The San Antonio Spurs won the NBA title in 2003, 2005, and 2007. Given this pattern, many expected the Spurs to contend in 2009. Instead, the team suffered its worst season since 1996-97, or the year before Tim Duncan came to San Antonio.
Reviewing the Spurs
Last season the Spurs scored 1.06 points per possession, a mark that ranks second best in the Duncan era. Unfortunately, their defense allowed 1.02 points per possession. This was the first time the Spurs – in the Duncan era – managed to surrender more than one point per possession. So the Spurs struggled, at least by San Antonio standards. The team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of 4.1 was actually better than anything ever done by the LA-San Diego Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Charlotte Bobcats, Charlotte Hornets, New Jersey Nets (without Jason Kidd), Washington Wizards (post 1970s), Golden State Warriors (post 1970s), and Denver Nuggets (post 1970s). Once again, though, the Spurs – in the Duncan era – expect to do better.
Table One: San Antonio Spurs in 2008-09
When we look at the players employed by San Antonio last season – reported in Table One – it quickly becomes clear where the Spurs faltered. The key number is 44, or the number of games played by Manu Ginobili. Last season Ginobili led the Spurs in WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] with a 0.335 mark. But that production was unavailable for 38 games, and consequently, the Spurs struggled – by San Antonio standards – in the regular season, and were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.
Contending Again?
In the off-season the Spurs added a number of new faces. The acquisition of Richard Jefferson is considered the most important, primarily because RJ scores. As noted last June, though, Jefferson is no longer a very productive NBA player. And the skill he brings – taking shots – is not something the Spurs really needed. Again, their offense last year was quite good.
After Jefferson arrived, though, the Spurs did add Antonio McDyess, a player who is quite productive. McDyess produced 11.0 wins last year with a 0.283 WP48. Average WP48 is 0.100, so McDyess was very good in 2008-09. In fact, he led the Pistons in Wins Produced. Unfortunately, he is now 35 years old. So it’s possible age will start impact his production.
The addition of Jefferson and McDyess gives the Spurs – according to ESPN.com – the following depth chart (Wins Produced and WP48 from the 2008-09 season):
Potential First String
PG: Tony Parker [8.5 Wins Produced, 0.166 WP48]
SG: Roger Mason [4.1 Wins Produced, 0.079 WP48]
SF: Richard Jefferson [3.9 Wins Produced, 0.064 WP48]
PF: Antonio McDyess [11.0 Wins Produced, 0.283 WP48]
C: Tim Duncan [13.9 Wins Produced, 0.265 WP48]
Potential Second String
PG: George Hill [1.0 Wins Produced, 0.039 WP48]
SG: Manu Ginobili [8.2 Wins Produced, 0.335 WP48]
SF: Michael Finley [3.2 Wins Produced, 0.066 WP48]
PF: Matt Bonner [6.3 Wins Produced, 0.158 WP48]
C: Theo Ratliff [0.6 Wins Produced, 0.052 WP48]
Missing on Blair
In addition to these ten players, the Spurs have also added Keith Bogans [3.8 Wins Produced, 0.145 WP48] and DeJuan Blair. Bogans gives the Spurs another productive backcourt performer. And Blair gives the Spurs… well, it’s not entirely clear what Blair will give.
Blair was the most productive player selected out of college in the 2009 draft; at least according to Position Adjusted Win Score. Blair, though, lasted until the second round because people were not sure he was entirely healthy. In Blair’s first preseason game, though, he grabbed 19 rebounds in 22 minutes. Yes, it is only one preseason game. But when a player nearly averages one rebound per-minute, we start to suspect
a. maybe Blair is healthy enough to play in the NBA, and
b. maybe Blair’s college numbers will translate into the NBA.
If both of these points are true, then the Spurs have an extremely productive player on their bench. It’s possible that will not matter much in 2009-10. After all, Blair is currently – according to ESPN.com – San Antonio’s third string power forward. But when we look to the future…
Yes, I know. It’s only one pre-season game. In the past, though, it was noted that 80% of Wins Produced in the NBA are produced by only 20% of the league’s players (i.e. the Pareto Principle applies to the NBA). The reason why so many teams fail to match the worst season in the Duncan era is because these teams fail to acquire many players who populate that 20%. It appears that Blair is going to be one of these players. And because doctors argued Blair is not entirely healthy, the Spurs were given such a player in the second round.
It’s possible the doctors are right. But it must be remembered, most of the players taken before Blair are going to be among the 80% of NBA players who only produce 20% of the wins. So what should a team look at in the draft…
a player who is healthy but will never produce much?, or
a player who can be extremely productive but may not last very long?
The answer seems fairly obvious. For many teams in the NBA, though, unproductive and healthy seems like the way to go. And this may be one reason why so many teams in the NBA look at the Spurs worst season in the Duncan era with envy.
Let me close by noting that if Ginobili is healthy (and the same is said about the other productive players San Antonio employs), the Spurs can contend for the Western Confernce title. Again, I think — assuming Andrew Bynum doesn’t return to what we briefly saw in 2007-08 — the Lakers have come back to the pack in the West. So the Spurs and Blazers will contend with the Lakers for the conference title (and this may not be the entire population of Western contenders). Once one of these teams reaches the finals, though, I expect the playoff run to end with a loss. Yes, I still think the NBA champion will come from the East.
– 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 
Tommy_Grand
October 9, 2009
If they get RJ to defend persuade him not to waste shots, the Spurs will be tough. But I guess history suggests that’s unlikely.
Erich
October 9, 2009
I’m interested to see how Blair does, and if I remember right, Mahinmi also sported a good WP number at some point but has been buried in the NBDL for quite a bit.
Small correction- you probably mean 1.06 points per possession or 106 points per 100 possessions, rather than 106 points per possession
todd2
October 9, 2009
Hill has some upside, he had a 35 point game last season. Spurs are probably still trying to find the right role for him, somewhere between a 1 and 2. Blair is an undersized 4—needs a face up game w/better ballhandling and shooting. Can he get quicker and is he willing to put in the time? If these two pan out and everyone else stays healthy, SA will be tough to beat.
dberri
October 9, 2009
Thanks Erich,
I fixed it.
Zach
October 9, 2009
David,
There’s an article on the Freakonomics blog (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/radical-reform-of-executive-pay/) that desperately needs your attention.
dberri
October 9, 2009
Zach,
Interesting article. What he says about Wall Street, though, also applies to the NFL.
Bill
October 9, 2009
I think this is the first time in a while that Tim Duncan finised the season below .300. With the help he has this season, he could get back up there, depending on how his health holds up.
Richard Jefferson will probably be better this year. He will not have the pressure to make things happen, as he may only be the third or fourth option in a system that demands that players look for good shots. He should be able to get above .100 again.
I expect George Hill to get to .100 this season as well. this is only his second season. Players usually improve quit a bit between their rookie and sophmore years. He is already a productive player, even if a bit below average last year.
With these modest improvements, even Cleveland will have a problem with the Spus.
brgulker
October 9, 2009
Dr. Berri,
Were you hoping that Detroit would snag Blair in the 2nd round?
I was floored when we passed on him … twice.
And then we traded away Budinger, who looks like he’s going to be an efficient contributor (based on summer league numbers).
Bill
October 9, 2009
You missed one. You still have the 100 points per possession statement in there.
dberri
October 9, 2009
Bill,
I think I got them all now.
brgulker,
When the Pistons picked a DeJuan in the second round, I really thought it was going to be Blair. Unfortunately, the DeJuan they drafted is not expected to be a significant producer of wins.
Jimbo
October 9, 2009
I expect Jefferson to be a better producer of wins now that he doesn’t have to be the #1 or #2 scorer and now that he will actually be playing on a contending team.
Also expect George Hill’s numbers to improve going into year 2 – Hollinger’s real high on him b/c he believes that PGs with high turnovers as a rookie become significantly better in Year 2.
Jimbo
October 9, 2009
I should also say that Popovich has been saying that Hill’s been superb in camp and Pop is not someone who just says stuff for the sake of it.
Phil
October 9, 2009
dberri,
You make a good point about the Spurs being effective offensively. However, I think a lot of people will contend that part of the defensive decline was due to Duncan being forced to focus more on the offensive end than in the past.
If RJ (who’s better than Finley or Bowen, no matter how you look at it), the Spurs’ other acqusitions, and/or Ginobli can take up some of the scoring load, Duncan won’t have to expend as much energy on offense and will be a more effective defender.
That’s the theory, at least.
Bill
October 9, 2009
Dr B.
Here is a question that I think I know the answer to but I’ll ask it anyway. When you say .100 is average for a player, do you mean a player has an WP48 that equals the average of the sum of all WP48’s of all NBA players? If that is true then a WP48 does not mean that he is better than half of the players and worse than the other half. Of the 450 or so players in the league, if a player has a WP48 of .100, what percentile is he in the distribution?
The Hoops Freak
October 9, 2009
Great post dberri. I think if Blair is healthy, every team that passed on him will regret they did.
I also think Bynum will return to 07-08 form this year, at least in terms of winscore and PER. Because the Lakers have as many capable bodies as they do, he’ll be limited to 25 minutes a game or less. I think he’ll make the most of those minutes and the Lakers will be better.
Daniel
October 9, 2009
I’m pretty psyched about the Spurs this season. Too bad they couldn’t get Vince Carter instead of Jefferson, though. Oberto, Thomas, and Roger Mason apparently ALMOST made the trade happen, but the Spurs refused to include George Hill (after seeing him handle the offense in summer league and in the scrimmage and preseason game, the Spurs may have found a fabulous backup who could bring to the table similar production and defense as Kirk Hinrich).
dustin
October 9, 2009
Bill,
WP48 of .100 is the average production at that position. Since better players play more than worse players, it turns out that the average wp48 of the league [sum(wp48 of each player)/(numplayers)] is less than .100
ie, player A is a .200 wp48 player and plays 24 minutes in a game at SG. Player B and Player C split the remaining minutes and have a WP48 of 0.
For that team, the average WP at SG for a 48 minute game is .100 . However, the average WP48 of the players which play SG is (.2 + 0 + 0)/3 = .66
dustin
October 9, 2009
err make that .066
Tom Mandel
October 10, 2009
dustin — interesting! It would be useful to know what the average *player* at each position produces by way of wp48. Doctor?
dberri
October 10, 2009
If you add up all the minutes and all the Wins Produced in the NBA, you will find WP48 is 0.100. In essence, that is a weighted average.
If we look average across the population, we get a slightly different answer. I looked at all players who played at least 500 minutes from 1977-78 to 2007-08. The average for each position is 0.080. The median was essentially the same. As I have noted in the past, wins production in the NBA is skewed. A few players produced most of the wins. Hence the difference in the results.
So if you have a team of 0.100 players, you will be average (win 41 games). If you are looking for the unweighted average across the population, 0.080 is what you will find.
Bill
October 10, 2009
dberri,
That is very interesting but sort of the 0pposite of what I was asking. In your articles you are frequently using the .100 level as a benchmark and you are calling that average. I think some could get the wrong impression. By my rough calculations, about one third of the players in the NBA have WP48’s of greater than .100 and two thirds are below .100. For many people, it seems odd to call the player average when he is in the top one third of players.
My question was mostly to find out if I have calculated this correctly, and to find out what the actual percentile is. I cannot do it more accurately since I do not have access to a list of last year’s WP48 for all players in the league.
dberri
October 10, 2009
Bill,
I think you are asking for the median. It is about 0.080. Half the players do better than 0.080, half do worse.
Michael
October 10, 2009
So with Allen Iverson’s career WP48 of 0.083 you could argue he is in the top half of the league?
dberri
October 10, 2009
Iverson is above the median (slightly). But a team of players producing like Iverson would be below average.
Of course, Iverson is supposed to be one of the best players ever. So being slightly above the median is hardly consistent with the general perception of Iverson’s value.
Bill
October 10, 2009
Let me try this one more time. I understand that 0.080 is the median for the league. The median is like asking “what WP48 does a player have to have, to have a higher WP48 than 50 percent of the players in the NBA and lower than the other 50 percent” . What I am asking is essentially the inverse function of that. “GIVEN a WP48, what percentage of players in the NBA have a higher WP48 than him and what percentage lower. ” And in particular I am asking the question about a WP48 of .100.
Maybe being a statistician it would help to clarify things if I put it into pseudo mathematical terms.
median m = m(p)
type [wp48 ] [%]
for p = 50 .080 = m(50)
percentile pt = pt(w)
type [%] [WP48}
for w = .100 ? = pt(.100)
Notice: the median function takes a percentage as an argument and returns a WP48.
The percentile function takes an argument of WP48 and returns a percentage.
Michael
October 11, 2009
“Of course, Iverson is supposed to be one of the best players ever. So being slightly above the median is hardly consistent with the general perception of Iverson’s value.”
That’s true!
dberri
October 11, 2009
Bill,
Percent = 0.276 + 2.697*WP48
This returns where a player would rank from 1977-78 to 2007-08 (minimum 500 minutes played). If WP48 = 0.100, then Percent = 54.6%.
Once WP48 is 0.268, though, Percent is always 100% or higher. And any mark below -0.103 WP48 returns a negative percent. So the function doesn’t fit perfectly (r-squared is 0.929).
Owen
October 11, 2009
DeJuan Blair update – 25 minutes, 28 points on 11-13 shooting.
Tball
October 13, 2009
Danny Ainge once said he thought Brandon Roy was the best player in his draft, but traded the #5 pick away rather than select him because of concerns about Roy’s knee.
I think the real reason people passed on Blair was his height. There is a shortage of tall people. GM’s don’t draft short people, relatively speaking, to play the positions of tall people. The injury was a convenient excuse. Undersized PF need to be able to play on the perimeter to get into games. If they don’t have that skill set, you get Big Baby.
brgulker
October 13, 2009
@ Tball:
I seem to recall Charles Barkley being pretty good. Also, Ben Wallace wasn’t too shabby.
Tball
October 27, 2009
brgulker,
Agreed. Ben Wallace wasn’t too shabby, but he also wasn’t drafted. I don’t recall where Barkley was drafted, but I do recall Rodman wasn’t a first rounder. We may be invoking Blair’s name ten years from now instead of Wallace or Barkley when relatively shorter post players are passed over in the first round.
But I think scouts and GMs envision a minimum size for each position and generally resist drafting beneath it to fill a position. I think if Blair had the height of a prototypical PF and his productivity was identical and his injury was the same, he’d have been a top ten pick last year, even if a GM had to override a doctor’s opinion. I think the height caused the slide, not the injury, and GMs are happy to use the injury as an excuse.