Ian Levy is a Third-Grade teacher by day and amateur basketball analyst by afternoon (he usually sleeps at night). Ian suffers from a rare psychological condition known as Anti-Homeritis which renders him incapable of rooting for hometown teams. He grew up in Upstate New York and has therefore been a lifelong Indiana Pacers fan. He writes his own basketball blog, Hickory High, and is a contributor at IndyCornrows. Ian currently lives in Boise, Idaho, where he roots against the Boise State Broncos.
The Indiana Pacers entered this season with hope. They finished the 2008-2009 season winning 8 of their last 12 games. Over the summer they added two highly regarded (by some) rookies, in A.J. Price and Tyler Hansbrough; who had proven themselves to be winners at the collegiate ranks. In an effort to add depth and defensive aggressiveness the team signed veterans Dahntay Jones, Earl Watson, Luther Head and Solomon Jones. Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush seemed poised to move from their promising rookie seasons into sophomore campaigns of significant contribution. The Pacers knew they weren’t fielding a championship team, but challenging for the 8th playoff spot in the East didn’t seem out of reach. At the very least improvement was expected.
Obviously, things did not work out as hoped. The Pacers went from a 36 win season in 2008-2009 to a 32 win season; a season which would have been far worse if not for a March/April hot streak which saw the team winning 12 of their last 19 games. The reasons for this deterioration are myriad, but in this post we will focus on four in particular: Injuries, “Improvement,” Underwhelming Additions, and Regression.
Before we get to these, let’s begin by taking a look at the Pacers rosters from the last two seasons in terms of individual wins production:
Table One-Two: The Indiana Pacers in 2008-09 and 2009-10
Injuries
The injury woes for the Pacers started early this season when 1st Round Draft pick, Tyler Hansbrough, re-injured his shin during summer league play. From there it got worse with Troy Murphy, Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy, and Jeff Foster all missing significant time. In addition to his shin injury, Hansbrough missed most of the second half of the season with vertigo induced by a viral ear infection. Together, those five players missed 163 of 410 possible games due to injury (Granger also sat out one game because of a suspension).
- Danny Granger – 19 games missed
- Troy Murphy – 10 games missed
- Mike Dunleavy – 15 games missed
- Jeff Foster – 66 games missed
- Tyler Hansbrough – 53 games missed
“Improvement”
“Improvement” is in quotation marks because this section is really about a lack of improvement. When looking at Wins Produced, neither Roy Hibbert nor Brandon Rush had a successful rookie season. However, each showed signs of the ability to develop into a solid contributor. There was improvement to be sure, as each player made the leap into the positive range on WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes], but both were still below average for their designated position.
- Roy Hibbert – (-0.072 WP48 last season, 0.006 WP48 this season)
- Brandon Rush – (-0.036 WP48 last season, 0.038 WP48 this season)
We should note, though, that if Rush is considered a shooting guard, then Rush was exactly average (WP48 of 0.100). A similar story cannot be told for Hibbert. At least, we really can’t argue that Hibbert was anything more than a below average center.
Underwhelming Additions
The Pacers lost four major contributors from last season and replaced them with four veterans supposed to provide toughness and defensive upgrades. Although the team defense did improve, the net production over the players lost was barely positive. To add insult to injury, the only two players who provided positive contributions, Luther Head and Earl Watson, were signed to one year contracts and are thus free agents again this summer. Solomon Jones and Dahntay Jones will be back next season, and that means their negative WP48 will likely return as well.
Regression
Troy Murphy, Danny Granger and T.J. Ford were the only three above average (>/= o.100 WP48) contributors who returned to the Pacers in 2009-2010. Although Murphy continued to contribute at a terrific level, all three players saw a tremendous decline in their production.
- Troy Murphy – (0.374 WP48 last season, 0.281 WP48 this season)
- Danny Granger – (0.115 WP48 last season, 0.082 WP48 this season)
- T.J. Ford – (0.101 WP48 last season, 0.084 WP48 this season)
Even when you account for the reduced minutes they played this season, the decline of these three players cost the Pacers about seven wins (26.21 Wins Produced using 2008-2009 WP48 with 2009-2010 minutes played vs. 19.69 Wins Produced this season). Seven wins would have meant a three game improvement over the previous year, and would have had the team in contention for a playoff spot up until the final days of the season. Considering the injury woes the team suffered, this could have been viewed as a successful campaign and an indication of the improvement the fans and team were both looking for.
A New Hope
So where do the Pacers go from here? Where do we find hope for next season?
Unfortunately, things may get worse before they get better. Using Wins Produced, it’s clear the Pacers most productive player last season was Troy Murphy. By all accounts the organization is intent on using his expiring contract as a trade chip to move up in the draft or acquire other young talent. The second most productive player, Earl Watson, is a free agent and is unlikely to be re-signed because of financial constraints.
That being said, the eternal optimists in Indiana do have some reasons for hope:
- Although Danny Granger fell off last year, he has been an above average contributor in the past and has the potential to return to that level of play.
- Mike Dunleavy produced 10.72 wins for the Pacers in 2007-2008. He was an average player last season and, fingers crossed, will be starting a season completely healthy for the first time in two years.
- Tyler Hansbrough’s WP48 was a paltry 0.006 last season. This was almost entirely due to his poor shooting percentages, and he proved to be a much better rebounder than advertised. If he can play a full season, continuing to improve, there is every reason to believe he will be a solid contributor.
- Perhaps Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush can accelerate their rate of improvement and become average win producers.
- In a very deep draft, the Pacers hold picks #10, #40 and #57.
With the short term goal of returning to the playoffs next season, here’s hoping the Pacers value what they have, and are smart in seeking value in the draft and on the free agent market. I would say things can’t get any worse, but as the good people of New Jersey can attest, I would be lying through my teeth.
– Ian Levy
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Wages of Wins Journal 
brgulker
May 29, 2010
Troy Murphy is a player who intrigues me. In the era in which “stretch 4’s” are the hot commodity, he seems to fly under everyone’s radar. His contract, relative to other player types like him, is very reasonable, and he’s among the better rebounders at his position to boot.
It’s hard for me to believe that Indiana doesn’t want to keep him. He’s the kind of player I’d welcome any day of the week.
Also, Hibbert’s numbers are surprising – what’s hurting him?
Thanks for the informative article. Well done!
Marparker
May 29, 2010
There seems to be 3 modes of success(making the playoffs) in the NBA.
In order of effectiveness:
1. Have one .3 type player who plays a ton of minutes and hope to get something out of supporting cast(Miami, N.O if Paul is healthy)
2. Accumulate above average if not star level talent(Houston, Dallas to a lesser degree)
3. Accumulate multiple stars(Boston, LA)
Indiana seems to be trying plan 2. They seem to at least understand that college success is a start to drafting well.
It seems they will target Hayward, Collins, and Aldrich….of which maybe only Hayward has a shot at being a legit NBA player
brgulker
May 29, 2010
It seems they will target Hayward, Collins, and Aldrich….of which maybe only Hayward has a shot at being a legit NBA player
You honestly don’t think Aldrich will be able to contribute? He was a very important piece of one of the best teams in the country last season … not all star perhaps, but certainly productive (IMO).
dberri
May 29, 2010
I think there is a good chance Aldrich will be productive NBA player.
jbrett
May 29, 2010
Nice work, Ian. I’m curious about Murphy, as well; are the minutes at C, with Foster hurt, the prime factor in his WP48 decline? Also, a glance at the roster makes me wonder if they have too many people at the same position; can Murphy, Hansbrough and McRoberts find enough minutes to be valuable–or is McRoberts even perceived as a useful piece of the puzzle?
robbieomalley
May 29, 2010
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2010/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-100521
Hollinger believes Aldrich, Davis, and Whiteside will fail while Ebanks and Daniel Orton will be good players. I don’t understand how you can be a numbers guy and come to that conclusion.
Scondren
May 29, 2010
Not mentioned in the the post, but A.J. Price putting up .081 at as a rookie has to be at least somewhat encouraging to Pacers fans. It seems like there is reason to hope he can develop into an about average player at the point.
Daniel
May 29, 2010
Cole Aldrich essentially does 3 things: Block Shots, Rebound, and Score Efficiently. Sounds like a pretty decent NBA prospect to me.
palamida
May 29, 2010
Aldrich in all likelihood will be a productive player.
With that said – I doubt he’ll fall as low as 10#.
I don’t like G.H as a prospect all that much and at best he duplicates and replicates Dunleavy’s skill set, making drafting him, sort of odd.
palamida
May 29, 2010
I wanna add a clarification to that last bit –
I don’t think he’ll be asgood as Dunleavy, the comparison only pertains to their style of play.
Marparker
May 29, 2010
edit: I am in the minority of my opinion that Aldrich won’t be a very productive pro
I will list my scouting report abbreviated.
Very agile around the bucket on both ends
Doesn’t run the floor well.
Very limited offensively.
Not as tall as we thought.
biggest gripe is that he didn’t get better
between so and jr seasons.
ilevy
May 29, 2010
Thanks for the comments everyone. I’m really glad you enjoyed the post.
1. Troy Murphy is certainly an interesting case. I think playing minutes at center hurt his numbers this season from a postion adjustment standpoint and from an actual production standpoint. The real problem is that the Pacers offense was so terrible this season. Murphy is not a guy who can get his own shot, and most of his contributions are spot up jumpers in transition or off another player’s penetration. The offense as a whole was so stagnant that he just didn’t get the same quality open shots he had last season. This is a big reason his 3PT% fell from 45.0% to 38.4%. He relies so much on the players around him that when there performance suffers his does as well.
The other problem is that there still isn’t consensus as to how valuable he is. To the casual fan without any statistical inclinations, he is just a slow, jumpshooting big on a bad team. He also doesn’t come away looking nearly as good in some other statistical models. Adjusted +/- (a system which has plenty of issues) represents Murphy as one of the worst players on the team.
The last issue with Murphy is his contract. The Pacers have paid him 11 million dollars each of the past two seasons, and will do so again this season unless they are able to move him. Murphy generated 1.24 Wins per million dollars of salary last year, a number that is comparable to players like Steve Nash, Manu Ginobili, and Deron Williams. The problem is that each of these players do a tremendous amount to make their teammates better. Murphy’s skills on the court are complimentary in nature. His huge contract, while reasonable from a Wins per Million standpoint, has limited the Pacers ability to add the types of players who can be paired with Murphy and allow him to most effectively use his skills for the betterment of the team.
2. When it comes to Roy Hibbert his WP48 number can be explained pretty simply. Compared to the average center he is an extremely poor rebounder. He is also below average with respect to fouls, turnovers, steals and free throw attempts, but the rebounding number is what really drags him down.
3. A.J. Price’s season was one ray of sunshine this year. However he injured his knee last week, had surgery just a few days ago and is expected to be out 4-6 months. The best case scenario would have him just returning to basketball at the beginning of the season.
4. As for draft picks I actually think the Pacers will stay away from picking a PF. There is a wealth of talent at that position available but I believe Larry Bird feels more comfortable with his frontcourt rotation than he does with the backcourt. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them take Xavier Henry or trade down to try and grab Eric Bledsoe, Paul George, James Anderson or Avery Bradley.
Marparker
May 29, 2010
also I’m not super high on Heyward. I have him graded as an average wp48 as is. However there seems to be a history of some skinny college guys becoming very productive pro players. Hence I gave him a chance as an upside producer.
Michael
May 29, 2010
Celtics Lakers Finals again.
Anyone have any initial thoughts on this one? My first sense is to favour the Celtics.
Should be a good series.
Gil Meriken
May 29, 2010
My initial thought is that the Celtics need to focus their game plan around the MVP and most productive player on the Lakers, Pau Gasol.
Marparker
May 29, 2010
This is a rematch from the finals of 2 years ago. The Lakers have only gotten older. The Celtics employ a much improved Rondo. Of course the Lakers are probably still favored.
Alvy
May 30, 2010
Home-court advantage didn’t seem to help Orlando or Cleveland much, but I hope it does help the Lakers. I also hope Pau Gasol can outplay the much older KG as well.
Slugger Steve
May 30, 2010
Celtics are older too…but overall, they are playing better.
Gasol sure didn’t look like the team MVP against the Suns.
kevin
May 30, 2010
Gasol won’tbe guarded by Garnett, Perkins will do that. Garnett will be guarding either Bynum or Artest, both of whom he can crap out before breakfast.
Kobe always has problems with Pierce. Pierce is bigger and stronger and can abuse him taking it to the basket or working him around the key. The only real shotblocker the Lakers have is Bynum, who is:
A) playing on a fluid-hemorrhaging knee
B) going to be drawn away from the basket by Garnett.
The Celtics bench is much better this time around too. Wallace, Allen, Davis and Robinson are much better than Posey, House, Brown and Davis.
The palin fact is the Lakers match up poorly against the Celtics. Celtics in 6.
kevin
May 30, 2010
Ooh. Now there’s an interesting misspelling. “palin fact”.
brgulker
May 30, 2010
I fail to see why Bynum and Perkins won’t match up against each other. Thy both play C whenever they are on the court, Ana the marchioness is advantageous for both teams.
Scondren
May 30, 2010
Yeah, I’d expect to see Bynum and Perkins matched up, at least on the Lakers end. They have no reason to put Bynum on KG.
And I doubt Kobe will be on Pierce. Artest will, for most of the game. Most likely Kobe will be on Rondo, but have the freedom to roam like he did two years ago.
——————————————————
More on topic, ilevy, I hadn’t realized AJ had hurt his knee…again. That is a shame and hopefully it wont set his development back too much.
ilikeflowers
May 30, 2010
Taking into account starters and backups, wp48 sees it as:
PG: +300 Celtics
SG: wash
SF: +100 Celtics
PF: wash
C: +200 LA
Boston has the superior starting 5 and the bench is a wash (assuming that Bynum is healthy). Boston has the better players, but LA has the home court advantage. Given the way Boston dispatched the two best teams in the league though and given how little home vs away seems to affect them, barring injuries, I’m expecting Boston to win it in 5.
ilikeflowers
May 30, 2010
I’m hoping the Celtics win, because then I can dismiss LA’s championship last year forevermore in any discussion by referring to it as the ‘KG was injured title’.
And whenever I discuss Kobe with someone I can refute the 4 championships greatness argument for him since he just played Robin every time. Three times for Shaq and once for KG.
Kobefan: Kobe has 4 rings.
Me: Yeah, but he was Robin every time.
Kobefan: You’re crazy. Maybe with Shaq, but the last one was all him.
Me: You mean the ‘KG was injured title’?
Kobefan: …???@#$#%!!
Alvy
May 30, 2010
ilikeflowers, by Andres Alvarez’s numbers, the last two times the Lakers managed to get to the NBA finals, Kobe lead the Lakers in postseason wins and WP/48. Maybe he wasn’t Robin every time.
ilikeflowers
May 30, 2010
Alvy,
yeah but no Kobefan is going to know that. And at the anecdotal argument level, I’d just counter that Shaq drew all the attention and that (assuming Boston wins this year) KG was injured last year (making him Batman to Kobe’s Robin).
At the wp48 level, I’d just say extreme small sample size effects. Not only are there fewer games, but there are fewer distinct opponents as well.
ilikeflowers
May 30, 2010
Also, from a silly anecdotal standpoint, being Batman on the team that lost in the finals, while being Robin on the teams that won the finals, means that you’re not good enough to be Batman.
kevin
May 30, 2010
“And I doubt Kobe will be on Pierce. Artest will, for most of the game. Most likely Kobe will be on Rondo, but have the freedom to roam like he did two years ago.”
That’s not the point. Pierce will be on Kobe, at least during those points in the game when Kobe needs to shut down. And Pierce has always given Kobe trouble. The Lakers have no other go-to guy. The Celtics have at least 2, and 3 if you count Allen.
Kobe can’t cover Rondo. That means Fisher will have to cover Allen and Allen will blowtorch Fisher. Allen is both bigger and stronger than Fisher and can shoot right over the top of him. That would be the Lakers worst nightmare, Allen stroking 3’s at will.
As I said before, the Lakers match up poorly against the Celtics. They have no answer for either Rondo or Garnett and they have players that can neutralize all the Laker strengths. The Lakers are going to shit once they realize they are facing a real defense for the first time in the playoffs that can take them out of their patterns and control the boards on them.
Tindall
May 30, 2010
“The Celtics bench is much better this time around too. Wallace, Allen, Davis and Robinson are much better than Posey, House, Brown and Davis.”
This is incorrect, at least according to wp48. Wallace and Baby are both below average players. Posey, House, and Powe were above average players and PJ Brown was average. Only Tony Allen has improved dramatically – not enough to fill in the gap left by outgoing bench players.
Marparker
May 31, 2010
ilikeflowers,
hysterical
On the playoff numbers,
I’m pretty sure that if we take playoff numbers as a whole instead of considering what a player does over 20 games vs 4 opponents they will bear out what the regular season number say.
Personally, I’m finished with the “Kobe argument”. He is a great player and has been essential to every championship team he has been on. That being said, I just want people to stop calling him the greatest or putting him in that conversation. The 08′ non-championship seemed combined with Lebron’s emergence seemed to put a quash on that talk. But, its all back again(arghh). If Boston can pull it out then that definitely tarnishes alot of arguments.
kevin
May 31, 2010
“This is incorrect, at least according to wp48. Wallace and Baby are both below average players. ”
You must be looking at regular season numbers. Both of them have been playing much better in the playoffs.
Josh Dhani
May 31, 2010
Great job Ian!
ilikeflowers
May 31, 2010
Marparker,
I just want people to stop calling him the greatest or putting him in that conversation. But that is the ‘Kobe Argument’ from my perspective. I’m with you, Kobe is indeed a great player and there’s a legit argument for him being the best current SG in terms of durability and total seasonal production.
MorethanWPcanmatter
June 2, 2010
By WP48 Murphy was a superstar the prior season and still near it this season. If you went by that alone, given the large gap to their 2nd and 3rd best players on WP48, you might expect Murphy to have a good on/off. But he doesn’t. The team offense is worse and the team defense is worse. Wins Produced doesn’t always get that close to a guy’s individual impact on defense with the defensive boxscore stats and the team level adjustment and it doesn’t have a way to incorporate individual impact on team offense beyond the possessions he uses himself. And team offensive and defensive rebounding are actually less with him on the court this season than off. Hence raw +/- or Adjusted +/- is used by some along with other stuff to add perspective and demonstrate that Murphy is not having a superstar level overall impact. Murphy is a near perfect storm where his negative impacts are not captured by WP.
ilevy
June 2, 2010
More than WP – I tried to address in one of my previous comments that Murphy’s value is not nearly as striking when looking at some other statistical models. I agree that from watching the Pacers this season that having Murphy on the floor did not always seems to bring out the best in his teammates.
My statisical understanding is admittedly limited and so in a case like this where numbers seem to disagree greatly, I go to the most unscientific of resources: my gut. Looking at Wins Produced tells us that Troy Murphy was responsible for 13.72 wins this season. Nick Collison is essentially an average power forward with a WP48 of 0.106. If we gave him Murphy’s minutes he would have produced 5.17 wins this season. Consulting my gut tells me this makes sense. The idea that replacing Murphy with Collison would have cost the Pacers 8 wins sounds not just reasonable, but likely.
My gut also has become comfortable with the idea that Murphy was the best player on the Pacers last season. Watching Granger force up contested three pointer after contested three pointer really limited my estimation of him this year.
This is probably the most inappropriate forum to answer questions of math with subjective observation but this is a case where my gut aligns with the numbers. Whatever negative effect he had on his teammates, I feel completely comfortable with the idea that the Pacers would have been much much worse without Murphy.
MorethanWPcanmatter
June 2, 2010
I noticed that you briefly reference other models and I appreciate that and meant to compliment you but I guess forgot while making my main points.
My initial gut reaction and / or reaction after referencing other stats wouldn’t agree with you on Murphy’s impact being far superior to Collison overall; but it really comes down to context and how much you could adjust the context for working favorably with Collison vs Murphy or Murphy as used vs Murphy as he could be used alternatively in a different lineup mix or a somewhat different role.
MorethanWPcanmatter
June 2, 2010
I don’t agree the Pacers would have been “much much worse without Murphy”. His raw on/off was -6 , his 1 year Adjusted +/- was -5.6 and his 2 year Adjusted was -2.3.
I’d say they might have modestly better without him.
Though they lacked a decent PF replacement on the bench, they could have played small more. I probably would have done that. Their 4 best lineups by Adjusted +/- all had Granger at PF.
MorethanWPcanmatter
June 2, 2010
The +/- data was per 48 minutes.
MorethanWPcanmatter
June 2, 2010
If you don’t want to consult Adjusted +/-, I’ll note that those 4 lineups with Granger at PF were 4 of the 5 best lineups by raw +/-, what shows up on the scoreboard.
If any talk of lineup data with small sample sizes fails to be meaningful to you, I’ll say… I hear that and share some of the caution but I don’t feel exactly the same.
ilevy
June 3, 2010
Fair enough, and thanks for the numbers. I probably don’t spend as much time with +/- as I should. Going back to Murphy for a second, my feeling about the Pacers being much much worse without him can probably be traced to his two best skills: Rebounding and Offensive Efficiency. These were also the team’s two biggest weaknesses. I just think without him out there grabbing boards and making a high percentage of shots these would have been disasters.
This is the first piece of writing I have done using Wins Produced. Most of my writing for my own blog, Hickory High, focuses on other statistics, so I am certainly on board with having many different statistical models being valid and useful. Each model can tell a slightly different story and there is a place for all of them. Thanks for the healthy debate!
MorethanWPcanmatter
June 3, 2010
Thanks likewise for the healthy debate.
I respect Murphy’s key individual contributions which you note but still I also see that team offensive efficiency and rebounding are both lower with him on the court than off. They may indeed rely on him for those things, maybe too much. They need to find more to put around him on those points and others.
They should strive to use his strengths as best they can and minimize the impact of the weaknesses as best they can, as long as he is still there and as long as they lack a better alternative for all the minutes he has traditionally played, by choosing the most appropriate lineups.
Will watch all parts of the off-season for any changes with respect to Pacer big men and big man strategy and among other things the real debut of Hansbrough next season .