Patrick Hayes at MLive.com (my favorites site for Detroit sports) points our attention to a trade suggestion from Bill Simmons:
I know that ESPN’s Bill Simmons columns are meant for entertainment and that his trade suggestions have no real basis in reality. ….His latest effort looks at teams that, because of the economy, need to make trades and shed salary. While he doesn’t include the Pistons in the “desperate to shed payroll” group, he does believe they need to make a move:
Tayshaun and DaJuan Summers (cap throw-in) to Boston for the Tony Allen/Brian Scalabrine/J.R. Giddens expirings plus Big Baby and $3 million. Imagine the Celts tossing out a defensive quintet of Pierce, Rondo, Prince (if healthy), KG and Perkins? Now that’s a championship quintet! Worth the risk, I say.
Hayes was not impressed by this suggestion. Simmons, though, is a fan of the Celtics. And from Boston’s perspective, this is a pretty good deal. Unfortunately, I think Simmons is channeling his inner Costanza.
Defining the “Costanza Trade”
For those who are not fans of Seinfeld (all two of you)… in 1996 Seinfeld had an episode where George Costanza is considered a candidate for the job of assistant general manager with the New York Yankees. Such a job would give George input into possible trades (rather like the job Simmons imagines he should have in his columns). As George thinks about this job he imagines some trade scenarios. Here is an example of George’s thinking:
I think I got it. How ’bout this? How ’bout this? We trade Jim Leyritz and Bernie Williams, for Barry Bonds, huh? Whadda ya think? That way you have Griffey and Bonds, in the same outfield! Now you got a team! Ha ha ha.
Essentially, George – as a Yankee employee and fan – supports trades where the Yankees clearly get the better end of the deal. Certainly one can imagine the Yankees easily acquiring Bonds and Ken Griffey today. But in 1996, it’s hard to see how the trades Costanza envisions happening (and that’s why this is funny).
This is essentially the same approach offered by Simmons. The players in this proposed trade really haven’t played much this year (none of these players has played 200 minutes this year). But here is what these players did last year [WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes]:
Glen Davis: -2.5 Wins Produced, -0.074 WP48
Tony Allen: 1.6 Wins Produced, 0.088 WP48
Brian Scalabrine: -1.1 Wins Produced, -0.108 WP48
Tayshaun Prince: 7.8 Wins Produced, 0.122 WP48
An average NBA player posts a 0.100 WP48. Of these four players (Summers is a rookie this year and Giddens only played eight minutes last year), only Prince is above par. And Davis and Scalabrine are in the negative range. Again, what Simmons proposes is a “Costanza trade.” One can just hear Simmons as he writes his proposal: “I think the Celtics can acquire Tayshaun Prince and not really give up much at all. Imagine the Celtics with Prince. Now you got a team. Ha ha ha.”
The Odd Moves of Joe Dumars
Clearly if such a trade were offered, Joe Dumars (the Pistons GM) should say no. Then again, Dumars has said “yes” to some very suspicious moves lately. In the draft the Pistons selected Austin Daye and Jonas Jerebko. Both players are above average as rookies, so one can’t argue much with either selection. Sandwiched between these two picks, though, Joe Dumars selected a player named DaJuan. When I heard “DaJuan” on draft day I fully expected to hear the word “Blair” next. But much to my disappointment, the next word was “Summers”. As the following table reveals, DaJuan Summers was the least productive player selected out of college in 2009. And DeJuan Blair – selected two slots later by the San Antonio Spurs – was the most productive.
Table One: Ranking the Players Selected from College in the 2009 NBA Draft
Thus far this season the college numbers seem quite prophetic. Summers has posted a -0.141 WP48. Meanwhile, Blair is posting a 0.296 WP48 and has now moved into the starting line-up for the San Antonio Spurs. Yes, I know. Blair had some injury concerns. But Blair has already produced 2.8 wins in his career. Given what we saw from Summers in college and briefly in the NBA, there’s a real possibility that Summers will never produce 2.8 wins in his entire NBA career.
After missing on the NBA draft, Dumars then turned to the free agent market. Blessed with an abundance of cap space, Dumars made a quick splash by signing both Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva. As I noted when these signings were announced, the words “above average” are not often mentioned when it comes to these two players. Certainly both player sport career marks that are below par. And as Table Two notes, neither player has been above average after 30 games in Detroit.
Table Two: The Detroit Pistons after 30 games in 2009-10
Gordon and Villanueva are not the only members of the “below average” club in Detroit. Currently, only two players – Ben Wallace and Jerebko – are above average. Consequently, we shouldn’t be surprised that this team is on pace to win only 30 games this year.
The poor performance of the Pistons in 2009-10 could also have been expected given what these players did last year. As Table Two indicates, if the Pistons’ players maintained what they did in 2008-09 this season, Detroit would only be on pace to win 35 games. Yes, Detroit has suffered some injuries. And if everyone was healthy this team would be better than a 30 win team. But even if Tayshaun Prince, Rip Hamilton, and Ben Gordon had been available the entire season the Pistons would still not be a serious contender in the Eastern Conference.
In sum, Detroit – the team I follow – is simply not very good. And it’s not very good because Joe Dumars has recently been choosing below average players.
Given such behavior, maybe Dumars would agree to the Simmons proposal. Again, Dumars didn’t know that the word “Blair” comes after “DeJuan.” So maybe he would agree to a classic “Costanza trade.” And Pistons fans could then start crying about Big Baby.
– 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 
bags fly free
December 29, 2009
spot on, i frequently visit detroitbadboys and even though most members there will disagree, acquisition of gordon and charlie v is simply not very good, or at least wasn’t worth the money paid, looks like this team won’t be winning for awhile
dr berri, i’m surprised hamilton has been average for most of his career, his nba perception is much higher and perhaps he could be traded for someone more productive this season.
Scott
December 29, 2009
In Simmons defense, hardly anybody else in the world rates Davis as lowly as you do. And while that may be his true production level, the perception of him is higher than that so the trade does not seem as ridiculous (Still ridiculous though, just not as ridiculous).
Bannon
December 29, 2009
WOWJ Post request: Chicago Bulls. (1) Rose may be the most overrated player in the NBA right now. But why is his back-up, Kirk Hinrich, playing so poorly? (2) Could the Bulls make the playoffs by playing Thomas at SF and going with a lineup of Rose, Deng, Thomas, Gibson, and Noah? (3) If the Bulls fire their coach right before Thomas returns, and the Bulls go on a win streak with Thomas in the line-up, will the credit be properly allocated, or will it be another “Jamal Crawford” misallocation?
dberri
December 29, 2009
Bannon,
I looked at the Bulls a few days ago (didn’t post on it but I looked). Hinrich is playing poorly. But Brad Miller and John Salmons are really the problem (Salmons especially). If Miller and Salmons were what they were last year, the Bulls would be playoff contenders this year.
khandor
December 29, 2009
[brgulker … I think you know what’s coming next]
This year’s Detroit Pistons are not performing poorly because:
– Joe Dumars selected Dajuan Summers [a less productive player] in the 2009 NBA Draft and by-passed Dejuan Blair [a more productive player] ;
– Joe Dumars acquired Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva, as UFA’s this past summer;
– Joe Dumars has assembled a collection of less-than-average NBA players according to their WoW values
– etc.
This year’s Detroit Pistons are performing poorly because John Kuester is, unfortunately, a less-than top notch NBA head coach, who does not know how to use the players on his current roster to their best advantage … at least, not as of yet.
Until John Kuester:
i. Tightens his rotation;
ii. Stops using certain players in the wrong way;
iii. Stops using specific combinations of players together, in the first place;
Detroit is going to remain a mid-to-lower tier team in the Eastern Conference.
——————
If the Bulls actually stick with the following rotation:
STARTERS
PG – Rose
OG – Hinrich
SF – Deng
PF – Gibson
C – Noah
——————
KEY SUBS
PG – Pargo
OG/SF – Salmons
SF/PF – Johnson
PF – Thomas
C – Miller
which they used in their last game, they will show a marked improvement in their play over the next phase of their schedule … and, might even end up saving VDN’s job.
PJ
December 29, 2009
Professor Berri: I’d love to see you weigh in on trade ideas more. If you do, though, you need to add another wrinkle to your analyses: money. Simmons’s idea, while perhaps too Boston friendly, is about one thing from the Detroit side: money (or perhaps two things: money and health — Prince has been injured, obviously). Prince is on the books both this year and next for over 10m per. Everyone on the Boston side of that deal expires after this year. Detroit is not close to contending right now. In order to contend, they need to improve their cap situation. This trade helps them do that.
jbrett
December 29, 2009
khandor,
Twenty-some years ago, a young man in the cheap seats at the Cubs’ home opener was gushing about the team’s chances. “If Mel Hall comes through–” he began.
An old man cut him off, saying, “if Mel Hall comes through, we’ll finish fifth. And if he doesn’t, we’ll finish fifth.”
My points are these: 1) Kuester, Riley, or Auerbach–it’s a gaggle of mostly-less-than- average players, and the coach is as important as Mell Hall was to the Cubs; and 2) Wallace and Jerebko can’t play 120 minutes each game, and everyone else makes them worse. Stir them up any way you like, it’s still a recipe for 50 losses.
I think Dumars is living off past successes; he may also be a textbook example of the anti-Wins Produced school, in that he values physical impressiveness over actual production. He’s getting close to having an entire team that looks good only until warmups end.
Italian Stallion
December 29, 2009
I think the Knicks should trade Eddy Curry and Jared Jeffries for expiring contracts and then sign James and Wade next year.
How’s that one? :)
I’m looking forward to the mid term report on the Knicks (who are ahead of your Pistons tonight as I type this) when you get around to it.
In the last month or so, the Knicks have been playing a lot better. Lee is playing “other worldly” and Gallo is well on his way to becoming a star in this league if his back holds up (as many predicted). Even Chandler had an improved month after a horrendous start coming back from surgery. If they can sustain this level of play and continue to improve, that’s not such a bad young core to add a max contract player to next year.
Nothing to add on the Pistons. They will probably improve now that they are healthier and can get more time on the court together, but they didn’t figure to be a major contender and don’t look very good so far. They are in bad shape with those bad contracts.
brgulker
December 29, 2009
One thing that Dr. Berri doesn’t drive home that should be driven home: the poor play of Rodney Stuckey.
Let’s not forget that Joe traded Billups (at least in part) because he believed (and still seems to believe) that Stuckey can fill CB’s shoes.
Rodney Stuckey sucks, in spite being EC player of the week recently. He turns it over constantly, doesn’t get many assists, and shoots the ball incredibly poorly. The only thing he does, literally, is score points.
Stuckey is just one more case in point example of Berri’s main point in WoW: scoring drives player perception and thus compensation.
What can Gordon and CV do? Score. What can Rip do? Score. What can Stuckey do? Score. What can Will Bynum do? Score.
But as has constantly been proven over and over and over again in the NBA, a bunch of scorers do not a winning team make.
Heck, even Joe admitted in an interview with Keith Langlois recently that signing Ben Wallace was to have another “coach”, a guy who would be a good influence on the young guys, etc. And he’s the most productive player on the team.
Joe has failed the Pistons this year. Here’s hoping he can find a way to trade 1 or 2 of those scorers for someone truly productive — like David Lee, who is as I type this, lighting us up in Detroit.
—————————————-
khandor, the Pistons will be average to below average no matter who constitutes the rotation. I still think Bynum is currently a better player than Stuckey, and we’ll agree to disagree. But even if I’m completely wrong on that, Detroit isn’t a good team.
brgulker
December 29, 2009
Stuckey also rebounds, so that’s a good thing in his avor. Unfortunately, it doesn’t trump the rest of his general suckitude.
Mike G
December 29, 2009
Also note:
Since Big Baby’s return, Shelden has gotten zero minutes.
Your data shows Shelden, in 14 minutes a game this year, has production equal to Garnett, well above average.
You should re-run your Celtics prediction assuming all of Shelden’s minutes go to Baby. Is that enough to cost them the title? I say: yes.
It looks like their plan is to move him to 11th man, cutting his minutes asymptotically close to zero.
dberri
December 29, 2009
brgulker,
Is there any talk in the Detroit Pistons forums that Joe Dumars is just listening to Isiah Thomas now?
Johnny Y.
December 29, 2009
Most NBA trades are unequal. How unequal they are varies, but you rarely see 1 team trade a productive player for another similiarly productive player strait up. Most trades involve 1 team trying to shed salary which usually leads to inequity.
The closest thing to an “equal trade” (Not actually equal) was the chandler-okafor deal.
steve g
December 30, 2009
wondering two things: a) is aforementioned mike g my older bro (suspect answer is yes) and b) if philly shoots a hole in win score given terrible record but seemingly high num of stat-friendly players – iguodala, brand, sammy d, speights.
khandor
December 30, 2009
brgulker,
re: “What can Gordon and CV do? Score. What can Rip do? Score. What can Stuckey do? Score. What can Will Bynum do? Score.”
Ben Gordon can do more than “score” … if/when he’s used properly by a coach who actually knows what he’s doing.
Rip Hamiliton can do more than “score” … if/when he’s used properly by a coach who actually knows what he’s doing.
Rodney Stuckey can do more than “score” … if/when he’s used properly by a coach who actually knows what he’s doing.
Players like Will Bynum … despite his prowess as a scorer … at the specific position he plays, amidst a roster of players like Hamilton, Gordon, Stuckey, Prince, Jerebko, Daye, Maxiell, Brown, Wallace, Summers, Atkins, Wilcox and Villanueva … need to be dropped from the Pistons’ regular rotation, if their team is going to excel this season [in part, because players like Hamilton, Gordon, Stuckey and Villanueva are not going to be dropped from the rotation and/or be traded by Detroit this year].
Whichever team in the NBA ends up pairing Rodney Stuckey with a head coach who’s a “good fit” with the Real Deal’s specific skill-set, at the right time in Mr. Stuckey’s evolution as a Top Notch Point Guard, in conjunction with the right set of teammates, is going to reap tremendous benefits … just like the Pistons did when they acquired Chauncey Billups and then paired him up with Larry Brown, Rasheed Wallace, Tay Prince, Mehmet Okur, Rip Hamilton and Ben Wallace.
——————
jbrett,
The “old man” in that specific scenario just happens to be wrong.
brgulker
December 30, 2009
brgulker,
Is there any talk in the Detroit Pistons forums that Joe Dumars is just listening to Isiah Thomas now?
Dr. Berri,
Just you :)
I don’t think most Detroit fans are panicking yet, because the team hasn’t been healthy. So, the poor play of Stuckey is written off to not having a complete roster, etc., etc.
But to be completely honest, I think we Pistons fans are seeing this roster through our fan bias. We want Stuckey to be as good as his potential or “ceiling” suggests that he might be. Same for CV, Gordon, etc. So we hope that a healthy team will be better than what we’ve seen so far.
I hope for that too, but I’m far more pessimistic than others in many Detroit forums (especially with regard to Stuckey).
The comparison that you drew to Zeke was spot on, IMO, and I think it’s only a matter of time (and more losing) for people to realize that.
One thin in Joe’s defense: I think it’s possible that Joe has accumulated so many scorers because he knows that scorers are perceived to be valuable by other GM’s. Perhaps he’s stockpiled a bunch of trade assets that will give him the ability to acquire more productive players over the next 1-2 years? Or maybe I’m just a fan hoping against hope.
TRad
December 30, 2009
@Brgulker
Dumars had to overbid other GMs for Villanueva and Gordon. Which means no other GM has perceived them worth their money (OK, maybe they are some GMs who haven’t had cap space). I seriously doubt Dumars could sell them, not taking back bad contracts.
It’s funny, because Pistons team, which has beaten Lakers in finals was constructed also by Dumars and it was very WoWy team. It seems Dumars has constructed it for wrong reason. That it was so good only by coincidence.
brgulker
December 30, 2009
TRad,
I don’t recall any other GMs going after CV and BG … yes, neither Mil nor Chi chose to go after their own players (which should have said something). That to say, I’m not sure that other GMs not going for those guys necessarily means that Joe had to outbid them.
That said, I think Gordon is waaaay overpaid.
I think CV still has some room to grow, if he could just take higher percentage shots.
But I’m also a Pistons fan, so a grain of salt is required.
jbrett
December 30, 2009
khandor,
Boy, you sure told me, didn’t you? Guess I’ll scurry off and lick my wounds now.
(Although I’m pretty sure the Cubs DID finish fifth….)
khandor
December 31, 2009
jbrett,
1. What would make you think that it was my intention to, “have sure told you”, so that you would have to “scurry off and lick your wounds”?
[Hint: Unlike others, perhaps, I don’t write what I write in comments sections of a blog like this one to “try and tell others off” or “embarass them”, etc., in some way.]
2. Whether, or not, Mel Hall was used in the “proper way” that season to “best-fit” his individual strengths and weaknesses with those of his teammates and coaches, etc., is not tied exclusively to the Cubs’ 5th place finish.
For example:
* Mel Hall could have been used properly; while Teammates #2-24 were used properly, but Teammate #25 was not.
* Mel Hall could have been used properly; while Teammates #3-25 were used properly, but Teammate #3 was not.
* etc.
* Mel Hall could have been used improperly; while Teammates #2-25 were used properly.
* Mel Hall could have been used improperly; while Teammate #2 was also used improperly, but Teammates #3-25 were used properly.
* etc., etc., etc.
——————
In general, a statement which reads like this:
“Team X will be average to below average no matter who constitutes the rotation.”
is a simple fallacy with zero basis in fact.
khandor
December 31, 2009
brgulker,
re: “I don’t recall any other GMs going after CV and BG … yes, neither Mil nor Chi chose to go after their own players (which should have said something).”
What it “says” is completely different if you happen to be someone who:
A. Believes that the GMs for Chicago and Milwaukee actually know what they’re doing, as first-class GMs in the NBA;
or,
B. Believes that the GMs for Chicago and Milwaukee do not actually know what they’re doing, as less-than first-class GMs in the NBA.
brgulker
December 31, 2009
By the end of the season, I won’t be surprised if Detroit, Milwaukee, and Chicago all have very similar records.
Which would seem to undermine the notion that Joe Dumars is any better a GM than either of the management teams in those other cities.
IMO, Joe’s running on reputation. He once assembled a very good team that won a championship. Now, he’s assembled a team that won’t come close to 50 wins.
Even when fully healthy, Detroit is a middling team — I don’t see a counter-argument against that. How does constructing a middling team when you’ve got 15+ million in cap space to work with make one a “first-class” GM?
Boney
December 31, 2009
Let’s not fool ourselves here..
Milwaukee is clearly going in a different direction with the way Mbah a Moute stepped up in his rookie season, so investing in a player they view to be a defensive liability isn’t prudent. Since they re-nounced their right to match offers, and effectively renounced their “bird rights” as well, there weren’t that many teams available to pay the player a contract he deserved.
Same with Ben Gordon…
Ben Gordon refused to sign contract after contract with the Bulls, and eventually grew tired of playing for a very poorly run organization (draft LMA and trade him for Tyrus Thomas.. have a serviceable PG in Hinrich and draft a PG in Rose when the need is for post players, etc) that was, and is, trying to get in a position to make a splash in the free agent market in 2010 by signing Dwyane Wade..
There simply weren’t any teams available, aside from the Gristle.. I mean… Grizzlies that could afford to pay these men the salaries they deserved. Sure, the Bulls could’ve signed and traded Gordon but why do that when you’re not in a position to acquire bad contracts for the sake of bringing in talent after you competed relatively well last season?
This is where Joe D did not bid against himself… there wasn’t a market for these men to bounce contracts off of other teams to gain the most bang for the buck. CV had interest from Cleveland, but they couldn’t afford $6-$7m per year. Obviously no one was contacting Gordon because he had previously turned down $10m+ from the Bulls.
The problem I have with people saying “oh well Joe D got lucky” is.. where was all this talk during the 50 win seasons when the team was competing for a ring, and they just couldn’t get out of their own way when it came time to actually play?
Joe D didn’t get lucky, he used the pieces he had to acquire the group of talent he acquired. The latest talent he acquired has had moderate success in the NBA – Rodney Stuckey is constantly improving and Arron Afflalo is flourishing somewhat in Denver…
Just say “it goes back to 2003 draft” and get it over with… it’s now 6 years later, and the team had reached the ECF every year until last season. A screw up like the 2003 draft ripples throughout the future of the team, and likely will affect their talent level for another few years…
it doesn’t mean that acquiring DaJuan Summers instead of Dejuan Blair was a mistake…. they’re both 2nd round picks, who were projected to be picked in the 1st round by numerous draft sites and prognosticators. Summers is NBA ready, as is Blair…
Say what you want but, overweight and undersized power forwards just do not get it done in the NBA… either that or Malik Rose/Robert Traylor/Glen Davis/Shelden Williams, etc are doing something wrong…
Boney
December 31, 2009
@br
Detroit is a team in transition. The team got old. When the core was set the way it was, it makes it hard to add pieces to the core and make changes.
you said yourself last season that you don’t view the team competing at all this season but now you’re complaining about them being a middling team…
The team is mediocre, at best. The coach has done a solid job so far, they have 3 rookies who have all played a fair amount of minutes and the new “core” has seen a substantial amount of time in the training room.
The team is not done making moves, obviously. A guy like Emeka Okafor, and his contract, are not the instant answer that this team needs. The team needs to get out from underneath the contracts they buried themselves in while they were competitive, and rebuild.
This team is not in a position where they need instant answers, they need long term solutions with plugs to fill gaps to get through the season and teach the young guys as well. Ben Wallace, Wilcox, Brown are all plugs to fill openings.. they will all be gone once suitable replacements are found.
Chris Kaman, Emeka Okafor, Tyson Chandler are all sexy and trendy picks for guys who we want on the team… the team is taking a step backwards if we think acquiring any of those 3 men and their contracts is the answer.
brgulker
December 31, 2009
Boney,
Is the team done making moves? Everything Joe says seems to suggest that he’s going to “go to war everynight with the guys we have…” (almost a direct quote from him).
Obviously, he’s going to get a big man over the next 1-2 seasons. .. Ben Wallace can only play so long. So I understand what you’re saying in that respect.
But here’s my beef with what Joe did this summers; this is what it all boils down to: we invested 18-19 million per season into two guys who have yet to consistently produce wins. Those two guys, regardless of what happens with Rip, Tay, Ben Wallace, Wilcox, et al are going to eat up nearly 20 million dollars of our payroll for the next 5 years — and they simply aren’t adept at anything other than scoring!
Look, I know you think that I introduced Okafor to the conversation, and that’s fine. I actually didn’t; I piggybacked on someone else, but that’s neither here nor there. Emeka’s contract is nearly identical to Ben Gordon’s. If I had to choose one or the other, I’d choose Emeka’s (although there are probably 20 other guys I’d rather have for the same money). I’d also rather have Boozer for 12 million than Gordon at 12 million (assuming Boozer would take that).
But here’s the thing: the point is not that I want Emeka; the point is that I don’t want two guys who don’t defend, assist, rebound, steal or block for 20 million per (especially when Rip’s getting 12 million to do that already).
khandor
December 31, 2009
brgulker,
re: IMO, Joe’s running on reputation. He once assembled a very good team that won a championship. Now, he’s assembled a team that won’t come close to 50 wins.
Even when fully healthy, Detroit is a middling team — I don’t see a counter-argument against that. How does constructing a middling team when you’ve got 15+ million in cap space to work with make one a “first-class” GM?
The reason this year’s Pistons won’t come close to achieving 50 wins is not because of the lack of talent on their team.
The main problem Joe has on his hands at the moment is that he seems to have struck out on his third consecutive choice of head coach for his team, i.e. Flip Saunders, Michael Curry, and John Kuester … and, without the right head coach in place, the actual talent level of the individual players on a team becomes almost meaningless.
——————
David and brgulker,
Providing “proof” for the merits of an as yet to be used “rotation” of specific players is … for all practical purposes … impossible to do.
i.e. The only thing that can/will “prove” whether or not a specific hypothetical rotation will succeed … in terms of generating Wins, playoff series victories, and league championships … is if that specific rotation is eventually used for a period of games by the team in question.
Filipe
January 1, 2010
As PJ pointed out the Simmons trade would be essentially salary dump for Detroit. Davis is perceived as good player and has a very friendly contract for a frontcourt guy (and he would likely start early at least) and they would clean enough cap to throw at FA next summer.Essentially is a fake trade intended to correct the bad moves Dumars did with the cap space he had last summer. If the Pistons doesn’t move either Prince or Rip they are stuck with this mediocre team for at least another season and Rip is much harder to trade because of a much worse contract unless he caughts fire in January and a contender needing extra scoring rolls the dice on him. If Dumars spend the money wisely this could ende up being a good trade on long term for Pistons.
brgulker
January 1, 2010
khandor,
Here is the frontcourt that Joe assembled:
Kwame Brown
Jason Maxiel
Chris Wilcox
Charlie Villanueva
Ben Wallace
(And Joe admitted in an interview about two weeks ago that he didn’t expect Ben to contribute — and Ben is our MVP, both in terms of Dr. Berri’s metric and in the opinion of just about any Pistons fan who watches the games).
Then, we have a bunch of rookie SFs and an aging, ailing Tayshaun Prince.
Then, we have a bunch of guards who don’t get many assists or steals, shoot relatively low percentages, and collectively turn the ball over at a higher rate than average.
For all those reasons, I think we simply don’t have the talent to compete at a high level — and we probably won’t make the playoffs.
You say that Ben Gordon, Rip Hamilton and Rodney STuckey are all “elite” talents. Yet, you offer nothing to demonstrate that they are, other than your perception. If they are, in fact, elite, then it would be easy to compare their production with other “elite” players, such as Manu, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, etc., etc. The problem you have is, if you actually do that, you’ll find that the former group comes nowhere close to the latter. IMO, your first argument that “it’s not a lack of talent” falls short, because it’s unsupportable by any data.
The second claim you make is that the Pistons are underperforming because of rotation choices by the coach. In the first place I would respond: we’ve played 3 games this entire season with the complete roster. Who should play and when is not obvious. The second response I would give is: no matter what we do with the guards, we still have gaping holes on the interior. We don’t have good rebounding or shot blocking, and we have almost no interior scoring. Those are clearly talent not coaching issues.
Third, and as you’ve already admitted, there isn’t any way to backup your claims.
You see how convenient that is for you, don’t you? And you see why people would rightly object to a claim that doesn’t have any available evidence to support it, right?
khandor
January 2, 2010
brgulker,
As I’ve shared with you before, I sincerely appreciate the constructive tone of your comments, in regards to what I have to say in a specific on-line thread.
Yes, I can certainly see the difficulty involved with understanding some of my methodology, i.e. putting forth assertions without available data/facts to support a highly specific perspective.
All I ask, in return, is this:
Please acknowledge that …
I do not always post comments, or publish blog entries, which are without factual evidence, in support of my specific take on a hoops-related matter; and,
when I do, in general, it’s because:
i. There is no such evidence available, since the specific event[s] in question have yet to occur;
ii. I actually intend for my assertions to be taken as “opinion only”, and “not fact”, until such time that said factual evidence is available to judge accurately the correctness of my specific opinion, which was offerred in advance of the said occurrence.
=================================
Specific disagreements I have with what you said above:
#1. I did not say that I think Rip, Gordon and Stuckey are “all elite level players”, comparable to the likes of Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Manu, etc.
What I said is that the Pistons’ problem this season is not due to “a lack of [adequate should have been added here] NBA talent” … because there are enough quality players on Detroit’s current roster to comprise a solid playoff team in the EC this season, if used properly.
e.g. Rip, when healthy, is still a very solid OG; especially, offensively. Gordon, when healthy, is a solid combo Guard [PG-OG]; especially, offensively. Prince, when healthy is still a very solid SF; especially, defensively/rebounding. Rodney Stuckey, is a solid young-and-still-developing PG, with the capacity to become a dominant player in the NBA … given the multi-dimensional attributes he’s shown thus far, when he reaches his peak performance years, and whichever team has him on its roster at that time, is likely going to reap huge rewards.
Unfortunately, there is little pertinent data available on Ben Gordon as a PG-OG, primarily, because he was not used in this way by the Bulls.
Unfortunately, there is little pertinent data available on Rodney Stuckey, as the Pistons have not used him properly, at least, to this point, i.e. as a main-frame PG … with a single back-up, who has good size, as well, as a combo Guard.
It should not be necessary to provide evidence in support of Rip and Tayshaun’s status, as solid NBA players.
#2. Since the Pistons have only played 3 games this season with their full compliment of players, I can certainly see how it would be difficult for others to determine what their best line-up might actually be.
Please keep in mind, however, that part of what I specialize in doing involves making accurate assessments/projections concerning sports-related situations, in advance of others, based on limited information.
#3. re: the gaping holes in rebounding and shot-blocking on the current roster
Despite their poor start to the season, and mis-use of certain key players, the Pistons are currently 7th in the league in Rebounding Differential.
Despite being only 27th in the league in Blocked Shots Differential, the Pistons could certainly improve in this aspect of the game, if they implement the rotation adjustments which I’ve recommended.
jbrett
January 2, 2010
I see I’ve missed a lively debate.
khandor,
Fair enough; instead of viewing your response as just gainsaying my position, I will view it instead as the natural outcome of your theory. If I jumped to the wrong conclusion, my apologies.
That said, I must ask you to produce SOME evidence that a bad coach can negate an entire roster. This blog’s author has referenced studies indicating that the impact of a coach is surprisingly small; WP48 suggests that most of the Detroit players are who they have been in the past. ( I suppose one could argue that Kuester knows how to coach Ben Wallace, and ONLY Ben Wallace; what are the odds that he’s as good a Ben Wallace coach as Larry Brown, but lousy with everyone else?)
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here; I have, in this forum, previously championed the Red Auerbach/Bill Russell argument that good coaching, offensive scheme, etc. can allow players to minimize the impact of their deficiencies, and maximize production by focusing on their strengths. Josh Smith would seem to be this year’s best example; moving his game closer to the basket has engineered a solid leap in production. However, there are indications the changes in his game are only temporary. He may believe he improves his team by taking the outside shot, or that he improves his offensive options if the three-pointer is in his arsenal, even if the evidence is to the contrary. If Woodson can get him to drop the three-pointer from his game, he certainly could claim to have improved him as a player–but Josh REALLY likes to bomb away from outside; can he ever actually be persuaded that someone else knows a better way for him to use his physical talent? Most of the wide-open looks he gets from 18 and beyond are the result of a sensible defensive gameplan, even if Josh chooses to believe he is creating his own shot. (Corollary to this theory: Players were easier to coach when they were easier to cut.)
If one wishes to argue that Kuester is failing to convince his players to employ their abilities in more productive ways, I would answer that:
A) He is not the only coach facing that particular mountain; and
B) That you need some empirical data to suggest that a particular player has ever been notably more productive than he is for Kuester. Prince’s minutes are too small a sample, even if he were healthy, and in any event his decline can be attributed to aging, as well. Only two players are significantly less productive than last year; both are within a reasonable range of their career numbers, and Wallace’s improvement from last year offsets them BOTH. At the risk of stealing from Dr. Berri, or brgulker, or both, the evidence strongly suggests that Kuester is getting essentially the production one would expect from this roster. I am reluctant to heap upon him the blame for players being who they have always been, just as I will need to see receipts for the cases of Geritol he’s supplying Wallace before I give him credit for Ben’s personal Renaissance.
brgulker
January 3, 2010
We like to call it the “Benaissance” :)
khandor
January 3, 2010
jbrett,
1. One of the problems with the data available for the Detroit Pistons is that their team was poorly coached last year, IMO, by Michael Curry, and the few years before that, by Flip Saunders.
There are very few top notch coaches in the game of basketball … i.e. I am not just speaking about X’s and O’s when I make this type of observation … at any given level, relative to the overall number of those who fit properly into the “above average”, “average”, “below average” and “poor” categories.
Although the Pistons have had their share of top notch coaches over the last 25 years, or so … including Chuck Daly, Larry Brown and, at least, to some extent, Rick Carlisle … to this point, John Kuester has not shown that he sees the game in a way that’s consistent with this type of designation.
2. IMO, quantitative research, in general, fails to properly capture/assess the contributions made to a successful basketball team by the right head coach, in comparison with qualitative research that involves detailed anecdotal/case study data.
If there happens to be such a qualitative academic study in existence that indicates who the head coach actually is, for a successful team, is in fact inconsequential, then I would very much appreciate being pointed to that study with an appropriate link.
3. Although it might seem counter-intuitive to the thinking of some … it’s completely plausible that John Kuester could be a “top notch coach” for Ben Wallace, specifically, and a “less-than top notch coach” for the other key players on this year’s team.
4. John Kuester is certainly not alone when it comes to being a less than top notch basketball coach in the NBA.
5. John Kuester’s problem is not concerned with being unable to convince his players of the right way for them to play this season … it’s concerned with his not actually knowing the right way for them to be used in the first place.
6. There are many different ways for high end teams to function properly and many different ways for low end teams to function in an equally improper manner.
IMO, the different ways which John Kuester has tried to this point have been mostly the wrong ones, and would seem to indicate that he might not actually know what the right ones would be with this specific group of players.
7. The specific cause which you may have championed in the past in this forum concerning the inter-relationship between Red Auerbach and Bill Russell, for example, is an insightful one, IMO, despite the existence of quantitative academic research which indicates/may claim otherwise.
8. A superior coach would be getting greater production overall from the collection of individual players on the Pistons’ roster … which would then be able to generate more wins for their team.
e.g. Using these players in the way John Kuester has used them thus far has resulted in:
I. Only 2 players performing at or slightly above an acceptable level [+], given their present status on the team:
#13. Will Bynum [i.e. a petite scoring PG]; and,
#14. Ben Wallace [i.e. an aging under-sized C];
II. Only 3 players performing at their approximate level of ability [0], given their present status on the team:
#10. Dajuan Summers [i.e. a rookie];
#11. Chris Wilcox [i.e. a journeyman]; and,
#12. Chucky Atkins [i.e. a journeyman],
and,
III. An astonishing group of 9 players performing at a lower level than need be, given their present status on the team:
#1. Rodney Stuckey;
#2. Ben Gordon [injured];
#3. Richard Hamilton [injured];
#4. Charlie Villanueva ;
#5. Jason Maxiell ;
#6. Kwame Brown ;
#7. Jonas Jerebko [rookie with a big upside];
#8. Austin Daye [rookie with a big upside]; and,
#9. Tayshaun Prince [injured].
What this type of +/0/- player performance ratio actually indicates is a coach who might be a less than a “best fit” with the players on his roster.
brgulker
January 4, 2010
I think there are better ways to explain these players’ performance, other than coaching.
I think Charlie Villanueva is posting career bests with respect to WP48. His averages may be down a bit from last year, but that’s because his minutes are down. Per minute, he’s a little better than his career averages this season, with respect to efficiency. He’s still below-average on the boards, however.
Jason Maxiel and Kwame Brown (even under Phil jackson) have been a career-long underachievers. No coach has been able to get more than middling performances out of either, ever.
Jonas Jerebko has outperformed the wildest dreams of even the biggest Piston fanboy. By any metric you like, Jonas is a quality player, especially for a rookie out of Sweden.
Austin Daye hasn’t underperformed at all; he’s a rookie, and he’s actually done fairly well in the minutes he’s been given.
Ben Gordon was playing very well before his injuries, offensively anyway. His turnover rate and his defense have been historically below-average; that hasn’t changed one way or the other.
Rodney Stuckey just isn’t very productive, and he won’t be productive until he learns better shot selection and how to create for his teammates (which will lead to increased shooting efficiency and most assists). As of now, all the kid does is score inefficiently, turn the ball over, and rebound.
Rip’s been abysmal since his return from injury, but it will take some time for an old fart like him to find his stride. Same for Tay.
I think, after having watched almost all the Piston games this season and having done my homework with respect to current and career statistics, that the above is a better explanation of the Pistons’ performance than a “blame the coach” argument.
brgulker
January 4, 2010
Correction on Charlie V: his numbers are down slightly from his career averages, both in terms of totals and per minute: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/v/villach01.html
But the differences aren’t huge. Charlie is currently what he’s always been: a PF who likes to shoot a lot and rebound a little, with some turnovers thrown in for good measure.
jbrett
January 4, 2010
khandor,
This seems to me a “Which came first, the chicken or the egg” debate; does bad coaching make players less productive, or do unproductive players make coaches look bad? My position is that the eggs–the players–continue to be eggs; no more, no less. Your position seems to be that the coaches (chickens, here) should be transmuting the eggs into gold nuggets. That would certainly be nice, but seems farfetched.
Further, you continue to build arguments based on other arguments, as opposed to any factual data–as many, many others have attempted to point out to you. When we point out that Player A is just as unproductive this year as he was last year, you reply that his coach stunk last year, too–and maybe the coach before that, as well. In some cases, it is impossible to backtrack to a time when Player A was EVER productive–and yet, your argument is that no one has found his secret formula yet, or he needs to be on the floor with a shooter, a left-handed defensive specialist, a stretch four playing center, and an extrovert who digs jazz, French quisine, and macrame. It reminds me of the woman who told the cosmologist the earth was balanced on the back of an enormous turtle, which was atop an even larger turtle. When asked what was under that turtle, she replied, “You can’t get me that way; it’s turtles all the way down.” If there’s a difference in that and your “players who have never been productive have never had an adequate coach” theory, I’ve yet to see it.
Further still, to argue that Kuester being able to coach high production from Wallace (who has produced even higher levels in the past), but failing to coach other players to higher production than they have ever demonstrated, counts as a legitimate indictment of his coaching ability, is simply fantasy, in the original sense of the word. It is all well and good to have opinions, but a genuine discussion requires something more; otherwise, you are the faith healer at the AMA symposium, the horoscope writer at the observatory, and your flights of fancy are destined to fall on deaf ears. You COULD be right; the problem is, there’s nothing more that can be said about your theories, and you can offer nothing to support them beyond yet more theories. Any attempt to offer facts which contradict you are met with convoluted statements which invariably translate to “Nunh-unh.” I get that you’re not posting to prove a thesis–or perhaps I should say, I certainly HOPE you’re not trying to prove a thesis; if you are, you need to try harder.
brgulker
January 6, 2010
khandor,
You said,
I don’t mind being disagree with at all, but don’t say my comments have no basis in fact.
The facts are abundant: the Detroit Pistons are a bunch of average to below-average win producers. It necessarily follows that such a collection of individuals will not a good team when put together.
khandor
January 6, 2010
brgulker,
Re: Villanueva
At this stage of Charlie’s career his performance numbers should not be static, or, in fact, going in the reverse diection. Unfortunately, until he gets the opportunity to play for a coach who knows how to direct CV’s talent and energy in a more constructive way … in terms of Offense, Defense and Rebounding … his will be a career that is filled with under-achievement.
Re: Maxiell
The steady growth in Jason’s output which was evident during his initial years in the league has been eroded this season under John Kuester.
Re: Brown
Working under the direction of a head coach who actually knows what his specific strengths and weaknesses are … without expecting him to be something he isn’t … Kwame has the capacity to put out double the production numbers which he’s shown during the tenures of Michael Curry and John Kuester.
Re: Jerebko
Jonas is a future star in this league … without being someone who needs to score a tonne of points … who should be playing at an even higher level than what he’s displayed to this point.
Re: Daye
Austin is a future star in this league who should be playing at even higher level than what he’s displayed to this point, in the brief snipets of PT which he’s been given by John Kuester.
Re: Gordon
The Gentle Ben who excelled against Boston in Chicago’s 1st Round Playoff Series last season should be embarassed at the way he’s played thus far for Detroit, given his actual talent level, in all three main phases of the game [i.e. offense, defense and rebounding].
Re: Stuckey
When non-expert observers watch high-calibre athletes move in a game, what they usually see is:
1. Only that which is readily visible to the naked/untrained eye.
When expert observers watch high-calibre athletes move in a game, what they usually see is:
1. That which is readily visible to the naked eye; plus,
2. What else is really there, hidden in plain sight, but as yet invisible to the naked/untrained eye.
Rodney Stuckey is a “play-maker” with the tools to become a dominant PG in this league, should he be fortunate enough to come under the tutelage of the right coach. For his sake, I sincerely hope that he can find what Chauncey Billups was able to discover about himself, the game, in general, and what it takes to become a terrific leader, at the PG position, while working with Larry Brown.
Re: Prince
When he’s healthy, he is still one of the best “glue guys” in the NBA, working at the Small Forward position, who’s a match-up nightmare, given the range of his individual skill-set.
Re: Hamilton
As long as he is no longer being featured as the Pistons’ premier Off Guard, but is also being shunted to the Small Forward position, on occasion, for key stretches of games, working in a 3-guard “small” line-up, Rip is not going to regain his former stature as, pound-for-pound, one of the best players in the NBA and the heart-and-soul of the Pistons’ championship-calibre teams of the 2000’s.
———————————————————–
When a basketball coach uses talented players in the wrong way, those players can be made to seem a great deal worse than they actually are.
khandor
January 6, 2010
jbrett,
Re: the Chicken and the Egg
Using your own analogy:
Eggs that are sat upon by a responsible and effective Mother Hen, will eventually grow into full-blown chickens.
Eggs that are abandoned by an irresponsible and ineffective Mother Hen will not.
Eggs that are refrigerated properly will last a long time and can eventually form the basis of a delicious meal.
Eggs that are left on the counter will rot.
Depending upon who the Chicken and/or Egg-keeper actually is … and the judgment/expertise s/he displays in their care … will make all the difference in the world, to the lives and productivity of the eggs in question.
Poor players can become a great deal better, working under the direction of an expert coach.
Aveage players can become elite players, working under the direction of an expert coach.
Elite players can become all-time great players, working under the direction of an expert coach.
Every player, working under the direction of a non-expert coach, can be made to look a great deal worse than his/her actual level of ability.
There has never been a basketball coach who has actually won a game for his/her players … except, of course, The Great Bill Russell who was a championship-winning player-coach for the Celtics … since The Rules of the Game prevent coaches from scoring baskets.
There have been a great many basketball coaches who have actually lost a game for their players, through a wide range of inept decisions that can directly effect the final outcome of a specific contest.
Re: building arguments that actually work for the game of basketball
There’s an old coaching axiom that reads along the following lines, when discussing which side in a contest actually has the final advantage:
“Whoever has the chalk last is going to win the basketball debate game.”
Is there any chance that you happen to know what this little saying means?
i.e. If you are someone who actually knows what to do in response to a specific situation that happens on the court, at a given point in time, then, there is ALWAYS something which can be done to effectively counter what your opponent is, in fact, doing to succeed. On the other hand, if you are someone who doesn’t actually know what to do in response to a specific situation that happens on the court, at a given point in time, then, you may well find yourself in different scenarios that make it seem as though there is nothing which can be done to effectively counter what your opponent is, in fact, doing to succeed. In basketball, one’s perspective really does depend on what one actually happens to know and understand about the intricacies of the game, itself, rather than its mere facts and figures.
Re: cosmologists and turtles
Using your own analogy:
There are some planets that are supported by turtles that “go all the way down,” while, others are not. The real trick, however, is being able to tell which ones are which.
Re: facts/thesis vs opinions
It’s when “could be right”, spoken in advance, has eventually been turned into “was right”, with the passage of time, that an individual like me, simply points to the actual facts of the matter and says,
“The proof of the pudding is always in the eating.”
– Anonymous
Basketball is a game of specific match-ups.
Those looking for a catch-all thesis, supported primarily by supposed facts and figures, are looking for The Holy Grail of Hoops in an essentially god-less environment.
khandor
January 7, 2010
brgulker,
re: I don’t mind being disagree with at all, but don’t say my comments have no basis in fact.
The facts are abundant: the Detroit Pistons are a bunch of average to below-average win producers. It necessarily follows that such a collection of individuals will not a good team when put together.
Clearly, we do not share the same opinion regarding the following groups of players:
Group One
Rip Hamilton, OG [older veteran]
Tayshaun Prince, SF [younger veteran]
Ben Gordon, OG/PG [younger veteran]
Rodney Stuckey, PG [youngster]
Jonas Jerebko, SF [rookie]
Austin Daye, SF-OG [rookie]
Will Bynum, PG [youngster]
each of whom fit into the “above average” category relative to their respective peers across the league, based on actual ability;
Group Two:
Charlie Villanueva, PF [younger veteran]
Jason Maxiell, PF [youngster]
Kwame Brown, C [veteran]
Ben Wallace, PF/C [older veteran]
DaJuan Summers, PF [rookie]
Chris Wilcox, PF [veteran]
Chucky Atkins, PG [older veteran]
each of whom fit into the “average” player category,
IMO.
What may actually be factual is that 13 of these 14 players are performing in a way which should be properly categorized as “below-average” this season.
——————-
I have no problem, whatsoever, agreeing to disagree about this specific topic.