David Biderman – of the Wall Street Journal – reports today on The Teams that Make the Nets Look Good.
Biderman’s story is based on the following question he asked me to consider: Across the past 10 years, have their been other teams in professional sports as bad as the Nets?
To answer this question – as Biderman reports — I looked at how many standard deviations each team is below the average performance in the league. For example, New Jersey’s current winning percentage of 0.111 is 2.4 standard deviations below the average mark of 0.500. As Biderman notes, this marks actually trails the performance of the Detroit Tigers in 2003, the Atlanta Thrashers of 1999-00, the Kansas City Royals of 2005, and the Detroit Lions of 2008 (yes, two Detroit teams make this list). So the Nets – by this measure – are indeed the worst team in the NBA across the past 10 years. But they are not the worst team in professional sports.
The focus on standard deviations is necessary if one wishes to make comparisons across sports. If one wishes to focus solely on the NBA, though, one can use a different measure that makes the Nets look slightly better. New Jersey currently has an efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of -10.88. Since 1973-74 (the first year one can calculate efficiency differential) the following teams have posted a differential below what we see from the current Nets.
- Dallas Mavericks [1992-93]: -14.70
- Denver Nuggets [1997-98]: -12.63
- LA Clippers [1999-2000]: -11.89
- Vancouver Grizzlies [1996-97]: -11.17
- Houston Rockets [1982-83]: -10.95
If we maintain our focus on the just the last 10 years, we see that only the Clippers of 1999-00 are doing worse. So across the last decade – if we focus on efficiency differential – the Nets are only the second worse team in the NBA.
One might wonder how the Nets fell so far. To address this issue we need to consider the performance of the individual players. As Table One reports, the Nets do have four above average players this season (Brook Lopez, Kris Humphries, Josh Boone, Courtney Lee). None of these players, though, are far above the average WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] mark of 0.100. And nine players employed by the Nets this season have posted WP48 marks in the negative range.
Table One: The New Jersey Nets after 63 games in 2009-10
If we look at how the veterans this team has employed performed last year, we see this team shouldn’t be this bad. The team’s current efficiency differential (and Wins Produced) is consistent with a team that should have already won 10 games (so the Nets won-loss record is a bit misleading). The 2008-09 performance of these veterans, though, suggests this team should have already won 20 games.
When we look at the individual players we see that much of the team’s decline is tied to the play of Rafer Alston, Devin Harris, and Keyon Dooling. What do these players have in common? All three log time at the point guard position. So that one position has been the reason why the Nets have moved from “bad” to “all-time horrible.”
Let me close by noting – as the following list indicates — that this is the fifth time Biderman and the Wall Street Journal have referenced my work in recent months.
Shooting Guards are Getting ‘Short’-Changed
After Age 25, It’s All Downhill for NBA Players
In the NHL, More Dollars Equals More Wins
Few Starting Lineups Could Top These Celtics
The sports section at the Wall Street Journal has focused tremendously on how numbers inform our understanding of sports. So if you are interested in this aspect of sports (and since you are here I suspect you are), you might want to think about reading the WSJ sports section on a regular basis.
And one last note (this just came in as I wrote this post)… Martin Schmidt says a copy of Stumbling on Wins arrived in the mail today (I haven’t checked my mail yet). The book is officially released on March 26, so it won’t be long until everyone is able to read our latest.
– 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 
John Giagnorio
March 10, 2010
Congrats on the new book coming out, and thanks again for all of the wonderful writing that you do for this blog!
A.S.
March 10, 2010
I noted this last time you posted on the Nets, Prof Berri, but in looking at the new WP48 numbers, I am struck by the fact that virtually ALL of the Nets’ veterans have gotten much, much worse this year (in WP48 terms) as compared to last year.
Here are the Nets veterans (players not on rookie contracts), and the change in their WP48 from last year to this year:
Battie: -.231
Alston: -.158
Simmons: -.133
Dooling: -.120
Hayes: -.117
Harris: -.104
Najera: -.056
Quinn: -.055
Hassell: -.040
Humphries: +.019
Several of these players aren’t costing the Nets a lot of wins because they have been so bad that they don’t get any minutes. But most were being counted on to be contributors to the team. As far as I can tell, the major reason that the Nets have been so bad this year is that their entire veteran contingent of players got much, much worse from ’09 to ’10.
Italian Stallion
March 10, 2010
And to think my Knicks lost 3 out of 4 to these guys. ;-)
ilikeflowers
March 10, 2010
Off topic. I just wanted to share one of the most amazing instances of mental gymnastics that I’ve ever read. This clear thinking intellectual giant known as Chili Palmer 15 says,
“Kobe attempts more 3’s per game than Wade and Jordan, thus bringing his overall % down. If you take away 3’s, Kobe is well above 50% for his career. Jordan was a smarter shooter, but not a better one. It’s true Kobe takes a ton of unnecessary shots one-on-three shots, but he’s a better jump shooter than Jordan, a better post-player than Jordan, a better 3-point shooter than Jordan, and in their primes, fairly equal in finishing at the rim. Kobe will never be the PER beast Jordan was because Kobe has been surrounded by 7-footers his entire career, and Jordan had Luc Longley? And of course, LeBron is 3 inches taller and outweighs Kobe by 60 pounds and the entire offense runs through him every possession, which is why LeBron kills Kobe in PER, too. Watch with your eyes… stats don’t always tell the entire story.”
This gentleman is why the species is doomed. Next stop, Idiocracy.
John Giagnorio
March 10, 2010
That’s actually a common argument in favor of Kobe Bryant. Sure, he’s not a “smart shooter,” but he would sure kick your ass in a skills contest.
Dave, if you ever run out of things to post I’d love to see a list of the best shooting guards of the past say 20-25 years (whenever they started keeping full stats) by either WP48 or Wins Produced. I don’t think Bryant would rank that high. I did a quick and dirty look at the best SGs I could think of using stuff like points per shot and rebounds/steals/blocks per 36 minutes. Bryant seemed very middle of the pack in this group.
dberri
March 10, 2010
Kobe is a good shooting guard. But he really is nowhere near Jordan. And the idea that we should discount all his mistakes, but not do the same for everyone else, is not very good reasoning.
Italian Stallion
March 10, 2010
I think there’s some truth to the idea that Kobe and Jordan are not as far apart as the difference in their win production if you just look at just physical skills. In fact, I think that’s why Kobe tends to be overrated by so many coaches, great players, and observers. They are focusing on his skill set and not the effectiveness with which he uses it to produce wins.
Basketball is both a physical and intellectual game. Jordan was vastly superior at shot selection, getting his teammates involved at the right time, etc…. and that compounded his moderate advantage in physical skill into a large advantage in win production.
I think measuring physical skills alone probably has some value. We’ve seen examples of players that were able to significantly improve their efficiency by tweaking their shot selection and other parts of their game.
However, with Kobe, if Phil Jackson can’t get more out of him, no one can.
Michael
March 11, 2010
I’m sorry, but I think the ‘look at their skills’ argument is a non-starter.
I’ve seen guys on the and1 mixtapes for example who can do things that will literally blow your mind skill wise.
How many of those jaw-droppingly skillful guys ever become productive NBA players?
Rafer Alston?
It’s the NBA, not the playground.
Michael
March 11, 2010
Also, I Like Flowers, tell Chili Palmer 15 that he is wrong.
If you take 3 point shots out of the equation both Jordan and Lebron have career fg%’s of 51%. Kobe’s would adjust to 48%.
Not quite ‘well above 50%’ :-)
Jimbo
March 11, 2010
Hi DBerri, you state: “The focus on standard deviations is necessary if one wishes to make comparisons across sports.”
Is this really true? Couldn’t we look at the standard deviations of average margin of victory? I know in baseball average margin of victory (aka run differential) is the best predictor of future wins. I don’t know about football, hockey, or soccer though.
Italian Stallion
March 11, 2010
Michael,
I think you are arguing that a player with incredible athleticism and hyper skills at one or two things (like dunking for example) doesn’t always translate into a highly productive player.
Most if not all would agree with that.
That’s not what people are saying about Kobe and Jordan.
They are saying if you lined them up on 3 point shooting, mid range shooting, FT shooting, finishing at the basket, ball handling, passing, rebounding, defense, ability to hit the big shot, independent of game time actions and decisions, they would be closer than the difference in their actual productivity.
Some of those things can actually be measured quite well in isolation (free throws almost perfectly and 3p% reasonably well).
Unfortunately most cannot because we don’t have the information.
Personally, I don’t even see this as a controversial idea no matter how committed e to a purely statistical analysis you are. All it is saying is that playing basketball is partly intellectual and that intellectual component winds up in the wins produced.
On their 2p%, I think most would argue that Jordan wisely used his athleticism to get closer to the hoop more often and passed out of double and triple teams when appropriate instead of putting up bad shots (improving his 2P FG%, raising his assists, and helping his team a lot more despite being the slightly inferior outside shooter).
Michael
March 11, 2010
From what I understand you are saying that what one player is conjectured to be hypothetically capable of doing can be used as a proxy for what that player actually does.
I don’t think that’s a strong argument.
I think the reason players like Jordan and Lebron produce more than players like Kobe is simply because they are better.
As I said previously if you want to measure skills in isolation there would be a number of playground players who could compete, if not surpass, anything a professional would be capable of.
However such conditions do not prevail in an actual game which is why I think the argument is moot.
I believe the only reason these Jordan, Kobe comparisons ever come up is due to something others have called a ‘representative heuristic’.
In other words Kobe modelled Jordan’s game, causing observers to associate him with Jordan. In reality however they are nowhere near equals (unless one resorts to hypothetical conjecture.)
dberri
March 11, 2010
Supporting Michael’s argument…
Given the significance people place on skills, why aren’t more NBA teams hiring people from the Harlem Globetrotters (not only do these players have skills, they also win all the time).
I would also add that arguments where you both a) state a definitive claims and,
b) argue the data doesn’t exist to support the claim
tend not to be very convincing.
ilikeflowers
March 11, 2010
I try not to post on the internet since it’s a waste of time given the format but,
[1] ‘If you take away 3’s, Kobe is well above 50% for his career. Jordan was a smarter shooter, but not a better one.’
Kobe w/o 3’s: 48%, Jordan w/o 3’s: 51%. Michael, you must’ve forgotten to remove the dumb shots taken percentage.
[2] ‘It’s true Kobe takes a ton of unnecessary shots one-on-three shots, but he’s a better jump shooter than Jordan, a better post-player than Jordan, a better 3-point shooter than Jordan, and in their primes, fairly equal in finishing at the rim.’
‘Better’ here means ‘better according to some internet guy’s opinion’. This illustrates the difficulty that people have in measuring the benefit of the absence of mistakes. Basketball isn’t Horse. If you take a ton of unnecessary bad shots then you are indeed a bad shooter – who cares what your potential is (unless you’re young and might change your ways a la Josh Smith). Also this short-changes a player for possessing the array of skills (some of which are even intangibles!) that enable a player to get easier shots (court vision, dribbling, fakes, quickness, intelligence, strength, etc…).
[3] ‘LeBron is 3 inches taller and outweighs Kobe by 60 pounds and the entire offense runs through him every possession, which is why LeBron kills Kobe in PER, too.’
So now we’re going to short-change LeBron because he’s bigger and taller than Kobe? Are we going to short-change Kobe in his comparisons with Wade because Kobe is taller and longer? Of course not, because Wade has the unfair advantage of weighing more! His density and shortness are an unfair physical benefit. Why not reduce one’s rating of Kobe’s finishing skills because his slenderness gives him an unfair leaping advantage?
[4] ‘Watch with your eyes… stats don’t always tell the entire story.’
Which comes after presenting an argument filled with simple stats. And of couse we all know that if Kobe averaged 5 points a game less then no one would be thinking of him as almost the best player evar.
[5] Why not discount some of Kobe’s abilities based upon the fact that he plays in an era of much less physical defense? Apparently Jordan’s post-play, finishing, and jump-shooting would’ve received no benefit if he played today.
John Giagnorio
March 11, 2010
“Personally, I don’t even see this as a controversial idea no matter how committed e to a purely statistical analysis you are. All it is saying is that playing basketball is partly intellectual and that intellectual component winds up in the wins produced.”
I see what *you* are saying, Italian Stallion, but I feel most people who start making this argument – Kobe and Jordan are similar skill-wise, Kobe is a “better shooter from distance,” etc – are simply trying to say that if they are “equal in skills” then they must be equal (or roughly equal) as players. It’s why I don’t feel this is a valuable topic to discuss. Jordan’s significantly better in a wins produced type context, let’s just leave it at that :)
John Giagnorio
March 11, 2010
It might be valuable if there was any reason to believe Bryant could improve by playing more like Jordan, whatever that might mean. At this point, I think it’s clear that he can’t.
Alvy
March 11, 2010
Several of your readers dberri, claim to follow Wages of Win and your post, but continue to discuss the shortcomings of Kobe Bryant. Why is that?
Of all the cultural aspects of NBA, the Kobe-LeBron debate seems the silliest, not because LeBron is “obviously better,” but on the most non-statistical reasoning:
Bryant is 31, trying to fight Father Time, while an athletic 25 year-old is enjoying his prime, correcting all his weaknesses (FT%, mid-range game, etc.).
There is little defense as to why Kobe Bryant isn’t producing as much as LeBron, unless any reader, or yourself, know of veterans who suddenly get better in their 14th-season.
I love the Wages of Win metric, and value it very much, but I’m still confused to see familiar readers who seem to be adamant about the metric, yet preach to the choir about Kobe Bryant. Certainly, I’ll never suggest people stop talking about what they want, but it just seems as irrelevant as “Russell was much better than Wilt,” or “Maravich and Iverson scored a lot, but didn’t win much.”
Simon
March 11, 2010
Alvy//
That’s because at no point of his career Kobe was anywhere near being the league’s top win producer according to WP, yet he’s been consistently mentioned as the best player in game for years by numerous people inside and outside the NBA. Thus he’s makes a good case of Wins Produced vs. Common Wisdom.
Italian Stallion
March 11, 2010
Michael,
> From what I understand you are saying that what one player is conjectured to be hypothetically capable of doing can be used as a proxy for what that player actually does.<
I am definitely "not" saying that.
I am wholeheartedly in the camp that believes that the statistically more productive player is the better player. I am only pointing out that the game is also partially intellectual. Better decisions lead to higher productivity.
The reason that is relevant is because IMO that's what causes many of these heated debates.
The average fan, former great player, media type etc… confuses physical skill with productivity. That's why they tend to overate guys like Kobe.
Kobe has very high physical gifts and skills, but he doesn't use them as well as Jordan used his. That's the part they miss.
The one other point I've made is that I've seen examples of players I thought were skilled that were not being as productive as they should be because of poor decision making. They ultimately tweaked their game and become more productive (Wilson Chandler and Josh Smith this year).
I don't think it would be such bad idea to "also" evaluate players based on skills alone, find those that were underachieving, determine if it would easy to modify their decision making, and then improve on them.
An approach like that would kind of like stock market value investors looking for hidden value in companies and restructuring them.
Italian Stallion
March 11, 2010
DBerri
“Given the significance people place on skills, why aren’t more NBA teams hiring people from the Harlem Globetrotters (not only do these players have skills, they also win all the time).”
LOL.
Few would argue that any of the Harlem Globetrotters were highly skilled except for Connie Hawkins.
“I would also add that arguments where you both a) state a definitive claims and,
b) argue the data doesn’t exist to support the claim tend not to be very convincing.”
I agree.
This is where we respectfully differ (at least respectfully on my part). :)
You rely almost exclusively on your statistics.
I use your statistics as one tool in the evaluation process (albeit the primary one). I believe some relevant data is not included in your model because it’s not available (some teams may have it though) and I disagree at the margin on one issue.
To form opinions on those things, I use hours of observation of basketball.
So if in conversation I say Kobe made more bad decisions than Jordan and it impacted his productivity, I can’t prove it. I just believe it to be true after watching them play hundreds of games because it was extreme enough to generate a “high degree” of confidence in me.
I fully understand why you don’t accept these proclamations and why they would never be accepted in your circles. However, as I keep saying, I am less interested in convincing you or anyone else as I am in understanding the game better for personal pleasure and potential gambling.
Evan
March 11, 2010
ilikeflowers —
but arguing on the internet is fun!
Italian Stallion —
There’s lots of evidence that ‘expertise’ is unproductive and counterproductive in sports evaluations. So, your comment about having expertise makes me wary unless you can present testable hypotheses and then have them confirmed or denied.
As for the Kobe argument, I feel like most of us don’t deny that Kobe does some things other people can’t do. But he consistently makes bad decisions, and that’s something pretty integral to winning or losing.
Kudos to the WSJ. There’s a reason it’s the best paper in the country.
EJ
March 11, 2010
So who would be the most overrated shooting guard?
Kobe or Iverson?
I’m worried Kobe might be regarded as Top 10 or even Top 5 all time, at the rate he’s accumulating stats. (and game winning shots)
Italian Stallion
March 11, 2010
Evan,
I don’t think I used the word “expertise” to describe my ability to watch games and notice some things that have value that are not included in the available stats.
Personally, I think any knucklehead that watched a lot of basketball would eventually notice that Jared Jeffries draws a lot of offensive fouls, tips rebounds to keep them live when he can’t get to them, deflects passes and disrupts plays etc….
I am sure there are loads of things I don’t notice, but at the extremes what I do to supplement the stats available to me almost certainly has value.
Evan
March 11, 2010
IS,
OK, then prove it and give us some testable hypotheses!
simon
March 11, 2010
EJ//
I’m pretty sure a large number of today’s fans regard Kobe as one of top 10 players ever. He’s still a lot better than Iverson though.
But man I hate playing with most of those Kobe-inspired weekend warriors. I guess at least it’s luckly that we don’t see Iverson-inspired crossover/carry dribble as much as we used to.
mrparker
March 11, 2010
Name another shooting guard besides Jordan who has produced at Kobe’s level over a career. The guy has been incredibly consistent and has done it for 14 seasons.
People want to kill Kobe for only being the second best shooting guard ever. Thats ridiculous.
On the other hand he has never been what the media has built him up to be.
Alvy
March 11, 2010
@ Simon,
I completely understand the selling premise of Wages of Win. In fact, the first published post on here is titled something like, “Is Kobe Like Mike,” a topic several classical/conventional-thinking fans have discussed to death. To some degree, the popularity of this metric is slightly in thanks to Bryant. So yes, conventional-wisdom isn’t as useful when making decisions as it may be to consult such a metric.
Now, for those of us who do value the metric, why is there a bother to enter such a realm of discussion when asserting the greatness of Kobe Bryant? It just seems obvious by now.
@ EJ
“I’m worried Kobe might be regarded as Top 10 or even Top 5 all time.”
I worry about my family, my friends and my well-being, as you probably do as well. Remember, this is all (assuming you hold no position other than a fan) very interesting, hypothetical, and fun—-not important.
reservoirgod
March 12, 2010
Prof. Berri – please write a post outlining the most productive SGs since ’74 so everyone will realize that Kobe has not produced the 2nd most wins at the position.
dberri
March 12, 2010
Alvy,
In Stumbling on Wins we do try and make the argument that such debates — which do appear to be trivial on the surface — do inform our understanding of how people evaluate information. So in that sense, all of this is important.
That being said, I do agree that in this specific instance (i.e. whether or not Kobe is really that great), the level of importance attached to the argument is fairly small.
As for listing the best shooting guards since 1974… let me see what I can do.
mrparker
March 12, 2010
resoirvoir,
Let’s go back and try to estimate who could be second to Jordan.
I going to use win shares from b-reference as a point of reference for what the outcome could be.
current formula ows + dws = ws
I’m going to estimate that the current formula
gives 75% credit to offense and 25% credit to defense. To fix it to 50/50 I’m going to use a hacksaw and double dws and shave a third from ows.
Using the same hacksaw these would have been last years most productive players. This is my point of reference. The wins dont match but the order gets pretty close. And with this debate we are going to be more concerned about the order than the actual number of wins. Also, adding 3 to guards who assisted 30% or better added to the accuracy. I don’t know why but that seemed to fix the original problem I ran into. After all that the numbers seem to still be about 20% of from Berri’s wins produced.
* Kidd gets left off the list(14)
anyway here’s a small list of those who scored over 16(seems to be .3wp48) which seems to jibe with wins produced from last season(08-09)
LBJ 9,13=22
Paul 9,10,3=22
howard 4,15 = 19
wade 7,9,3= 19
rondo 3,10,3=16
Here’s the all time list
1. Jordan 99,128,6=233
3. Kobe 70, 88=158
2. R. Miller 93, 68=151
I searched for a bit to see if I missed anyone who I thought of as something other than a guard who was a guard and couldn’t find anything.
Until Dwade gets a few more years under his belt this is a sorry position compared to the other 4 and maybe thats whats part of what made Jordan so special. He was really one of kind.
Italian Stallion
March 12, 2010
Evan,
>OK, then prove it and give us some testable hypotheses!<
I just did. ;)
I told you that Jared Jeffries is more valuable than any boxscore metric can measure because he is way above average at drawing offensive fouls, keeping rebounds alive that teammates occasionally get, deflecting passes that disrupt the defense, and as a help defender that bails out teammates that get beat.
None of those things are in the boxscore.
You had to watch a lot of Knicks games (now Rockets) to observe this.
I am sure some teams keep track of some of this stuff (drawing offensive fouls for sure), but I don't have access to much of it and it's not included here.
When I draw a conclusion like that from observation, I tend to look at other performance metrics (like adjusted +/- ) to see if there is some objective evidence of the observation. If there is, I tend to mentally upgrade what I see here.
That's not a very accurate way of measuring things, but it reminds me of something Warren Buffett once said about accounting depreciation being so inaccurate.
He said, "I still look at it because I would rather be approximately right than precisely wrong"
brgulker
March 12, 2010
Regarding Brook Lopez,
His scoring and rebounding totals are pretty gaudy, his shooting percentage is pretty good, and he blocks shots. But his wins produced are relatively meager compared to other centers who put up those types of numbers.
I see that his TO rate is relatively high, but it doesn’t seem to be that bad when compared to his usage rate.
What am I missing here? Why is Lopez failing to produce wins?
reservoirgod
March 13, 2010
mrparker:
I don’t understand why you altered the win shares to place Kobe 2nd but the fact is that, according to win shares, Kobe’s career has been less productive than Reggie Miller’s career. Kobe can pass Miller in the next 3-4 years, but I think we should stop anointing him the 2nd most productive SG of the modern era until the numbers actually support that claim.
mrparker
March 14, 2010
reservoirgod,
I only altered win shares to estimate what wins produced results would look like.
todd2
March 25, 2010
I had the opportunity to watch the Nets play the Heat this week and it looks like the inmates are running the asylum. Kris Humphries is trying to run screen/rolls with his teamates and they’re not cooperating. Brendan Haywood remarked this week that the Wizards’ players were more concerned about points/minutes than wins and Jersey looks the same way. I think they could be playing better, and if I were a fan I’d feel cheated.