If the NBA playoffs began today the Phoenix Suns would currently have the 4th seed – and home-court advantage in the first round — in the Western Conference. The Cleveland Cavaliers – in the Eastern Conference – also hold the 4th seed. Why is this comparison important?
Last year the Cavaliers were the best team in the NBA (at least, in the regular season) and the Phoenix Suns missed the NBA playoffs. This past summer the Suns sent Shaquille O’Neal to the Cleveland Cavaliers. And after one-quarter of the 2009-10 season, it appears that Shaq’s departure has made the Suns better and caused the Cavaliers to decline.
Shaq’s impact on the Cavs was discussed last week (and it ain’t a pretty picture). Today we are going to examine the surprising Suns.
Are the Suns Rising?
The Suns have won 16 of their first 24 games. Such a record, though, is somewhat deceiving. When we turn to efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) we see a mark (after Saturday’s games) of 2.85. This mark ranks 7th in the West, just ahead of the Utah Jazz (2.70) and the Houston Rockets (2.15). So a focus on efficiency differential reveals that the Suns are not far from slipping into the 9th spot (and out of the playoffs).
A differential of 2.85 is consistent with a team that wins 48 games across an 82 game season. Last season the Suns posted a differential of 1.95, a mark consistent with a 46 win team (the number of wins the team had last season). So the Suns have not really improved much relative to last year.
Not much, though, is still something. And something has happened without Shaq. When we look at Wins Produced – reported in Table One — we can see where the improvement has come from.
Table One: The Phoenix Suns after 24 games in 2009-10
Table One reports what each player has done for the Suns this season. It also reports each player’s expected production, given what the player did last year. A quick glance at the numbers reveals that the two players who have improved the most are Steve Nash and Channing Frye.
A different picture emerges, though, if we consider what Nash and Frye did two years ago. If Nash and Frye were repeating what they did in 2007-08, each player’s production would be as follows:
Steve Nash [2oo7-08 production]: 0.276 WP48, 15.7 Projected Wins
Channing Frye [2007-08 production]: 0.043 WP48, 2.3 Projected Wins
Team Wins Produced [with Nash and Frye from 2007-08]: 46.1
Again, the team is currently on pace to win 48 games. So the story in Phoenix is simply that Nash and Frye have reverted to what we saw in 2007-08.
It’s important to emphasize. Frye from two years ago was still below average (and a bit better than what we are seeing this year). He just wasn’t as bad as he was in 2008-09.
All-Star Amare?
When we look at the leader in Wins Produced, we don’t see Channing Frye. And we don’t see fellow big man Amare Stoudemire until we get past Nash, Jason Richardson, Grant Hill, and Jared Dudley. Yet it’s Stoudemire — with the help of David Spade – who is campaigning to start the 2010 All-Star game.
Once upon a time it made sense for Stoudemire to think about the All-Star game. In 2004-05, Stoudemire produced 12.9 wins with a 0.214 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. After missing much of 2005-06 with injury, Stoudemire came back to produced 12. 1 wins in 2005-06 [with a 0.217 WP48]. And then in 2007-08, he posted a 0.251 WP48 and produced 14.0 wins.
Last year, though, Stoudemire’s WP48 dropped off considerably. Many people blamed the addition of Shaq or perhaps a change in the team’s offensive philosophy. This year, though, Shaq is in Cleveland. And the team’s offense is supposed to be a return to what we saw before Terry Porter became coach. Despite these changes, though, Amare’s production is hardly at an All-Star level. So what’s happened?
Table Two reports the box score statistics for Amare. Relative to what we saw prior to last year, Amare is offering fewer rebounds and blocked shots. These changes, though, don’t explain the entire gap. Another issue is the number of shots Amare is taking. More specifically, Amare is simply taking fewer shots than he did in the past. And because he’s an efficient scorer, this reduction in shot attempts is reducing his overall production.
Unfortunately for Stoudemire, both Nash (59.6% adjusted field goal percentage) and Richardson (56.8% adjusted field goal percentage) are currently more efficient scorers. So it’s not clear that giving more shots to Stoudemire (55.8% adjusted field goal percentage) is such a good idea. Still, it does appear Stoudemire’s drop off in shot attempts – coupled with a decline in rebounds and blocked shots – explains why Stoudemire is no longer that productive.
So here’s what we’ve learned. In spite of their impressive record, Phoenix is not dramatically improved over what we saw last year. What improvement we have seen can be linked to Nash and Frye reverting to form. And Stoudemire – who really wants to be an All-Star – is simply not as productive as he was in the past.
Can any of this be linked to the departure of Shaq? I really don’t think so. Although Shaq bears some responsibility for what’s happened in Cleveland, the small improvement we see in Phoenix – and it is rather small – is really not about Shaq departing.
– 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 
Anon
December 14, 2009
Haven’t the Suns had a pretty tough schedule so far, meaning they are likely to improve their differential in the coming weeks?
dberri
December 14, 2009
Basketball-Reference takes schedule strength into account. Even with that added in, Phoenix doesn’t look that much better.
kevin
December 14, 2009
I don’t like Stoudamire’s game so much. He can score and rebound sure, but he can’t do anything else. Those types of players tend to be overrated.
brgulker
December 14, 2009
I don’t like Stoudamire’s game so much. He can score and rebound sure, but he can’t do anything else. Those types of players tend to be overrated.
I would add it’s not just that he scores but how he scores. Alley-oops, put-back dunks, driving dunks, etc.
A basket that makes the crowd go “ooh, ahh” is still worth two points on the scoreboard, but the “ooh, ahh” naturally inflates the value of those two points.
Italian Stallion
December 14, 2009
I agree on Amare, but think it’s at least “possible” his lower level of production over the last two years occurred for different reasons each year.
Visually, I thought Shaq almost certainly had a “net negative” impact on Amare statistically last year. He took away some rebounds and clogged the area close to the basket where Amare operates effectively on the offensive end.
This year, he is coming off serious eye surgery, was inactive for a good portion of the summer, and looks less aggressive (perhaps trying to protect the eye).
I might give Amare a few more weeks before writing him off as permanently less productive.
IMO, Frye is a little more productive this year than in 2007, but he’s playing an entirely different game. He’s out on the perimeter more often so his Rebounds per 36 (especially Offensive) and FTA are down (quite sensible given the change). But he has also turned the ball over less often and has been surprisingly more efficient scorer from out there so far (we’ll see if that lasts).
He’s classified as a C, but he’s obviously not being asked to play anything like a traditional C so his stats are not comparable. He is being asked to help space the floor by drawing opposing big men away from the basket.
Personally, I think his shooting efficiency is going to decline a bit.
Leon
December 14, 2009
Hi Dave, having played the fewest home games so far puts the Suns at a disadvantage? Or am I trawling for excuses?
benamery21
December 14, 2009
Dave: Totally agree that STAT is NOT an All-Star and that he’s playing MUCH worse than typical this season, so far. Kid needs his tail kicked and his head deflated. However, I’m having a little trouble with your analysis (particularly of Channing), and I want to be sure I understand you.
1st: on the schedule question-have you evaluated statistically the Basketball-Reference adjustment for schedule and do you consider it accurate? 5 out of 8 of Phoenix losses occurred on the 2nd night of B2B’s and 8 out of 8 on the road and 6 out of 8 against teams with records over .700. The average of their opponents records is only .505, though. Just curious, I haven’t made a study of this.
2nd: Why do you think Nash has returned to form this year? Might it have something to do with the departure of a certain man-mountain (and coach) totally inimical to his style of play? What did his numbers look like in the season last year before Shaq? You can think of this as diminishing returns if you like (though I contend the coefficient is significantly different for Nash-Shaq interaction than for Nash-other interaction).
3rd:Position adjustment–I notice that your table 2 compares Amare to an average center (isn’t he listed as a power forward?), I assume also that Channing Frye’s numbers are being adjusted for his listed position as center? In actuality he’s basically playing small forward or scoring guard (the guy has the 2nd highest number of 3 pointer’s made in the league). Now it’s true he’s the 2nd tallest guy on the team and listed as one of 3 centers (the other two have played a total of 168 minutes), but somebody like Lou Amundson is playing much more like a center, as is STAT.
The other two centers, plus Amundson, plus STAT, plus Earl Clark(5 bigs–all the other guys over 6-8″): have taken a total of 2 – 3point attempts this season and have a 0% average. Channing has taken 134 with a .440 average. I grant you, he does block and foul like a big man.
How much would Channing’s WP numbers change if we allocated the 1152 center minutes thus far this year first to the other five bigs on the team–which means all of Collins, Lopez, Clark, Amundson, plus 504/826 minutes for Stoudemire? If the rest of Stoudemire’s time was allocated to PF that would move all of Channing’s time to PF, with a little left over for Hill. What if we made Hill the “PF” and called Channing the small forward? (I admit that’s a stretch, but Hill out-rebounds Channing and takes far fewer 3-pointers). My calcs say Channing’s WP would go up to about 7. The other player’s would go down to compensate. Now that may be unfair to Hill, but it’s certainly fair to the rest of the bunch.
benamery21
December 14, 2009
Something I think we would agree on: Gentry needs to play Amundson for more minutes.
I’ll definitely take the over on 48 wins.
benamery21
December 14, 2009
I’m guessing 55+ for the Suns unless somebody gets hurt.
They only have 11 more games against .700 plus teams. Assume they only win 2 of those. That leaves 47 games against sub-700 teams (Suns record is 14-2 against those teams). That’s 41 more wins for a total of 59.
Or what if they average 100% at home and 50% on the road as they have been: That’s 61.5 wins (I grant you they aren’t going to average 100% at home, but I bet they do better than 50% on the road).
Or what if they lose 83% of their 2nd game of B2B’s but win 83% of their rested games (as they have been). That’s 55 wins.
Why do I think WofWins is underestimating the Suns? I think schedule is part of it but: Coaching decisions will make a difference as time goes on. Clark, Collins, and (maybe) Lopez will play less(or he’ll get better), Amundson will play more. Dragic will play less, Barbosa will play more. Stoudemire will get told to straighten up and fly right (practice free throws, grab boards, hustle for blocks) and his production will improve (he’s below trend and not old). Barbosa will play more, and his production will improve (a little).
Man of Steele
December 15, 2009
Maybe I’m revealing my ignorance here, but Channing Frye’s WSmin should be .227. Since average is .225 for a C and .215 for a PF, if seems like his PAWSmin should be greater than 0, and thus his WP48 should be positive, using the WP48 estimation method (that is, deriving WP48 from Win Score). Is the Suns’ defense so truly horrrible that the estimation method cannot work for them and only the true WP48 formula can accurately measure their players? Or is there something else going on?
Man of Steele
December 15, 2009
I meant to say, “and thus his WP48 should be above average”
Michael
December 15, 2009
Man Of Steele, deriving WP from PAWS/min isn’t particularly accurate. In my experience it tends to overrate a players score.
dberri
December 15, 2009
Man of Steele,
There are two issues. One is that the Suns play at a fast tempo. So that inflates PAWS. Second, I am using last year’s averages to compute WP48. And last year — relative to all the years used to compute average position win scores — centers were very productive.
We could move Frye to power forward. Then his WP48 would rise. And as some suggest we could move him to small forward and see his value go up more. While were at it, we could also call him a shooting guard and his numbers would be even higher. Of course, that just means other players will have to take the power forward or center spot and their numbers will be lower.
benamery21
December 15, 2009
Dave: Maybe on a team like the Suns which likes to play a non-traditional lineup and makes a listed “center” a perimeter player on offense, it makes sense to equalize the position adjustments somewhat? Maybe we split the difference between PF/SF for Hill and Channing?
Man of Steele
December 15, 2009
Thanks Dr. Berri. I’m not proposing that we call Frye a SF, I simply hadn’t thought about how pace would inflate individual Win Scores.
Phoenix Stan
December 15, 2009
The basketball-reference.com SoS doesn’t take into account the league leading number of road games for the Suns or the quality of opponents played on the 2nd of back to back.
While the Suns aren’t a “great” team they are better than these numbers suggest. If for no other reason then after December they will be done facing Boston, Cleveland, Orlando and will have played the Lakers 3 of 4 times. The back end of the schedule is much easier and the Suns have done well against mediocre teams with really only one “bad” loss vs the Knicks.
On Amare: His numbers are down but watching him play it is clear he is working harder on the glass and boxing out allowing wings to grab rebounds. He’s also turning down bad shots and sacrificing his offense (not to mention he spent several weeks still recovering physically).
I am not a fan of his all-star vote getting antics but his numerical decline doesn’t do him justice either.
Garnett’s numbers declined when he went to Boston and he was applauded for it. Amare does deserve some credit for being a team player.
khandor
December 15, 2009
1. The Suns have already experienced a debilitating injury this season … with the loss of Leandro Barbosa over the past 2 weeks.
2. Their improved play, thus far, this season is inpart attributable to their improved Pick and Roll/Pop defense, without Shaq on the floor.
3. Channing Frye [PF-C; 3PT%] and, most importantly, Jared Dudley [SF-PF; 3PT% and Rebs] have played key roles for the Suns this season by stretching the opponent’s defense and improving the Suns’ own ability to defend and rebound, compared with last year’s team.
4. The improvement which Goran Dragic showed in the 2nd half of last season has been maintained this year, at least, to a certain degree … reducing “the drag” which the Suns use to experience whenever Steve Nash left the floor.
They have played at a very high level, so far, but should not be expected to challenge the Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks or Nuggets for the first 4 seeds in the WC, as the season continues to unfold.
If they can get Barbosa back healthy and avoid experiencing any other major injuries for the balance of the season … a big question mark, given the ages of stalwarts like Nash and Hill … the Suns should now be expected to qualify for the playoffs in one of the #5-8 positions.
kevin
December 15, 2009
Is Barbosa really all that valuable? The dude dribbles with his head down, and only with his right hand. I couldn’t believe it when they made him the interim point guard after nash got hurt a couple of years ago. You learn not to dribble with your head sown in high school.
Johnny Y.
December 15, 2009
While their eff differential is kinda low, they have played an abnormally high amount of road games so far, along with having played against alot of playoff bound teams early in the season. You make it sound like they are still a borderline-playoff team.
As many people have said, while amare’s numbers are down this year, they have been slowly getting better as of recent, which can be explained by the fact that he was recovering from injury and getting back into game shape.
Whenever you evaluate a player, you always seem to just take the season aggregate, without accounting for fluctuation that occur during the season that might change their production. (for example: pre/post kevin martin effect on Tyreke Evans.
Johnny Y.
December 15, 2009
Comparing certain blocks of the season for a player, separated by changes that might effect a player (injuries to themselves/others, changes in the lineup, etc) would seem to me to be more informative in general.
Ray
December 15, 2009
khandor, my god dude. Barbosa is a bum. He just is. And what improved pick and roll defense? Their defense is rated 26th last year, now it’s 27th. Definitely not better.
Italian Stallion
December 15, 2009
>>We could move Frye to power forward. Then his WP48 would rise. And as some suggest we could move him to small forward and see his value go up more. While were at it, we could also call him a shooting guard and his numbers would be even higher. Of course, that just means other players will have to take the power forward or center spot and their numbers will be lower.<<
This is one of the two fundamental problems I have with your otherwise excellent methodology.
It requires that players be assigned to the standard positions.
While I agree that it is difficult to compare players that have totally different skill sets, it is not the fault of the players if they don't have the same skill set as the position they are being compared to.
In most cases this is not an issue, but sometimes it is.
Suppose a team was made up of Nash, CP3, Deron Williams, Jason Kidd, and Rajon Rondo.
That team might have some serious defensive, shot blocking, rebounding and other deficiencies, but each would still be a great PG.
It would be an error to call any of them a C or PF just because most teams are made up of a couple of very tall players that rebound well, block shots, and score efficiently around the basket and we call them Cs and PFs.
Somehow, we need to be more flexible with the assignments and adjust differently.
If a team is made up a PG, 2 SGs, and 3 SFs, so be it. That may be a strategically flawed makeup for a team, but the players are what they are and should be rated accordingly.
If a player defends PFs and Cs, but is a playmaker, outside shooter, good ball handler etc… but can't rebound a lick, he's simply not a C or PF. He's some kind of hybrid.
Anon
December 16, 2009
but the numbers wouldn’t add up properly if you do that. If you don’t have a big guy to rebound and block shots, then someone smaller is going to be playing out of position and matched up against the big men on other teams. if he is statistically worse than the other players who play that “position” then the stats have to show that. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a bad player, just that in a system where a sf is forced to play center he’s not optimally useful to the team. If playing a pg, 2 sgs, and 2 sfs was optimal, then teams that did that (golden state?) would be very successful and it would probably show up in the stats.
with the 5 pg example, obviously they’re all good point guards. but if you put those 5 on the floor together they’d get destroyed, because the other team could just throw it in the paint to some big stiff, and the person guarding him (kidd probably) couldn’t do anything to stop him. this doesn’t mean kidd is less skilled, just that he’s not a good center. is this necessarily fair? no, not really. even if they all put up identical stats, some people will have higher or lower ratings. but by saying “well this team plays 5 pgs so lets inflate all their numbers” just rewards players who are on teams using a stupid system. I think wp48 has some issues that could be improved upon, but I don’t really think this is one of them.
Anon
December 16, 2009
I do think you could make an argument for splitting the difference, so that if you are playing a pg, a sg, and 3 sfs, the 3 sfs are compared to the average production of sf, pf, and c. then they would all be treated in the same way and it wouldn’t mess up the aggregate, but by just pretending that centers and power forwards don’t exist because a team isn’t using them doesn’t make sense to me.
Man of Steele
December 16, 2009
Anon, your original response to Itallion Stallion is apt. We always seem to end up talking about this in posts about the Orlando Magic as well (who insist on playing Rashard Lewis at PF). How can we tell, I wonder, what a player would perform like if they were played in position? For example, what if Channing Frye always played beside a C, making him a full F, not a F/C? Or what if Rashard Lewis played SF? In some instances, it may be difficult to tell, although with Lewis we do have some data from his years with the Sonics.
Of course, some people always want to point out that if the team has no better alternative for that position, then it actually helps the team, even if the player is below average. I would point out in response that teams frequently pick up productive big men as second round draft picks, undrafted free agents, off of waivers, etc. A team’s roster is not static, so in the case of the Magic it is not totally accurate to say that Rashard Lewis is the best Orlando can do at PF. In fact, they probably could find a big man whom no one wanted to play PF (e.g., Ben Wallace, Leon Powe, DeJuan Blair, Carl Landry, Amir Johnson, Chris Anderson, Louis Amundson, Chuck Hayes, etc.).
khandor
December 16, 2009
Because Barbosa has been playing this season while coping with a wrist ailment [that precipitated the growth of a cyst] he picked up in the summer does not mean that he qualifies as a “scrub”. :-)
On the contrary … when he’s healthy … the number of high calibre bench players in the NBA who are capable of going off for 20 points in the blink of an eye, based on the game-changing speed at which he regularly plays, on any given night, while effectively being able to cover 2 spots in the rotation [i.e. back-up OG and back-up PG, in a pinch] are, in fact, few and far between.
Good to see Dragic play well again last night, :-), as Barbosa continues to heal.
Once again, this season, there are a whole bunch of “very good” teams in the middle of the WC … i.e. Dallas, San Antonio, Denver, Portland [when healthy], Utah, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, and Houston … trailing after the Lakers.
khandor
December 16, 2009
MOS,
The position [i.e. #1/PG, #2/OG, #3/SF, #4/PF or #5/C] at which a specific player is actually used by his team is, in fact, THE position which he plays for that team … as opposed to whatever position YOU might “think” he’s best suited for use.
——————————————————–
re: “in the case of the Magic it is not totally accurate to say that Rashard Lewis is the best Orlando can do at PF. In fact, they probably could find a big man whom no one wanted to play PF (e.g., Ben Wallace, Leon Powe, DeJuan Blair, Carl Landry, Amir Johnson, Chris Anderson, Louis Amundson, Chuck Hayes, etc.).”
In Orlando’s situation … given that Dwight Howard is their starting Center, with Carter and Pietrus on the wings, and Nelson at the Point … NONE of the players you’ve listed would be a “better fit”, at PF, for their team than Rashard Lewis, in terms of Offense, Defense and Rebounding.
todd2
December 16, 2009
How does the return on Gortat’s contract look so far? I’d guessed they’d planned on him splitting time between C/PF.
mrparker
December 16, 2009
Ahhh yes the position argument has returned for the 09-10 season.
For those who think Frye is a SF, who does he normally guard for the other team. Also, who on the other team is normally assigned to guard him. When people argue over position they always neglect the defensive end(both opponent and own team).
dves
December 16, 2009
That’s the best defense. It must be well-planned so that there is a great victory ahead of the game.
khandor
December 16, 2009
IMO, the Magic had no [almost zero] intention of using Marcin Gortat as a PF this season.
Gortat’s contract is the equivalent of an insurance policy … against the likelihood of one of the ridiculous “hard fouls” administered to D12 recently being able to knock him out of action for a prolonged period of time.
Of all the players on Orlando’s roster last season, the one that they could least afford to lose this year [for any reason] and still hope to return to the NBA Finals was Dwight Howard. With Gortat on-board, however, this year’s Magic’s ship is now so well built that it could even endure the temporary loss of Superman, and still feel secure in the upper echelon of the Eastern Conference.
Considering the uncalled for ridicule that was fired in the direction of Otis Smith [and Dave Twardzik] just a few short years ago … they have done a terrific job assembling a top notch team in Orlando.
Ray
December 16, 2009
Well, mrparker, I think that’s IS’s argument. Frye has to guard, and is guarded by centers and power forwards, because who else would they guard? Emeka Okaor can’t match up with anybody else in the Suns’ starting 5, so he just naturally gets matched up on the 6’11” dude the Suns list at center. It’s not like they have anybody else who would be guarded by a classic center.
Italian Stallion
December 16, 2009
Aon,
I understand all your points, but the tendency is to use the poor rating a player receives as a result of playing out of position as a knock against his productivity even though he could be a great player or hybrid player that is making very valuable contributions in other essential areas of the game that score lower on the system’s productivity scale.
Obviously an all PG team would get killed, but wouldn’t we want to know that 3 of them are great players playing out of position?
You aren’t going to know that unless you look at their specific skill set and say, “This guy may be playing terrible as a C, but he’s a freaking great PG”. ;)
Italian Stallion
December 16, 2009
Just to elaborate further after reading a few more responses in the thread….
Whether we realize it or not, we are starting with the assumption that a C must do A, B, and C well, a PF must do D, E, and F well, a PG must do X, Y, and Z etc….
I say that because the reason we have to make positional adjustments to begin with is that rebounds are more valuable than assists, it’s easier to be an efficient scorer on the inside than the outside, etc…
That’s partly why the big men tend rate higher.
Yet we also know that these little guys are absolutely essential otherwise we’d have successful teams made up of all Cs and PFs.
There are no rules that say each position must have a certain skill set.
What really matters is that the TEAM has a good balance of rebounding, ball handling, efficient inside scoring, efficient outside shooting, passing, shot blocking etc…. But those things can come from players that don’t fit the positional stereotype.
So if your 7 footer is a great passer, outside shooter, play maker and has other skills typical of guards and SFs, but being on the perimeter and handling the ball more often lowers his offensive rebounding rate, increases his turnovers, and makes his stats fit the profile of a SF, it really doesn’t matter if you have a small player that is great on the boards, getting to the hoop, etc…
But by calling the 7″ a C, he will be rated poorly and that other player will be rated very highly because of the value of their individual skills.
That doesn’t make sense when they are both filling essential roles at adequate levels for that team.
Kevin G
December 17, 2009
“…based on the game-changing speed at which he (Barbosa(my edits)) regularly plays,… ”
Game-changing speed is of no use if you’re headed in the wrong direction.
khandor
December 17, 2009
Kevin G,
Fortunately Barbosa does not have THAT problem, although I can certainly see how some might not be enamoured with his individual skill-set and overall level of productivity.
—————————————————-
MOS,
re: “There are no rules that say each position must have a certain skill set.”
This would seem to be the crux of your problem, right there … i.e. an inability/unwillingness to acknowledge that there ARE, indeed, specific skill-sets associated with specific positions on a basketball team, by rule [as opposed to just by whim, or willy-nilly].
khandor
December 17, 2009
Sorry … should also have directed that last comment to IS.
Italian Stallion
December 17, 2009
MOS,
It’s not my problem. It’s the problem with all positional adjustments.
Just because “most players” get pigeon holed into a certain position because of their height and then wind up developing the skills that are typically associated with that position does not mean that’s the only way to become a great player or build a successful team.
It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t want to measure their TRUE VALUE as a player if they weren’t playing out of position because of the coaches desires and team’s needs.
Perhaps what we need is two numbers.
One can pretend that Channing Frye is a C and measure his productivity relative to the typical C (as we are doing) and one can look at his skill set and role on the Suns, call him a SF and measure his actual value as a player if he was playing in position.
Italian Stallion
December 17, 2009
Last note:
I’m not trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. I understand why D. Berri is doing it the way he’s doing it .
I’m trying to suggest that we can improve the analysis by recognizing the issue.
khandor
December 17, 2009
IS,
One of the things which a player is required to do with some degree of regularity and efficeincy, if he’s going to be used effectively as a SF for his team is drive the ball to the basket and finish, in full and half court situations, while being defended by the opponent’s SF, in return.
When was the last time you witnessed Channing Frye displaying this specific offensive skill, which is commonly associated with the SF position?
IMO, Channing Frye is a perimeter-based, finesse Power Forward who, on occasion, when the match-up calls for it, might be able to try his hand at checking an opponent’s Center [i.e. provided this player is not a low-post specialist like Shaquille O’Neal.
Amare Stoudemire is playing the Center position for the Phoenix Suns this season, not Channing Frye.
Johnny Y.
December 18, 2009
Even if Frye’s numbers aren’t amazing, the most important thing he does is he improves Nash. The spacing is alot better, he can run pick and pop with Frye out on the perimeter, which opens up the lanes for nash and/or cutters to the basket.
Even if Shaq produced more himself last year, his play dragged down everyone else. It was pretty easy to see if you regularly watched PHX games, because they would run Shaq post up’s over and over again, taking everyone else out of the offense. And with Shaq a non-threat at range and sitting on the block, with Nash/Amare pick and roll, Shaq’s man could rotate over quickly and clog the lane. With frye stretching it on the perimeter, if the help comes from his man (usually situated at the diagnol) he can dish it to frye for a 3. Otherwise, if no help comes its the bread and butter nash/amare pick and roll.
todd2
December 18, 2009
“Finesse power forward” sounds like an oxymoron ;-).
khandor
December 18, 2009
Johnny Y.,
re: “Otherwise, if no help comes its the bread and butter nash/amare pick and roll.”
As well, you should also remind others that … when Stat is 100% healthy … we’re not just talking about any old crumbly “bread & butter” here; what we’re talking about, in fact, is the single MOST LETHAL “pick & roll” combo in the history of the NBA, when Amare actually gets to “roam free” in the middle of the court, with 3 shooters spacing out the court and Nash orchestrating the “action” coming off the #5/#1 Pick.
——————————————————-
todd2,
re: “Finesse power forward” sounds like an oxymoron
But, it’s not really … is it? … if you speak with anyone who really does understand the subtle differences between specific players, each of whom happens to play the game in their own relatively unique way, given their range of skills associated with their specific position.
benamery21
December 18, 2009
I agree that (as I stated at one point) it’s a stretch to call Channing a SF. On the other hand, I see him as having a blend of skills which do make it appropriate to evaluate him as somewhere between that position (or the SG position) and C. A rigid position adjustment seems like it’s aimed at ease of calculation rather than accuracy of analysis. I have this same issue with the value given to assists in this analysis. Throwing the ball to a “chucker” actually has negative value , while providing a margin of space to an efficient shooter has higher value than 0.5 points. In fact, each assist has variable value. Now this is true of other scored items in WOW WS as well, however, I contend, despite a failure to provide supporting data, that this variability is higher with respect to assists than to many other prominent stats.
benamery21
December 19, 2009
I wouldn’t read the site if I didn’t think that Dr. Berri’s analysis was far better than anything else out there. That doesn’t make it perfect.
I guess I’ll have to content myself that Dr. Berri now explains Frye’s performance (~9WP higher than he projected 2 months ago) as returning to the (only slightly below average for center) “form” of the best season of his career-to-date, instead of dismissing his value using last season’s or career average numbers to project his performance. Given that this means he’s roughly the 16th best starting “center” in the world, I guess I can live with that “below average” characterization. No one ever claimed he was an All-Star. “Average” is of course weighted toward those centers who actually play minutes rather than riding the bench, only 4 of which “centers” in the NBA take significant numbers of 3 pointers, so it’s a pretty small and highly skilled pool.
My comments on the Buck’s thread a few weeks ago, which Berri obviously was somewhat irked by, given the tenor of this Suns’ post, were primarily aimed at the question of how a significant change in style of play (i.e. taking more 3 pointers in your first 12 games of the season than in your previous 4 year career) reveals a weakness in WOW analysis. It assumes that players will continue to play in the same way that they have in the past and that this reveals their innate abilities. This is a good first approximation, but nobody who looked at only Channing’s 3-point stats for the past 4 seasons would have had any idea of his abilities in that regard.
benamery21
December 19, 2009
I realize I’m more than slightly tedious on the subject (I’ve been watching the kid since high school), but …
One thing hurting Channing’s game this season (and it is a flaw, albeit a relatively easy one to correct, that his couch should already have bawled him out about) is that (based on a quick sample of a few shot charts to see if my hunch seemed to be reflected in the data) he’s taking 2-3 LONG two’s per game (I mean on the 3-point line or a foot or two inside). If he were taking all of those from 3 point range his WP would go up by about 2 games for the season.
khandor
December 20, 2009
Let’s try making this point one last time.
#1. Channing Frye is actually being used as the Starting Power Forward for the Phoenix Suns this season, not their C, or their SF, or any other position someone else would care to mention.
One of the major difficulties involved with positional adjustments of all types is the way in which individual evaluators/observers repeatedly make fundamental mistakes in judgment … based, primarily, on the level of their basketball acumen … re: which specific position they are using to measure a player at, in the first place, against that his peers.
#2. Amare Stoudemire is actually being used as the Starting Center for the Phoenix Suns this season … which is a major part of their resurgence, as a high end team.
dberri
December 20, 2009
Khandor,
Are you suggesting that your understanding of basketball exceeds mine?
khandor
December 21, 2009
David,
re: “One of the major difficulties involved with positional adjustments of all types is the way in which individual evaluators/observers repeatedly make fundamental mistakes in judgment … based, primarily, on the level of their basketball acumen … re: which specific position they are using to measure a player at, in the first place, against that of his peers.”
If your question is in reference to what I wrote in the above quotation, then, please know that what I said was generic [and not specific] in nature.
IMO, it doesn’t matter who the specific evaluator might be … if a player’s actual position – amongst his teammates on the floor with him – isn’t being identified properly, in the first place.
In my on-line travails, I see all sorts of mistakes in positional allocation being made by a range of NBA observers, e.g. including casual fans and full-time/salaried experts alike.
For example:
– Some designate Andrea Bargnani as a Center.
– Others designate him as a Power Forward; or, possibly, as a Small Forward.
– Some designate Chris Bosh as a Center.
– Others designate him as a Power Forward.
Still others try to say that neither player should actually be categorized properly as one or the other position.
– Some designate Tim Duncan as a Power Forward.
– Others designate him as a Center.
– Some designate Matt Boner as a Center.
– Others designate him as a Power Forward.
Still others try to say that neither player should actually be categorized properly as one or the other position.
– Some designate Amare Stoudemire as a Power Forward.
– Others designate him as a Center.
– Some designate Channing Frye as a Center.
– Others designate him as a Power Forward
Still others try to say that neither player should actually be categorized properly as one or the other position.
The list of NBA players who are difficult to categorize properly is rather extensive.
IMO, the people who do the best job categorizing these specific players correctly, by position, are individuals with similar experience to someone like Hubie Brown or Jeff Van Gundy [i.e. a former NBA/elite level head coach and a current television analyst].
For example, if you listen to what HB or JVG has to say about these 6 players, what you’ll hear is that:
Andrea Bargnani is being used as a perimeter-based Power Forward, on offense, and a Center, on defense.
Chris Bosh is being used as a Center, on offense, and a Power Forward, on defense … in order to off-set the strength and weakness of Bargnani.
Tim Duncan is the Starting Center for San Antonio.
Matt Bonner is a perimeter-based Power Forward for the Spurs.
Amare Stoudemire is the Starting Center for Phoenix.
Channing Frye is the Suns’ perimeter-based Starting Power Forward.
IMO, those who would choose to designate these players at a different position than what you see there, do not see the game in the same way as an individual with the experience of HB or JVG, etc.