The Boston Celtics 2008-09 season officially ended when the Orlando Magic defeated the Celtics in the second round of the 2009 playoffs. Boston’s drive to defend their title, though, actually ended when Kevin Garnett’s season ended. As Table One indicates, on a per-minute basis KG was the Celtics most productive player (by a very, very slight margin). The loss of such a player meant it was very unlikely the Celtics would defend their title.
Table One: The Boston Celtics in 2008-09
For the 2009-10 season, Garnett is expected to be healthy. And with Garnett back, Boston will once again – as the following potential depth chart indicates (derived mostly from ESPN.com) — field an imposing starting line-up [Wins Produced and Wins Produced per 48 minutes (WP48) numbers from the 2008-09 season].
Potential First String
PG: Rajon Rondo [17.2Wins Produced, 0.313 WP48]
SG: Ray Allen [10.6 Wins Produced, 0.177 WP48]
SF: Paul Pierce [10.2 Wins Produced, 0.161 WP48]
PF: Kevin Garnett [11.6 Wins Produced, 0.314 WP48]
C: Kendrick Perkins [5.0 Wins Produced, 0.106 WP48]
Potential Second String
PG: Eddie House [4.7 Wins Produced, 0.154 WP48]
SG: Tony Allen [1.6 Wins Produced, 0.088 WP48]
SF: Marquis Daniels [0.3 Wins Produced, 0.009 WP48]
PF: Glen Davis [-2.5 Wins Produced, -0.074 WP48]
C: Rasheed Wallace [3.2 Wins Produced, 0.073 WP48]
If we focus our attention on Boston’s starting line-up, and the numbers these players posted last year, we have to believe this team is capable of winning another title. All five starters were above average in 2008-09, and both Rondo and Garnett were three times better than an average player last season (which is really, really good).
Unfortunately there are two other sets of numbers that cast doubt on this plan. The first set of numbers involves age. The Celtics success depends on Ray Allen (34 years old), Paul Pierce (32 years old), Kevin Garnett (33 years old), Eddie House (31 years old), and Rasheed Wallace (35 years old). Last season these players produced 40.3 wins and posted a collective 0.171 WP48. Given the age of these players, one can expect the per-minute production we observed last season to decline.
Certainly one expects Doc Rivers to limit the minutes of these players. But that means giving the bench players even more time. And hence we turn to the second set of numbers that raise concerns. After we get past the formidable starting line-up, the Celtics don’t have much. Yes, the Celtics added Rasheed Wallace. But the team lost Leon Powe (0.187 WP48 last season). So it’s not necessarily the case that Rasheed makes the Celtics bench much better.
Of course, if Garnett can play the entire season, that bench may not be needed as much as it was last year. And that’s essentially the key to the entire season. Garnett and the other aging Celtics simply have to play and be productive. If that happens, the Celtics can contend. If that doesn’t happen, then Boston once again falters.
My sense is that this is well understood. Garnett is clearly the key to Boston’s chances.
That being said, I do want to address the possibility that Rasheed can be KG insurance (which some — although perhaps not many — might think is possible).
As noted, Rasheed is now 35 years old. Across his 14 seasons he has produced 68.0 Wins Produced and posted a 0.096 WP48. Average WP48 is 0.100, so Rasheed – despite his reputation – has essentially been an average player across his entire career. Yes, he’s capable of being above average. But at his age, the Celtics will be fortunate if he just reaches his career mark in 2009-10.
Turnign to KG…. Garnett was taken with the 5th pick in the 1995 draft, right after Rasheed was chosen with the fourth pick. Across the next 14 seasons, Garnett produced 272.6 wins and posted a 0.330 WP48. Yes, the difference between KG and Wallace is vast.
Like Wallace, Garnett was below his career average last season. And like Wallace, KG might have trouble getting back to his career mark in 2009-10. For Boston to win again, though, KG has to do more than get back on the floor. He has to produce at a level near his career average. If that happens, the Celtics can challenge for another title.
If that doesn’t happen, though, Boston’s players are going to age another year. And that mean the Celtics are that much closer to blowing up this particular title team up and re-building (a reality that Father Time will impose upon this franchise sooner or later).
– 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 
Caleb
September 28, 2009
“Average WP48 is 0.100, so Rasheed – despite his reputation – has essentially been an average player across his entire career. ”
Doesn’t adjusted plus/minus say that Sheed is actually one of the most productive players in the league? I know you aren’t a fan of adj. plus/minus… but if I remember right Sheed has consistently been among the league leaders in that metric for most of his career. APM can be fluky and noisy with single seasons, but I think its a lot harder to question it when you get a consistent result like that. Box score stats are just not enough to capture everything a player is doing, and APM says that Sheed does a lot to help his teams win.
Steve Walters
September 28, 2009
A solid analysis, Dave. (And, finally, you’ve applied yourself to an important topic — whether fans of all things Boston will have something else to gloat about next Spring.)
One thing I’m curious about is what you project for Tony Allen and Big Baby. Given the raw numbers, I suspect the answer is “not much,” but I wonder if their numbers contain any leading indicators of improvement. Father Time is, after all, on their side; the question is whether there’s any reason to believe that there’s much upward slope to their career trajectories.
dberri
September 28, 2009
Caleb,
We talk about APM in our next book. As I have noted, it has significant problems. Nevertheless, people tend to cite it when it says stuff they like.
Steve,
Last year, Big Baby was really bad. I find it hard to believe he is every going to be effective. Tony Allen, though, has offered something in the past. So there is hope for him.
JAW
September 28, 2009
The optimism about Big Baby comes from the fact that he started hitting that outside jumper consistently in the 2nd half of the season and the playoffs and he showed huge shooting splits last year. I don’t know what his WPA was after December, but I assume that’s where it comes from. He’s still just 23. I don’t know what aging curves look like in the NBA, but I have to imagine peak for a power forward is more likely to be around 27 than something younger.
Phil
September 28, 2009
Great article!
I do have a question though: How did the players’ WP48s change from pre-Garnett injury to post-Garnett injury? Who stepped up the most?
simon
September 29, 2009
Caleb,
Compare ‘Sheed’s+/- numbers at 82games against his starting unit partners over the years. While his +/- are good, it looks fairly average in that context.
P-Dawg
September 29, 2009
This is what I come to the site for: solid, unsentimental analysis. As a Boston fan, I die a little inside every time I hear or read someone in the local sports media say that a title is basically a lock because we have Rasheed Wallace. I had a minor stroke when fans and sports writers alike actually breathed a sigh of RELIEF when we re-signed Glen Davis. It’s like data just doesn’t matter to these people.
The reality for the Celtics, as you indicate, is that them’s that’s good are too old and them’s that’s young ain’t so good.
At some point, though, I’d like to see a piece on the curious case of Ray Allen. After coming off a pretty serious injury a couple of years ago, Ray, who’s well in his thirties, had one of his best years last year. It’s not always true that another birthday means a decline in performance. And therein lies any hope Boston fans have for a title this year.
Italian Stallion
September 29, 2009
Looking forward to reading some more of your thoughts on adjusted +/-.
IMHO, “in theory” that’s the number that should be the most comprehensive measure of a player’s contribution because it automatically captures everything and weighs it properly.
Unfortunately, you need such a large sample to overcome all the noise that by the time you have it, it may be irrelevant. Player ability is not static.
Also, I’m not convinced that any of the current Adj +/- measurements are correct. I’ve seen too many that seemed so far removed from reality (and other measurements) that even if my own subjective evaluation was off (as well as the other objective measurements) they all can’t be THAT FAR off.
One example is David Lee. Last time I looked he was negative for both 1 and 2 years. All Knicks fans know the holes in David Lee’s game that might not be getting captured in some models (lack of defense, no mid range game etc.. ) But it’s impossible to believe that he’s a “negative” player.
I’m coming around to the point of view that all of the current comprehensive statistical measurements (be it PER, WP48, or Adj +/-) have strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, all should be part of any analysis of a player.
IMO, if you understand what goes into each model and where the strengths and weaknesses of each are, you can probably get really close to reality by using each “where appropriate”.
Robert
September 29, 2009
I’m surprised there was no mention of Shelden Williams. He’s a positive WP48 – isn’t he?
Scott
September 29, 2009
I don’t know how you chose to list Daniels at the 3 and Allen at the 2- That seems backwards from everything I’ve read. I don’t know if that will matter much- I imagine Daniels WP48 would go slightly up and Allen’s WP48 would go slightly down.
Though even that is a little off, as I believe the plan is to basically play Daniels as the point on offense while House plays off the ball, but then have them switch assignments on Defense. That is, Eddie will guard the PG and Daniels will guard the SG.
simon
September 29, 2009
IS,
If you mean something like where coaches try to see which units tend to perform best defensively, etc then it’s a different story and I can see the usefulness. But to use such approach to evaluate productiveness of a player, the problem is that inevitably one just picks the “appropriate” system when it supports a preconceived notion and discards it when it doesn’t fit that person’s view of reality.
As dberri has said, I see it all the time; a writer or a forum poster brings up a +/- figure when it helps their arguments but never mentions it when the system shows otherwise. However I can’t say I personally hasn’t done it. Also as a TO fan I’m warming up to adjusted +/- more since Winston once said Turkoglu is the most productive player in the NBA. ;)
Italian Stallion
September 29, 2009
Simon,
That is a risk.
However, I think if you attempt to be objective you CAN identify the strengths and weaknesses of various stats and improve your analysis.
For example, I think D Berri has demonstrated irrefutably that PER has a tendency to overrate “inefficient scorers”. From the lower level stats
it’s fairly easy to see how a particular player stacks up against his peers from an efficiency point of view. If he’s low efficiency, but a high usage scorer, I’d be apt to discount that player’s PER.
On the flip side, I am fairly convinced that high efficiency very low usage scorers are not bringing as much to the table as some people think. IMO, visual and playing experience suggests that that player profile hurts the team in other hard to measure ways. So in an instance like that I might be more apt to trust PER or a blend of both .
If a particular player is universally known as as a great/poor defender, visual evidence and some of the stats that try to measure defense in isolation confirm it, I might be tempted to look at adjusted +/- to see if it’s capturing value that some of the other models are not.
I don’t think there is a perfect solution. We are all apt to allow our biases to sink in. But if you aren’t emotionally attached to any given model, I think it’s possible to be objective enough to improve the analysis.
There’s an old saying about accounting that I love.
“I’d rather be approximately right than precisely wrong”.
Tball
September 29, 2009
I’m hoping that with Wallace and Davis on the floor, one of them will play in the post and grab the occasional offensive rebound. Last season it appeared Davis was frequently being kept on the perimeter while Powe or Perkins worked for space inside. I did not see a ton of the Pistons last year, but I suspect both players are more efficient/productive (shooting percentage, rebounding, and passing) when they operate closer to the basket.
Caleb
September 29, 2009
Italion Stalion:
Exactly. Well said. Analyzing a player requires one to look at all these different metrics, as well using one’s own observation. The belief that all of a player’s production can be summed up in one number with the use of inadequate box score stats and one formula is just pure hubris.
simon: see this post on the BBR blog – http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=3116
dberri:
That seems to be your standard response when anyone mentions APM, but the fact is… all metrics have problems, yours included. That doesn’t mean the evidence should be discarded. APM deserves to be part of the picture just as Wins Produced does, just as Win Shares does, and just as PER does. As for “Nevertheless, people tend to cite it when it says stuff they like.” And people don’t cite Wins Produced when it says things they like? Of course they do! As a Hornets fan I can tell you with the utmost certainty that lots of Hornets fans who think your metric is garbage in most cases will still be quick to point out how highly it rates CP when discussing who deserves the MVP or who the best point guard is. Its human nature… has nothing to do with APM.
dberri
September 29, 2009
Caleb,
I am spending my day reviewing academic papers submitted to journals. One of my tasks is to determine whether or not specific models are worthy of publication. This task involves thinking about the models people are producing. Does the model explain what it purports to explain? Is it specified correctly? Would an alternative specification yield better results? These are the questions (among others) I think about as I read these papers.
What I fail to see on-line, is any discussion of how one critiques a model. On-line people seem to think that all models have some value. That is not how it works in academic journals. If a model has been shown to be incorrect (and PERs has been shown to be incorrect by objective standards) then it should not still be part of the picture.
Like PERs, APM has serious problems. It is very inconsistent from season-to-season. This means that what you see in the past about Turkoglu (or any other player) is not something you can count on seeing from APM in the future. Supporters of this model say “well, the model is noisy.” Fine, but state clearly what that means. It means APM cannot predict itself with much accuracy. And that means what it says in the past doesn’t tell us much about the future. This is a real problem for this model.
brgulker
September 29, 2009
I had no idea Eddie House was productive!
Dr. Berri,
If the rumor this summer had any truth Prince, Stuckey, Rip for Rondo + Allen, would you pull the trigger?
It would have left us with a gaping hole at SF and an aging (albeit still productive) SG, but it would have netted us a hugely productive, young PG and gotten us out from under Rip’s toxic contract.
I would have pulled the trigger and built around Rondo, personally. What do you think?
dberri
September 29, 2009
brgulker,
I think I wrote that this was a great trade for Detroit (when the rumour was out there). But Dumars turned it down. Too bad.
Caleb
September 29, 2009
“and PERs has been shown to be incorrect by objective standards”
What objective standard exactly? This puzzles me. I’ve read your objections to PER.. but none of what you said seems to me to prove that PERs are “objectively incorrect,” nor have I read anything that shows that Wins Produced is “objectively correct.” I have a degree in History, not statistics, so I’ll willfuly admit my ignorance when it comes to the advanced math that is involed here. I do my best to understand this stuff without getting into the math too much. Maybe that’s a mistake on my part, I don’t know, and obviously I’m out my league mathematically talking to a guy like you.
Yet it seems to me that no advanced metric can truly be proved “correct” or “incorrect.” Its advanced guesswork at best is it not? Your model may say player X produced Y number of wins, and it may do so conistently over the years… but thats only proof that your model is consistent and consistently ranks players a certain way – not that you’ve actually captured a player’s actual value. The idea that a players actual value can be captured is itself an unproven hypothesis.
“It means APM cannot predict itself with much accuracy.”
Okay… but given a large enough sample size APM does produce some consistent trends. Rasheed Wallace, for example. So maybe its tough to predict future performance based on APM, but is that really a big problem?
If it tells us a lot about the past and tells us things that we may not have known by observation alone, then it seems to me that it has value. You may claim otherwise but a good deal of what you do on this blog is talk about what players have already done… which is fine. I like that. I don’t want to know the future of the NBA, I’d rather watch and find out! What I do like is to watch and then have a look at the stats to add to my enjoyment and understanding.
The last thing I have to say about APM is this: despite not using a single box score stat, APM nets results that often allign with what simple observation tells us. We know just by watching them that Garnett, Duncan, Chris Paul, etc are great players and APM says they are great players also despite not using the box score. That tells me that APM is getting atleast some things right.
Sorry for the long post… and I appreciate the response.
dberri
September 29, 2009
Caleb,
PERs is not very correlated with current wins. And that is still true, even when you include team defense. And this is because PERs gives extra credit to people who take shots.
JC Bradbury noted two primary criteria in evaluating a model. First, does it explain what it purports to explain? When it comes to performance metrics, a model should explain current wins (since winning is the objective). On that count, PERs is inferior to other measures.
Second (again, according to Bradbury), is the model consistent over time? If it isn’t (for example, ERA in baseball isn’t very consistent), then your measure is probably capturing something besides the player’s performance. On that count, APM has some problems.
At no point, should we argue that a model is valid because it fits what we previously believed. If we are going to adopt that approach, why have a model at all? Let’s just take a poll and leave it at that.
I appreciate the problem all this poses for sports fans. Really, do we want people to first take several courses in statistics before they can talk about a fundamental question in sports (who is “better”?)? I would think not.
That being said, when people mention PERs and APM — and I am in the midst of a day where I don’t feel like doing what I am doing (reviewing papers is a drag) — then I will take some time to throw out some thoughts.
Caleb
September 29, 2009
First of all, thanks for clarifying… much appreciated. Secondly….
“At no point, should we argue that a model is valid because it fits what we previously believed.”
Agreed, but with a caveat. Simple observation does have value. Our own observations can be flawed, no doubt, and you’ve mentioned many of the reasons why during the course of your blog. That said, we can’t simply discount everything we see. Basketball has been played and evaluated for a long time without the use of advanced statistics. Now certainly there are many people involved with the game that harbor misconceptions and flawed ideas, but there have always been coaches and players and GMs who know what it takes to produce winning basketball, and they’ve known by being around the game and using observation, intuition and first-hand knowledge.
I very much agree that what we previously believed should not be what decides a models validity. That would be ludicrous. That said, I believe there is *something* to terms like “smell test.” Its not everything, but it cant be called nothing either. I’ll leave it at that, and thanks again for the replies.
Tommy_Grand
September 29, 2009
Professor,
Good article. BTW, how many games do you expects the Celt’s to win next year? Was that in there somewhere and I glossed over?
dberri
September 29, 2009
Tommy_Grand,
Well, if KG plays the full season, and he can be productive at his age, they might win 65. If not, they should win more than 50, but I think 60 is beyond this team (given its age). How is that?
Man of Steele
September 29, 2009
Good conversation today. I’d like to weigh in on the practice of using different models. In my discipline, a disciplined scholar has to evaluate many different sources of information, critiquing and collating them to form one coherent (or dissonant) picture. Of course, this evaluation inherently includes placing a greater level of priority on some sources of information because they are more reliable. Still, as Dr. Berri frequently points out, a researcher must always check the information against his own preconceptions. We must more seriously weigh the evidence which goes against our preconceived notion, rather than simply using different sources indiscriminately. A true eclectic method includes all sources of information in all instances, with varying weights given. The point of all this is, we shouldn’t use different models “when appropriate,” we should use all models in every instance, especially when they countervale against our expectations. A concrete example may clarify – adj. +/- has Shane Battier rated pretty well, and I think Daryl Morey said that the Rockets use a form of it which rates Battier quite high. These results agree with my opinion, but WP has Battier as a somewhat above average player, but no star, contradicting my opinion. Clearly, I will have to consider Dr. Berri’s method seriously if I am to make an adequate appraisal of the Rockets’ chances this season. If I simply allow my opinions to guide my analysis, I will probably conclude that the Rockets will win the title every year (obviously the Rockets are my favorite team). If I used all sources equally, though, I might still come out being quite wrong. For example, PER would probably tell me that Aaron Brooks will be awesome this year because he scored a lot of points in the playoffs. Dr. Berri’s method, though, provides a needed corrective to methods like PER that do not take efficency into account. Clearly, I still need consider WP, simply because it is a stronger model (although by no means perfect).
Italian Stallion
September 29, 2009
I have to agree with Caleb even though I fully understand how an economist or mathematician would (and probably must) disagree with us.
There are times as a player or observer you notice things that you believe with close to 100% certainty have value (either positive or negative). Some of those things are not being captured in a specific player’s box score stats. Instead for example, they are being captured in the stats of his teammates.
These things may not have huge value (if they did someone would probably already be tracking them and putting them in the box score), but they can sometimes be enough in totality or for a specific type of player to change that player’s value relative to his box score stats.
I think it would foolish to ignore such things.
I think the goal should be for people like you to figure out a way to measure and value them because guys like me (and perhaps Caleb) don’t have that skill.
However, until such time as you do, as “handicappers” of players and teams we are forced to make subjective adjustments to the output of the existing models and look to maximize our success.
To not do that, would demonstrate a very stubborn way of thinking that is probably a requirement for academia, but not for getting closer to reality before the academics can prove it.
Now of course, just as everyone is not blessed with equal mathematical ability, not everyone is blessed with equal powers of observation and intuition. So something like this could easily prove to be a disaster in some hands (hence the skepticism by the mathematically oriented).
But here is an example of what I am talking about.
I’m the very rare bird that makes money betting on horse racing. I often can’t explain, measure, or value the things I know to be true with a high degree of accuracy, let alone perfectly.
However, my insights and returns are superior to the handful of mathematical models out there that are also profitable even though they were designed by people that have an extra 25 IQ points and a few advanced degrees.
That’s saying something about what one can learn via experience, observation, intuition, and feel that is sometimes not so easy to measure and value.
You can go where success takes you even if you don’t understand it all. To a large degree that’s how coaches, players, etc… improve themselves. That doesn’t mean you should discount the stats as a tool, just that you can have a broader tool box and maximize results.
Jed
September 29, 2009
To the contrary — with Perk posting a 106 WP48, it seems the C’s really only need him to play a little more than 4 quarters to guarantee a perfect season!
Out of curiosity, KG’s WP48 was 0.280 in your 08-09 midpoint analysis 59 games into the season. Putting aside his injury, a +.034 improvement in the final twenty games of the season seems like a pretty significant change given the prior sample size. Is that because the rest of the league played worse over that span and so KG looked better by comparison?
Jed
September 29, 2009
*A little more than 3 quarters, sorry. I guess it’s only fitting that I make a typo while making a joke about making a typo…
Italian Stallion
September 29, 2009
Man of Steel,
I think for what I am suggesting to work you have to use each model “when appropriate”.
Once you identify the weaknesses within each model, you can identify the types of players that might be under rated or over rated by each (I am mostly talking about extremes).
Categorizing the players is a much more objective exercise because I can use lower levels stats where there is little or no debate.
The key point is that I am conceding that none of the popular models is perfect (though I like this one best) and believe I can identify both a high quality model and its flaws. You (and D Berri) may not agree that I can do that, but that’s OK. I am not a professor that has to meet academic standards. I am gambler and investor that measures success with dollars and ROI.
"Italian Stallion"
September 30, 2009
Hi,
I’m Italian Stallion. Irepeat the same things every (long) post. I am postmodern: all models and all religions have value, there is no real “truth” per se, and subjective objectivity is the name of the game. Anecdote is the plural of data…also, did you know that I am a professional gambler and thus I just have feel that emanates from my fingertips?
Joe
September 30, 2009
“The plural of anecdote is data” seems more like something IS would say.
Zach K
September 30, 2009
Past threads now predict
present ones. New book out soon.
New arguments too?
Gareth Lewin
September 30, 2009
Small typo
C: Kendrick Perkins [5.0 Wins Produced, 106 WP48]
Should be 0.106 I assume, unless Perkins is REALLY good.
bill grandt
September 30, 2009
I’ve just come up with a completely new way to analyze pro basketball players. I’ve completely come up with all of this new information on my own. To show how smart I am, let me tell you all about how my system rates Kendrick Perkins the greatest ball player of all time with 106wp48.
Italian Stallion
September 30, 2009
Very funny, clone of Italian Stallion.
Yes, I suppose I do have a habit of repeating things. But that’s only when someone refers to something I said prior and seemingly did not understand it the first time. I am aware that my writing skills leave something to be desired.
As to the rest, I am giving you the benefit of decades of successful gambling and investment experience. Perhaps you should try to use it to your benefit instead of being hostile.
Tom Mandel
October 1, 2009
Caleb — I recommend you read Dave’s book, The Wages of Wins.
What makes wp48 “correct” — and it is the *only* thing that makes it correct — is that if you add up the season’s wp48 ratings for all the players on a team, the result correlates very closely (@95%) w/ the actual team wins that season. That means wp48 is actually measuring something in the real world, some real result.
What is it measuring? In essence, it is measuring a player’s contribution to his team’s scoring differential over the year. The better that figure is, the more wins a team has.
What is at question among *all* these metrics is — in a sense — what we mean by asking how good a player is. In fact, sometimes we *don’t* mean to ask how much he contributes to team wins. Sometimes we mean to ask, for example, how much fun he is to watch. AI is incredibly fun to watch, for example. But he isn’t (and never was) a great player in creating team wins.
Zach K
October 1, 2009
@Italian Stallion,
No offense intended. I was being playful.
If you look through the comments history of this blog, I’ve been quite supportive in the past (unfortunately, there are a couple of Zachs here, so it’s not always obvious).
I am hopeful, however, that we will soon have new things to argue about.
Caleb
October 1, 2009
Tom.
I’m well aware of that. The thing is, the same can be said for Win Shares, but the two metrics often come to vastly different conclusions about which players are actually generating the wins.
brgulker
October 2, 2009
Caleb, have you read the book?
If not, you should. Dr. Berri explains why his metric correlates with team wins and why others do not.
kevin
October 5, 2009
Dave, I think your system overrates Tony Allen. He’s one of the dumbest players I’ve ever seen. It’s like he’s playing one game, and the rest of the team is playing another. Everything he does is out of the context of team coherence. Now, sometimes the things he does out of context is good, like making steals and penetrating for good shots. But he also has abysmal judgment handling the ball and displays no discipline at all on offense.
Tball
November 4, 2009
Barely a week into the new season and it appears the best free agent acquisition of the Celtics was not listed on the first or second string by ESPN. Shelden Williams has been more productive than Rasheed Wallace and Marquis Daniels (points/min, FG%, rb/gm, aFG%, FTA, FT%, TO/min, B). As a result, Wallace/Williams may be an improvement on Davis/Powe.
Take your time healing Davis.
VH
November 6, 2009
i was reading this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574515411980911526.html
which says that the starting lineup for the celts averages 1.07 wp48. it doesnt make sense to me that any collection of players can average more than one win per game since that is all that is available during that time period. can you explain how that is possible?