Ignore that last question. I see its per 48 minutes. I should read more carefully. Thanks
todd2
August 17, 2009
I think this team has been underachieving. I know it’s difficult to measure a coach’s impact, but I think Woodson needs to be a part of a discussion about the Hawks performance or prospects. I don’t think their management is going to be satisfied with a first-round playoff victory this season.
Sunrise
August 17, 2009
What’s the average WP48 for a starter and a bench player? It surely can’t be too close to 0.100 for both, as starters should be better than bench players. I’ve been reading the site since a buying the book a year ago, but haven’t found a post about it so far.
Joe Johnsons WP48 from last season (0.131) might be a bit better than the average NBA player, but is it really better than what the average starter is offering? If not, by this measure that would make it even harder to qualify him as an All Star.
PJ
August 17, 2009
Tball: surely just improving the bench would not make Atlanta a 57 win team (i.e., a “ten win” improvement)?
One of the reasons for disparity in the NBA, I think — compared to baseball and football — is you only have five guys on the floor at all times. Which means you really can’t contend without a truly great player on your team (unless you’re the Pistons, for some reason). I guess Atlanta could be going for the Detroit ’04 model, but I don’t think they measure up…
I suspect the Hawks will take a small step back this year.
ilikeflowers
August 17, 2009
From a WOW perspective the 2004 Detroit team had two truly great players in Ben Wallace and Chauncey Billups.
Sam Cohen
August 17, 2009
Sunrise– I’ve asked that question before in the comments and Professor Berri was kind enough to respond. Unfortunately, I probably asked more than a year ago and I can’t remember what the answer was anymore. I want to say the average WP48 for a starter was somewhere around .130, but that is based on a hazy (at best) recollection.
Michael
August 18, 2009
“Which means you really can’t contend without a truly great player on your team (unless you’re the Pistons, for some reason)”
The Pistons had Ben Wallace. When he was in his prime he was a great player.
Curious George
August 18, 2009
Has anyone ever gone back and checked to see how accurate these WP predictions are? I know, I know, these are models of *past* performance.
I was thinking of myself but before I mine a few years worth of blog posts (tagging them would’ve been helpful…), I’d like to know if anyone else has done it.
mrparker
August 18, 2009
I think the wp48 predictions get the defensive efficiency side correct. However, I think the offensive side is a little harder to predict. I just read an interesting data set on basketballstatistics.com about 3point shooting by position and how it effects overall team offense. I’m trying to draw attention to that data set, I hope Berri doesn’t mind me posting that site in his comment thread. I think it sheds some light on how individual performance can effect overall team offensive efficiency
simon
August 19, 2009
curious george//
If I remember correctly the figure is somewhere a bit above 70%. You can find such info from dberri’s fine book(Wages of Wins)
mrparker//
Interesting that you take an opposite view of Illardi
mrparker
August 19, 2009
Might be a dumb question…who is Illardi?
Michael
August 20, 2009
Steve Ilardi??
From NBA Stuffer:
“Steve Ilardi is a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Kansas, and former statistical consultant to the KU men’s basketball team under Roy Williams. With the support of assistant coaches Jerod Haase and Ben Miller, Ilardi developed and implemented an adjusted plus-minus model of player evaluation at KU, one similar to the models independently developed by Dan Rosenbaum and Jeff Sagarin. In his ‘day job’, Ilardi is a clinical researcher who has worked to develop a novel, lifestyle-based treatment for depressive illness.”
wesleywhatwhat
January 26, 2010
tell me again how the hawks don’t have a plan???