Here are the final Wins Produced numbers for the 2010 NBA Finals.
And for those who are interested, here are the WP48 marks for players who played at least 10 minutes in Game Seven:
- Pau Gasol: 0.452
- Derek Fisher: 0.283
- Lamar Odom: 0.116
- Kobe Bryant: 0.110
- Ron Artest: 0.095
- Andrew Bynum: 0.004
- Jordan Farmar: -0.625
- Glenn Davis: 0.326
- Rajon Rondo: 0.307
- Paul Pierce: 0.157
- Rasheed Wallace: 0.061
- Kevin Garnett: -0.008
- Ray Allen: -0.186
And here are some thoughts on these numbers (and there will be more on the NBA Finals in a later post):
- One does not need a sophisticated model to see that Kobe Bryant struggled in Game Seven. His amazing rebounding effort was just enough to barely move him into the above average range.
- Pau Gasol — who was the Most Productive Player for LA in the Finals — was once again the key player for the Lakers.
- Andrew Bynum, though, didn’t do much.
- However, Kevin Garnett did even less. Across the last two games, KG played 69 minutes and grabbed only nine rebounds. Across all seven games he was above average. But when the Celtics needed one more win, KG didn’t show up. And that means I blame KG for my fourth place finish in the True Hoop Smackdown. Had KG done more (enough for the Celtics to win Game Six), I would have finished in second (I might have more on that contest later as well).
- Rajon Rondo was again amazing. He led all players in the playoffs in Wins Produced (and I will have more on this later as well).
- And finally, Big Baby played well in the NBA Finals. Does this mean he will play well going forward? I would not bet on this outcome. But a productive Big Baby is suddenly a possibility (while before it seemed more like an impossibility).
Okay, that is all I wanted to say tonight. We do have a number of posts planned.
- James Brocato has a column on the Oklahoma City Thunder which should be posted on Saturday.
- Michael Madden and Sam Cohen will be discussing the Samuel Dalembert trade from the perspective of the Kings and Sixers.
- And Devin Dignam has submitted a post on the Toronto Raptors.
I also want to alert people to “Wins Produced” (or WP inspired analysis) on other sites:
- Robert O’Malley has two posts worth reading. One is on the idea that Ty Lawson is worth surrendering a top 10 pick in the 2010 draft. The second is a quick comment on the aforementioned Dalembert trade.
- Ian Levy – who offered the WoW Network discussion of the Pacers – offered even more on the Pacers at Hickory High.
- And Ty Willihnganz – at the Courtside Analyst – keeps putting up post after post that are well worth reading. One can see a few familiar names in the comments at Ty’s site. Hopefully more and more readers in this forum will start reading Ty’s site on a daily basis.
Let me close by noting again that I will be offering more on the Finals soon. And there is also going to be some analysis on the NBA Draft as well. Not sure if the bulk of our draft coverage will appear before or after the event, though.
– DJ
Posted in: Basketball Stories
Wages of Wins Journal 
Gil Meriken
June 18, 2010
Gasol is a very excellent Robin to Kobe’s Batman.
If I recall my comic book storylines, Robin saved Batman’s life more than once!
robbieomalley
June 19, 2010
Debate over. Adam Morrison > LeBron James.
Alvy
June 19, 2010
Not only is Morrison > James, but he is 2-0 in the Finals, something only a few players (Jordan, Duncan) were able to accomplish.
some dude
June 19, 2010
The Celtics lost because Rondo couldn’t hit a jump shot.
This is so obvious to anyone who watched the games and yet he was amazing in the NBA Finals? Dude was great until the Finals, but this fatal flaw did the Cs in this series.
Kobe playing so far off Rondo is why the Lakers won this series.
In fairness to Bynum, go check out how many jump shots the Celtics shot when Bynum was in the game. he took the Celtics out of the paint the entire time. his WP rating does not represent his true effect on the game.
Madz
June 19, 2010
Gil, maybe Gasol is actually superman coming to the rescue. I find it odd to refer to the most productive player as the sidekick.
Robbo
June 19, 2010
Agree that Rondo’s shooting hurt, but Ray Allen’s hurt much worse…seemed almost each time he got the ball he turned it over one way or another…check out who has the worst Wins Produced for the Celtics…sure his defence may have been good, but of the stats the box score measures he was horrendous, the C’s would have been better off playing almost anyone else. Surely the C’s management should see this and not be blinded by romantic notions, loyalty or any other fallacy you’d care to think of. Yes, that starting unit has never lost a series, but Allen is dragging the others down, KG is dragging the chain also…it’s time the C’s took remedial action or this series will be their high water mark for the foreseeable future. If Allen is re-signed, it should be for the veteran’s minimum, and his minutes should likewise be minimal. Great guy, has-been a great player, but there’s no place for sentiment if they’re serious about competing for the future.
Scondren
June 19, 2010
The thing is Ray was slightly above average for the season (.114 WP48). Who knew that he would continue to play so badly through the entire finals? They had to assume at some point his shots would start falling.
Also, I know this isn’t a WP analysis, but if you put Tony Allen out there with the other starters, your offensive spacing is going to go to hell- even with Ray shooting so bad you still need to respect his shot which draws someone away from the paint. Tony makes it so you have Rondo, Tony Allen, and Perk in, which means three defenders can more or less completely ignore the perimeter.
reservoirgod
June 19, 2010
Scondren:
I think WP supports the notion that Tony Allen (-0.057 WP48) was a bad substitute for Ray Allen. Perhaps they should’ve tried Marquis Daniels more.
ilikeflowers
June 19, 2010
some dude,
You say that Rondo is the primary reason why the C’s lost. If you think that then why are you here? You really think that this was more critical than Ray Allen? If Ray Allen had been able to post a zero wp48 the C’s would have won this series. Rondo not having a better jumper is worse than gimpy KG? Or not having Perkins in Game 7? Those rebounding and foul numbers weren’t an accident. Seriously some dude, here’s your sign.
ilikeflowers
June 19, 2010
Gil,
Given Kobe’s god-awful game 7 scoring choke, the Kobe as Robin silly anecdotal argument still holds. The rebounds don’t count for much in Yay Points land where this type of argument is most useful. Gasol has progressed from being one of the Wonder Twins to sole claim of Batman with his season, his post season, his championship, and game 7 performances. The Lakers are a Batman with a Robin who tried so hard for the glory that it almost cost them against the Green Goblins. Hopefully next season Kobe will lead the league in scoring, so as to limit Gasol’s touches and prevent a Laker repeat.
jbrett
June 19, 2010
Hopefully (for us insufferable Laker fans) Kobe will get every surgical repair he can think of, his recuperation will linger into January, he’ll return to a team with a 30-2 record–and the light that went on for him around 11PM Thursday night will come on again and stay on. A man can dream, can’t he?
jbrett
June 19, 2010
Oh, you know how I made the point that Kobe was more productive in the playoffs than the regular season? His Finals WP48 was nearly the same improvement over his total playoffs numbers. Smaller and smaller sample sizes, of course, but still….
some dude
June 19, 2010
“You say that Rondo is the primary reason why the C’s lost. If you think that then why are you here? You really think that this was more critical than Ray Allen? If Ray Allen had been able to post a zero wp48 the C’s would have won this series. Rondo not having a better jumper is worse than gimpy KG? Or not having Perkins in Game 7? Those rebounding and foul numbers weren’t an accident. Seriously some dude, here’s your sign.”
Rondo’s inability to shoot caused Pierce’s and Allen’s offensive game to suffer. Kobe was playing so far off him he interrupted both players motion within the context of the offense. This was by design.
And Allen contained Kobe about as well as any player could expect to do so. This killed his legs on offense, however. Tony Allen is such an offensive liability that Ray Allen had to be out there.
I understand that had Ray shot better than garbage, Celtics would also win. But he shot poorly because of his great D and Kobe’s help defense due to Rondo’s ineptitude.
Rondo also became too timid because of his FT shooting woes. He didn’t want to go to the foul line so he avoided the paint a lot.
had Rondo been able to hit an outside shot, Ray Allen would have shot better, Pierce would have shot better, and Rondo would have done more individual damage.
Ray could not control for his issues as much as rondo could have. Rondo’s lack of a jump shot was the team’s weak link that became their undoing. It disrupted everything they wanted to do on offense.
Nothing in the stats can account for this.
some dude
June 19, 2010
just want to point out Rondo was excellent all playoffs but ran into a team that could expose his weakness to the extreme.
Rondo with a somewhat reliable jump shot would be second to only CP3 as NBA points go, imo.
dberri
June 19, 2010
It seems odd to focus on Rondo, when the Celtics were out-rebounded by such a significant amount in the last two games. The Lakers grabbed 26 more rebounds than the Celtics in Games Six and Seven. I understand that basketball fans want to always explain outcomes in terms of scoring ability. But isn’t it obvious that the disparity in rebounding was the big story in these last two games?
TRad
June 19, 2010
If not for Rondo Boston wouldn’t have got to the NBA finals. He was Celtics MVP this season, this playoffs and this finals.
Was he perfect? Hell, no, but there are no perfect players anymore. I think Olajuwon at his top was the last one.
And yes, Lakers were able to expose Rondo’s weakness, but they are a great defensive team. All it took to expose Rondo was two 7-footers under the basket, NBA All Defensive guard to keep an eye on Rondo and another guard able to chase Allen through all those screens.
Rondo is an elite NBA point guard. Probably one of five best PG in the league.
some dude
June 19, 2010
And Kobe had 15 rebounds and rebounded really well this series.
I think some of that had to do with playing so far off of Rondo, don’t you?
Boston’s offense was a mess most of the series and it was because Kobe’s D on Rondo disrupting most of the things they wanted to do.
As great as Ron was on Pierce, Kobe really affected him too because he ran him off the spots he loves to get to by hedging.
it’s not that Rondo didn’t shoot well, it’s that the lack of a threat meant they were playing 4 on 5 a lot and you can’t overcome that against L.A.
Tomas
June 19, 2010
Because those outcomes are intertwined. Rondo’s extreme ineffectiveness shooting the basketball allowed Kobe to act as a rebounder. With Bynum moving like Frankenstein’s monster, Odom largely ineffective until the last 2 games and Gasol pulled away from the basket watching Rasheed or KG, Kobe’s rebounding became an important key. Kobe is a clever rebounder for his size and his rebound rates are usually strong given his position but given the fact that he’s normally guarding men 20 feet from the basket, he can be taken out of the glass game. Guarding Rondo however opened up Kobe to some large rebounding numbers.
As noted above, Rondo’s ineffectiveness outside the paint made the Celtics very easy to defend. Rondo was playing > 40 minutes per game, so most lineups featured him. Adding Tony Allen or Kendrick Perkins to a Rondo lineup meant multiple men who did not need to be guarded, which allowed the Lakers to crowd the paint, which allowed the rebounding edges to happen.
Plus when you are the best or 2nd best player for your team you take all the credit and blame. If the Lakers had lost, Kobe would have been crucified in the media and Gasol would be labeled as soft, despite the fact that they were the only 2 Lakers who even bothered to show up for the finals. A Celtics win would have been another MVP trophy for Pierce and Rondo would have been called the best PG in the game.
But since the Celtics lost, Kobe got his 5th trophy, a 2nd MVP and a statue. Gasol probably got his hall of fame ticket (given international accomplishments + national significance). And for the losers, Rondo is getting his shooting and FT% questioned.
robbieomalley
June 19, 2010
I agree with some dude. Although he forgot to include how Kobe effected Pau down the stretch of game 7. Without Kobe drawing so much attention Pau wouldn’t have been able to score that and 1 over Glen Davis to start the 4th. Pau wouldn’t have been able to block Pierce’s drive leading to the turn over. Without Kobe, Pau wouldn’t have been able to power through being blocked by Wallace and KG. Pau almost certainly wouldn’t have been able to secure that clutch rebound over Rondo either. Also Pau’s assist to Fisher to tie the game at 64 – all Kobe.
some dude
June 19, 2010
Talk about Hyperbole!
You misunderstood my point. I was attributing Kobe with all the praise, I was merely stating facts. The defensive system, regardless of it would have been Kobe or another player in that position, is what caused this.
because the Lakers employ two 7 footers and a 3rd who rebounds like one (and quite mobile), it allowed the Lakers to play far off rondo and expose his weakness. Now the Lakers used Kobe here, and Kobe played the part very well, but it was a system that caused the problem, not specifically Kobe per se. Ron’s direct D on Pierce was great and it was enhanced by Kobe being allowed to help run Pierce off his spots by hedging and bumping the cuts. Same with Ray.
I wasn’t giving Kobe much credit it all, just stating what happened. Kobe was the guy who was playing rondo almost the entire time, so I used his name in reference of the guy doing it.
Everyone knows Kobe played piss-poor offensively last night. And I didn’t even attribute his heightened rebounding to him, I blamed Rondo for it. Kobe was in the paint area so much he became a 3rd or 4th rebounder for the team when normally there are only 2 or 3. Again, that’s Rondo’s fault, not a byproduct of Kobe doing anything special.
dberri
June 19, 2010
So Kobe out-rebounds Garnett because he doesn’t have to play defense on Rondo? Are there any other guards who have reaped such a benefit? Garnett has been able to rebound in the past with Rondo on his team. In fact, Rondo has been able to rebound in the past with Rondo on his team. It is odd that what you are describing only appeared in the last two games of the NBA Finals.
some dude
June 19, 2010
that first sentence should read: “I wasn’t attributing Kobe with all the praise, merely stating facts.”
some dude
June 19, 2010
Mr Berri, did you see any other guards play that far off Rondo? Mo didn’t. Nelson did not.
Garnett was rebounding over Lewis and Jamison, not Gasol, Bynum, and Odom.
the Lakers were one of the few teams equipped to defend Rondo like this. You need big and mobile guys and a guy who can chance Ray around and then stick a 2 guard on Rondo.
Like I said, Rondo was great all playoffs long, but the Lakers were able to exploit his weakness to the extreme and it disrupted Boston’s offense.
their best offensive effort in the series came with nate robinson at the helm.
dberri
June 19, 2010
Back in 2007-08 Kobe only averaged 4.7 rebounds per game and Garnett grabbed 13 rebounds per game. Is that because Rondo had an outside shot back then?
some dude
June 19, 2010
Boston beat the Lakers in 2008 with a lineup of:
House-Allen-Posey-Pierce-Garnett.
Rondo sat in most of the 4th quarters of that series until the blowout.
Tomas
June 19, 2010
Not to pimp Winston here (who is wrong about as often as he’s right if not more so) but you should closely examine who Kobe was guarding in 2008 and (more importantly) the lineups that the Lakers and Celtics were using. Fewer minutes devoted to non-shooters and more time with Kobe either playing SF or playing SG and matching with an SF.
Was Garnett a better rebounder in 2008 and was Gasol a weaker player in virtually every aspect of the game in 2008? Of course. But in your effort to try and shoehorn the entire game to fit with WP philosophy (shout out to Hollinger) you either have missed the point of 2008 or missed the point of 2010. Your choice as to which one you missed.
dberri
June 19, 2010
Let me see if I understand Tomas and Some Dude (are these different people?). They offer the argument that Rondo’s poor shooting explains the outcome of the Finals. The fact that this does not explain Garnett’s lack of rebounding, Gasol’s rebounding, the 2008 result, the fact the Celtics were up 3-2 this year and tied with six minutes to go in Game Seven, etc… does not bother them. And now, I am the one “shoehorning” my view to explain the entire game?
some dude
June 19, 2010
There is no such thing as one specific thing explaining the finals.
But it was very clear to me that the Lakers defense was geared to exploiting Rondo’s weakness to the extreme and this caused a trickle-down effect.
It’s much harder for KG to rebound is he’s rebounding with gasol AND Kobe in the box rather than just Gasol. It’s much harder for Pierce to score if Kobe can hedge to his side because Rondo and Tony Allen can’t shoot.
You are acting as if every action doesn’t have subsequence reactions.
the 2008 result is irrelevant. The teams are so VASTLY different now, how can you compare them?
2008 Boston beat L.A. with a small ball lineup and spreading the floor with lots of shooters. The current team has only 2 reliable 3 point shooters (Ray and Pierce) where as in 2008 they had those two plus Posey and House.
The 2008 Lakers did not have Bynum, even with 1 leg. It also did not have Artest, but rather radmonovic whose defense was atrocious and a hurt luke walton to defend Pierce.
Furthermore, Posey spent a lot of time defending Kobe allowing Ray to be fresh on offense.
Boston was one of the best offensive and defensive teams in 2008. Los Angeles was a superb offensive team and decent defensive team. this year, Los Angeles was a superb defensive team (when healthy) and good offensive team while Boston was again great defensively but just good offensively.
your comparison is so ridiculous. These teams are not the same.
Furthermore, the Lakers switched Kobe onto Rondo mid-way through game 2 in 2008 which led to the near comeback. Rondo crapped his pants in games 3-4-5 for the most part as Kobe defended him to the point that Doc benched him in game 4 and the comeback happened with house and Posey.
Your revisionist history is noted. And no, we are not the same person.
marparker
June 19, 2010
Ahh yes capital letters instead of facts for emphasis. When you make a good point those words jump off the page. They don’t need capital letters.
Sam Cohen
June 19, 2010
Three points:
1. I believe that Mo Williams did play as far off of Rondo as Kobe did. My recollection is that one of the ESPN columnists stated that he thought it was a mistake to do so because it allowed Rondo to make uncontested passes and it allowed Rondo to build up a head of steam. That said, it might have been a good strategy for Kobe (who has more length and could contest Rondo in the lane) even if it was a bad one for Williams. Regardless, the main point is that Kobe is by no means the first player to defend Rondo in this fashion.
2. I don’t think Kobe’s hedging actually impacted Ray Allen on catch and shoots. Kobe was inside the lane, while Allen was coming off screens on the outside. That, at any rate, is my recollection. If someone has access to synergy sports’ video database, it should be possible to watch every play with Ray Allen coming off of a screen for a catch-and-shoot and see if Kobe’s defense played a major role in either Allen not getting the ball in position to shoot or shooting a contested shot. I don’t recall Kobe doing much hedging on Pierce either, but I have much less of a clear recollection of Pierce coming off screens for catch-and-shoots.
3. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Garnett rebounded poorly on the defensive end. I have no idea how Kobe being in the lane when the Laker’s are on defense is supposed to have impacted Garnett’s defensive rebounding.
reservoirgod
June 19, 2010
One interesting thing about “some dude’s” comments is that Robinson’s lineups posted a better efficiency differential per 100 poss. (+3.2) than Rondo’s lineups (-5.2), based on numbers from basketballvalue.com. Rondo’s lineups were 1.7 pts better on defense (per 100 poss.) but Robinson’s lineups were 10.1 pts better on offense.
marparker
June 19, 2010
Reservoirgod,
Weren’t Chris Paul lineup numbers much worse than his wp48 numbers a few seasons ago? His lineup numbers said he was a terrible defender and wp48 was criticized. I think his lineup numbers ended up matching wp48 the next season. I don’t know how much stock we can put into lineup numbers when Robinson played 71 minutes.
reservoirgod
June 19, 2010
I didn’t say that Rondo was the reason his lineups had a poor efficiency differential. Just illustrating that “some dude” made a legitimate point when he said the offense was better w/ Robinson on the floor (assuming the stats at basketballvalue.com are trustworthy). Rondo could very well have a high WP48 in those lineups and everyone else’s performance killed the lineup just like Nate Robinson’s lineups could have been carried by more productive players instead of Nate himself.
marparker
June 19, 2010
Reservoirgod,
Then what’s the point of his point if his point may or may not be getting to his point?
some dude
June 20, 2010
marparker, I will respond in the same order.
1. Note that I said a two guard on Rondo. Mo Williams played back at times, but he’s too short for that to matter. He won’t deflect passes or bother vision angles as much and he can’t block Rondo if he comes at him. But you’re right that at times he played back (but not as far back as Kobe) but a lot he played closer to him. gave him some space, but he was never waiting in the key.
2. Kobe switched onto him a few times because of him trying to run through the key. Most of the time Allen was forced to do his screens at the baseline. While he does this often, it was more often than usual. Kobe helped cut off the wing screens a bit.
With regards to Pierce, Kobe helped out more often when Pierce had the ball, not off of screens. Kobe would hedge over and not allow Pierce to get to that midrange spot he loves to much and seems to be effective at. Doc adjusted to this by using Pierce in a screen & roll game which worked until the Lakers defenders (mainly Lamar) would attack it aggressively in game 6.
3. Yes, KG rebounded poorly. I am not trying to claim he didn’t. What I am saying is his poor rebounding was exasperated by Kobe being in the lane a lot on their offensive end. Defensively it’s simply a fact that he can’t elevate like he once could and Gasol/Drew were too much (and odom when he woke up).
But remember, there’s correlation between teams that get offensive rebounds and teams that lose.
Boston’s defense held L.A. to well below their offensive efficiency in all but game 1 and 3 and even moreso below their playoff offensive efficiency (even if we adjust down a bit for Phx). Fact is, Boston’s defense played more than well enough to win, which includes it’s ability to rebound.
They lost because they simply did not score enough. This happened because of LA’s defense and their gameplan was built around the idea that Rondo, Tony Allen, and Perkins cannot shoot worth a lick. Since the ball is in Rondo’s hands so much and he plays 40 mpg, his weakness was the team’s biggest issue in the Finals.
Poor rebounding only made things worse.
some dude
June 20, 2010
Also, looking at individual rebound rates tells us nothing at all. We have to look at team rebound rates when player X is in the game to begin to draw any conclusions. I haven’t seen this analysis, yet.
I wonder if Sheed was the bigger detriment than KG in this area. It appeared to me that he too gave up a handful in game 7.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“Reservoirgod,
Then what’s the point of his point if his point may or may not be getting to his point?”
My point is that the Lakers had a tougher time defending Boston when Nate was in than when Rondo was in. It was quite visible.
Michael
June 20, 2010
Excellent argument Some Dude. Not sure I understand the hostility you are recieving.
Alvy
June 20, 2010
Some Dude,
this forum sorely lacks …strategical analyst aside from minute and positional allocation. I also believe that WP asserts each player as their own entity, so it’s hard to buy the Y player rebounded more because of X player, or Z’s coach decision. Lastly, I’m getting +/- vibes from you, so while not your fault, WoW isn’t particular fond of such a metric. Anyways, thanks for sharing though, because I do actually recall moments wherein Kobe Bryant was able to get rebounds that should have been Rondo’s (being near the paint, playing off/back of Rondo defensively).
some dude
June 20, 2010
Yeah, but I think taking something like rebounding away from the team and positing it part of a player’s entity is somewhat of a mistake.
Put it this way. A player’s inability to effectively rebound will surely hurt a team, but a lack of individual rebounds does not indicate the team is being hurt.
Last I remember, there’s not correlation between good individual rebounding and good rebounding teams.
Not only that, but good individual rebounding can also hurt the team, as silly as that sounds. I call this the Marcus Camby effect, but I’d rather not get into it.
As for +/-, I’m not on their side…or PER’s side or Win Share’s side or any side at all. I like to incorporate every metric possible along with my intimate knowledge of the game to draw conclusions or make arguments. If you have a horse in the race, you’ve already lost.
Like the old saying goes (or something like it, I forgot exactly how it went)….I learned economics to know when an economist is lying to me. :)
(that’s not a shot at anyone, it’s a saying. I don’t believe the professor is lying about anything).
Schermeister
June 20, 2010
It hardly makes sense to me that playing off him makes such a huge effect on rebounding. I believe Perkins being out was the real, real reason. I mean the guy is like a fat blackhole in the middle.
On top of that ray allen shooting so poorly means long rebounds that can lead to fast breaks and scoring.
Not having a jumper is not as bad as it seems, if Kobe plays so far off as he did the celts should have plenty of options to pull a screen to a reverse handoff to a real shooter with rondo in the way so kobe cant jump up and defend the shooter(not rondo). Pick and roll should also work. Even if he pulls up for 15 ft the centers both bite and garnet should come in for rebound. So I think by far Rondo gives them great options on offense along with all the other skills WoW attributes to him (ball control, rebounding, eff, etc)
I also have a real problem with wallace playing any minutes for perkins, or nay minutes at all. The guy is old and was one of the worst wastes of talents of all time. He has inside post moves but just jacks up badly timed 3’s for a low % when they need a strong presence in the middle.
Tomas
June 20, 2010
“Not having a jumper is not as bad as it seems, if Kobe plays so far off as he did the celts should have plenty of options to pull a screen to a reverse handoff to a real shooter with rondo in the way so kobe cant jump up and defend the shooter(not rondo). Pick and roll should also work.”
Here’s the problem and one of the key differences between 2008 and 2010. In 2010 the Celtics didn’t have enough good shooters. The starting lineup had Pierce/Allen as the only real shooters with KG not having enough speed to make a high pick and roll work and Perkins did not need to be guarded. In 2008, they had Posey and House coming off the bench, both of whom could stretch the defense. In 2010, they had Tony Allen who had less of a jump shot than Rondo, Glen Davis who actually was effective as displayed by his WP, and Rasheed Wallace who was a “shooter” in name only.
How many possessions did the Lakers have 3 men in the paint on in a situation where normally a team would have 2? How many situations did the Lakers have 4 men in the paint when Artest went low? I don’t think it can be understated how important secondary rebounding sources are. Andrew Bynum’s DRR was one of the worst for a center in the NBA in the regular season. And believe it or not, lugging around a giant knee brace didn’t help him out very much in this respect. And as shown by WP, Odom no showed this series up until Game 6, and it’s not like he was lighting the world on fire in Game 7 either.
As noted by other posters, Winston analysis is clearly not welcome here on this blog, but I have to say it again. If you want to truly understand why the Celtics lost, look at how many minutes they played with offensive non-entities. Considering that Perkins was eating up 30 minutes a game until the injury and Rondo was eating up 40 minutes a game, there were multiple games where the Celtics were playing with 2 offensive weaknesses at the same time.
Let’s look at the games the Celtics won to understand this even better. Game 5 the Celtics won with their highest offensive efficiency of the series. Not surprisingly Rondo had his best game by far, 9-12 (with Perkins throwing in a 2-2). With Rondo shooting effectively and getting to areas where he can contribute offensively, the Celtics won easily. Their offensive efficiency number is dragged down from astronomical numbers simply because they stopped playing in the 4th quarter for some reason. In Game 4, they were losing the game until the bench lineup came in and blew the Lakers off the court with Rondo not there. In Game 2, the Celtics got a better contribution from Rondo as well. He had a triple double and was fairly efficient shooting the ball (for him) with an 8-18.
When Rondo is playing well and making shots from > 15 feet, (or when he is replaced with an EFFECTIVE offensive option at the 1, something the Celtics had for about 9 minutes of one game) the Celtics are a much better team. Since he is the team leader under any metric you can think of, I’m having a very hard time figuring out why Berri is resisting the notion that Rondo’s ineffectiveness is the reason the team lost. Other players were poor, but Rondo’s shortcomings came on things that any NBA PG should have in their skillset.
I know the analysis on this site is biased towards big men as WP itself is due to the overweighting of rebounding. But the story to be taken away from 2008 and 2010 is that jump shooting matters. The Celtics lost this series because other than 2 games, they simply didn’t have any.
marparker
June 20, 2010
Tomas,
If Rebounding is overvalued then please explain why the team who rebounding in this series was 7-0 while the team that lead in field goal percentage lost some games.
Tomas
June 20, 2010
That is terribly short-sighted analysis and I would remind you that association does not imply causation. Do you have any interest in watching basketball or just reading box scores?
Tomas
June 20, 2010
Also by your logic, the team that won the rebounding battle won each game. The team that won the 1st quarter won 6 of 7 games. The team that won the 4th quarter won 4 of 7 games. I suppose the 1st quarter is much more important than the 4th quarter then!
The holes in that analysis are large enough to drive a truck through, as are the holes in your previous analysis. Rebounding is important, but the critical flaw in WP is the overweight of rebounding and inability to properly quantify individual defense/defensive contributions. This is why as good a metric as WP is, you still have to supplement it with actual game watching analysis and common sense, something I see very little of by scanning through the comments on this blog.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“Tomas,
If Rebounding is overvalued then please explain why the team who rebounding in this series was 7-0 while the team that lead in field goal percentage lost some games.”
This is just silly. Heck, game 5 Boston won the rebounding edge simply because the Lakers D was porous as Boston shot 56% while Lakers shot poorly.
Boston outrebounded L.A. but if you look at rebound rate, LA rebounded just fine. The problem was that there weren’t enough defensive rebounds available due to easy baskets.
dberri
June 20, 2010
Comments like “this is silly” or “you can drive a truck through the holes in your analysis” rarely convince anyone. You are going to have to do better if you want me to keep reading what you have to say.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“Not having a jumper is not as bad as it seems, if Kobe plays so far off as he did the celts should have plenty of options to pull a screen to a reverse handoff to a real shooter with rondo in the way so kobe cant jump up and defend the shooter(not rondo). Pick and roll should also work. Even if he pulls up for 15 ft the centers both bite and garnet should come in for rebound. So I think by far Rondo gives them great options on offense along with all the other skills WoW attributes to him (ball control, rebounding, eff, etc)”
Did you see how the lakers defended that? I remember one specific play where Lamar got switched on him and rondo pulled the trigger for an airball. Lamar didn’t even challenge his shot. He just turned around while Rondo was still jumping and went to get the rebound.
The Lakers played to ignore Rondo shooting FT line extended completely. And he only shot it a handful of times.
Rondo also had an unintended effect in game 6 when the lakers finally decided to push tempo. Because Kobe defended him, when the ball was rebounded and quickly pushed up the floor, it left rondo to defend Kobe. With Kobe receiving the ball and attempting to post, KG had to come double every time (and Boston wants to double with Sheed/Perk, not KG who is on Pau) and it opened up the floor for Pau and others leading to easier baskets, Boston fouls. and OReb chances.
So Rondo’s lack of a jump shot hurt them in other ways in the games via cross-matches on the other side.
basketball is an game where everything is so interconnected. By having such an unreliable jump shot and by being so scared to shoot FTs, it allowed LA’s defense to do things that you rarely see a defense ever do which disrupted all of Boston’s offense and at times bled over to their defense.
Sure, you could say “if Ray shot respectable” or “if KG rebounded better” just as others can say “If Ron/Lamar shot respectable” but these things were mostly affected by the defenses. Rondo’s inability to shoot and being scared to go to the line is self-inflicted and there’s no excuse or it. He’s been in the league 4 years now. If Tony Parker could find himself a jump shot, why can’t Rondo?
Your best player cannot have such a glaring weakness if you want to win the title. Just like Nash’s defense continues to cost him titles, so will Rondo’s jump shot.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“Comments like “this is silly” or “you can drive a truck through the holes in your analysis” rarely convince anyone. You are going to have to do better if you want me to keep reading what you have to say.”
Except I expounded on my comment. If I had left it in the air without backing it up, you’d have a point.
Rather than trying to divert the conversation in a disingenuous manner, it would better serve you to address the issue if you disagree.
dberri
June 20, 2010
Tomas and Some Dude,
Both of you have stated that Rondo’s inability to shoot was the sole cause of the outcome in the Finals. Neither of you have presented much evidence beyond anecdotes and a belief that you are the only people to ever watch basketball (I am fairly certian that everyone commenting here watches just as much basketball as you watch).
In the end, arguments have to be supported by systematic evidence. There already is an abundance of evidence that Rondo’s shooting is not the sole cause of the outcome in the NBA Finals. Yet you keep coming back to that same argument. At some point, you have to present systematic evidence. And if you can’t do this, then I will find something else to read (in other words, you will have to find someplace else to post this stuff).
dberri
June 20, 2010
Some Dude: Your best player cannot have such a glaring weakness if you want to win the title. Just like Nash’s defense continues to cost him titles, so will Rondo’s jump shot.
Rondo has already won a title. Again, you need to do better.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“Tomas and Some Dude,
Both of you have stated that Rondo’s inability to shoot was the sole cause of the outcome in the Finals. Neither of you have presented much evidence beyond anecdotes and a belief that you are the only people to ever watch basketball (I am fairly certian that everyone commenting here watches just as much basketball as you watch).
In the end, arguments have to be supported by systematic evidence. There already is an abundance of evidence that Rondo’s shooting is not the sole cause of the outcome in the NBA Finals. Yet you keep coming back to that same argument. At some point, you have to present systematic evidence. And if you can’t do this, then I will find something else to read (in other words, you will have to find someplace else to post this stuff).”
This is a straw man. I never said it was the “sole cause,” I said it was the most prominent cause. I even stated: “There is no such thing as one specific thing explaining the finals.” in an earlier post.
You assume arguments must be proven with cold hard data in the form of numbers, but this is not true. I’ve explained how Boston’s offense reacted in the terms of their system of play. This is evidence, you are just choosing to ignore it.
The fact that Kobe hedged whenever Pierce had the ball is tangible and real even if it’s not in numerical form. You cannot ignore it, but the evidence exists in the game tape. And I would argue Paul Pierce’s low (for what he needed) WP48 reflects this as well. And Ray’s.
And again, it’s not the sole cause (Perkins injury, Ray shooting poorly regardless, KG/Sheed rebounding are all real issues as well) but as I stated before, those things are not easily controllable while Rondo’s jump shot is controllable.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“Some Dude: Your best player cannot have such a glaring weakness if you want to win the title. Just like Nash’s defense continues to cost him titles, so will Rondo’s jump shot.
Rondo has already won a title. Again, you need to do better.”
Are you asserting that Rondo was the best player on the 2008 team? Please tell me you’re joking.
dberri
June 20, 2010
Tomas stated the following a few days ago: Rondo’s inability to make a jumper was the sole and defining reason the Celtics lost
You (Some Dude) stated the following: The Celtics lost because Rondo couldn’t hit a jump shot. This is so obvious to anyone who watched the games and yet he was amazing in the NBA Finals? Dude was great until the Finals, but this fatal flaw did the Cs in this series. Kobe playing so far off Rondo is why the Lakers won this series.
These are your words exactly. So you and Tomas have both said that Rondo’s shooting was the sole cause of the outcome we observe.
Again, the evidence tells us both you and Tomas have over-stated your case. Once that was noted you tried to back off that statement. But then you recently left another post making similar arguments.
Now I have challenged you to come up with systematic evidence backing your point. Do you have systematic evidence that supports the notion that Rondo’s shooting was the sole cause of the outcome we observed? If not, do you wish to change your argument?
Sam Cohen
June 20, 2010
Tomas-
I know you meant your comment to be snarky, but I’d actually be curious to know if winning the first quarter or the fourth quarter more closely correlates with winning the game across an NBA season. Points in the first quarter are just as valuable as points in the fourth quarter. And if you’re up going into the fourth quarter, then you don’t need to win that quarter.
I imagine someone has a database that could actually give us an answer to that question… :)
Gil Meriken
June 20, 2010
Why couldn’t the Celtics just have won, so there wouldn’t be all this arguing here?
some dude
June 20, 2010
Tomas stated the following a few days ago: Rondo’s inability to make a jumper was the sole and defining reason the Celtics lost
You (Some Dude) stated the following: The Celtics lost because Rondo couldn’t hit a jump shot. This is so obvious to anyone who watched the games and yet he was amazing in the NBA Finals? Dude was great until the Finals, but this fatal flaw did the Cs in this series. Kobe playing so far off Rondo is why the Lakers won this series.”
I am not Tomas so it is irrelevant to me what he stated in relation to my claims.
Yes, I made that claim. But you are putting words into my mouth, here. Just because I said that does not indicate it’s the “sole” cause. this is another disingenuous attempt at painting the conversation in an incorrect light.
It is very clear that it is meant to be the most prominent cause and in fact I clarified this just in case anyone could not pick this up.
You are making an argument out of semantics at best, which is almost always a sign of a misdirection and poor debating.
If you want to be semantical, technically you’re 100% wrong too. Rebounding did not lose this series. Had Boston score more, they would have won hands down. but they didn’t.
So in reality, Boston lost because they were outscored by the Lakers in 4 games and that is the only cold hard provable fact.
To assert that I, or anyone, for that matter would ever believe 1 and only 1 aspect which affects scoring would be the sole cause for win or loss is disingenuous and ridiculous. Of course we are all aware of the effects of other things, including and not limited to even home court advantage. The obvious comprehension of my statement was to assert it as a main or most glaring cause of Boston’s loss, not that it is the only one.
“Now I have challenged you to come up with systematic evidence backing your point. Do you have systematic evidence that supports the notion that Rondo’s shooting was the sole cause of the outcome we observed? If not, do you wish to change your argument?”
It wasn’t the sole cause, but the most obvious one.
I don’t have to provide any systematic evidence, that is you fallacious position. I have given sound reasoning and explanation that bears its fruit in the game tape.
just because you haven’t come up with a method to attribute these things into the data sets does not mean they do not exist nor that they aren’t plainly visible.
As an economics professor you should be well aware of OVB.
I have explained in decent detail what Rondo’s inability to shoot did to the Celtics. If you would like, I’d be more than willing to have you fly me out to your place and we can go over the game film (assuming you have it) and I will show you this first hand throughout the game.
some dude
June 20, 2010
I would also like you to clarify your implication that rondo was the best player on the 2008 Celtics.
I’d absolutely love to see you defend that considering he was benched during half that series.
some dude
June 20, 2010
Sam,
Some kind of adjustment would probably have to be made first. It wouldn’t be right to compare a 1st quarter to a 4th quarter blowout where both benches are unloaded.
Something like 4th quarters where X starter minutes are played.
dberri
June 20, 2010
Some Dude: To assert that I, or anyone, for that matter would ever believe 1 and only 1 aspect which affects scoring would be the sole cause for win or loss is disingenuous and ridiculous.
I assume Tomas is an “anyone” and that is what he claimed. And I would argue that you are now playing around with words. You made a very clear claim. Once this claim was examined, though, it fell apart.
Let’s continue with another example…
You also claimed that KG’s rebounding was impacted by Kobe playing off Rondo. And then when it was noted that KG didn’t rebound well on the defensive end either. To that you said that the problem was KG’s inability to elevate. But couldn’t one argue that KG’s inability to rebound on the offensive end was also impacted by his age? And if so, how do you keep coming back to Rondo?
In the end, you have come on this blog and called people “silly” and aggressively attacked people’s arguments. But when we look at your argument, they simply don’t hold up. It seems to me that in your mind you think of yourself as some sort of expert on basketball. But in the end, you literally are just “some dude” commenting on a blog. And when these comments are examined in detail, your arguments just fall apart.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“You made a very clear claim. Once this claim was examined, though, it fell apart.”
I made a claim that Boston lost because of rondo’s inability to hit a jump shot. You have never refuted this position, only put forward evidence that other things had an affect as well.
I quickly clarified that I never believed in a sole factor and that Rondo’s shooting was a predominant one.
“You also claimed that KG’s rebounding was impacted by Kobe playing off Rondo. And then when it was noted that KG didn’t rebound well on the defensive end either. To that you said that the problem was KG’s inability to elevate. But couldn’t one argue that KG’s inability to rebound on the offensive end was also impacted by his age? And if so, how do you keep coming back to Rondo?”
Oh, no doubt there are numerous factors going into KG’s inability to rebound. Credit should be given to LA’s bigs as well.
And certainly his defensive rebounding was poor and not affected by Rondo.
but my point remains that Boston defended and rebounded more than adequate, as a team, to win the series. Their issues lied offensively, not on the other side.
Do you disagree with this? What more did you want them to do on the defensive end? LA’s offensive efficiency relative to their season and playoff average were paltry!
Defensive rebounding hurt Boston, but it was not the predominant cause of their loss.
“In the end, you have come on this blog and called people “silly” and aggressively attacked people’s arguments. But when we look at your argument, they simply don’t hold up. It seems to me that in your mind you think of yourself as some sort of expert on basketball. But in the end, you literally are just “some dude” commenting on a blog. And when these comments are examined in detail, your arguments just fall apart.”
I have never called anyone silly. I called a claim silly, but never a person. I do not call people names and this next diversionary tactic is noted.
I kindly ask you to stop putting words in my mouth.
Anyway, it is your argument that does not hold up, or do you disagree with the defensive efficiency numbers of Boston in comparison to LA’s offensive efficiency numbers in the aggregate?
some dude
June 20, 2010
Boston’s deffensive efficiency numbers in all 7 games (1-7)
113.3
98.9
107.1
101.1
98.9
100
96.5
Lakers reg season Oeff: 105.9
playoff: 109.5
please don’t try to claim defensive rebounding did the C’s in moreso than rondo’s jump shooting.
Sam Cohen
June 20, 2010
Re: 1st quarter vs. 4th quarter.
I completely disagree that an adjustment for blowouts should be made in determining whether winning the first quarter or fourth quarter correlates more with winning the game. The premise for first quarters being as important, if not more important, than fourth quarters is that blowouts happen. As I said before, points in the first quarter matter just as much as points in the fourth quarter. If you blowout the other team in the first three quarters, then I don’t care how well you play in the fourth quarter. That’s the entire point. To change the analysis so that the only quarters that count are the fourth quarters that involve close games misses the point that points scored in other quarters are just as important.
That said, I would be curious to see if modifying the analysis as you suggest would make much of a difference. (I would modify it based on the point difference going into the fourth quarter to account for teams such as San Antonio that use one of their best players as a player off of the bench.)
dberri
June 20, 2010
Some Dude,
I never claimed that there was one cause, or even a pre-dominant cause. This was essentially your argument. And I think at this point, judging from your comments, you have backed off this assertion.
All of this could have been avoided had you come into this forum and said… “Another factor to consider is Rondo’s shooting. I think that played in a role in Boston’s defeat.”
But this was not the language you adopted. You made a very strong assertion. And then when the evidence didn’t support the strength of your assertion, you ended up wasting my time and your time trying to defend your assertion.
some dude
June 20, 2010
“Some Dude,
I never claimed that there was one cause, or even a pre-dominant cause. This was essentially your argument. And I think at this point, judging from your comments, you have backed off this assertion.
All of this could have been avoided had you come into this forum and said… “Another factor to consider is Rondo’s shooting. I think that played in a role in Boston’s defeat.”
But this was not the language you adopted. You made a very strong assertion. And then when the evidence didn’t support the strength of your assertion, you ended up wasting my time and your time trying to defend your assertion.”
Fine. I am now stating that Rondo’s inability to be a threat from 15+ feet as a jump shooter was the predominant cause of Boston’s failure to win 4 out of 7 games vs Los Angeles.
I will reiterate that defense for Boston has been demonstrated as excellent and thus defensive rebound wasn’t as much an issue as you claim it to be. I will also reiterate that there is no correlation between offensive rebounding and winning (quite the opposite in fact).
Boston lost this series predominantly because of offense and the statistical analysis bears this out.
So now we have to address what part of their offense was at issue. I will restate that I believe this was the result of rondo’s inability to shoot.
His inability to shoot allowed for Kobe to hedge on Paul Pierce and rooting him off his spots. It allowed Kobe to switch easily onto Ray during really good (or possibly illegal) screens that took Fisher out. It also forced more screens along the baseline. because Kobe was playing so far off, it eliminated the high screen & roll with KG/Perkins. It also cut down on the amount of down screens boston is accustom to performing (Ray didn’t get as many of these as he normally gets per game, which limited him). It also put 1 more man in the box for defensive rebounding (and a good rebounder for his position at that). It also meant Rondo became too timid to attack to basket most of the game for fear of FTs. It also meant a general packing of the paint which cut off drives from everyone, Rondo included.
These are all noticeable in the footage and is clearly demonstrated by Boston’s poor offensive efficiency numbers, especially when Rondo was in the game.
Care to address this?
some dude
June 20, 2010
To clarify, I meant “I will restate that I believe tihs was mostly the result of Rondo’s inability to shoot,” so that you do not think I believe it was their only or sole problem on offense.
some dude
June 20, 2010
Sam,
You make a very good point and to an extent you’re right.
What I was getting at was that if both teams play their scrubs in the 4th due to a current blowout, the result of who wins or loses the 4th quarter has no effect on the outcome.
I think it would be more interesting to know whether winning the 1st or the 4th of a competitive game correlates more with winning the game.
But you’re right that there’s value in measuring winning the 1st vs winning the 4th, too (and I think you’d be right predicting 1st correlates more.
you’re also right that my starter minutes thing was short-sighted. Point differential would make much more sense as sometimes coaches ride a unit playing well and some players like manu and Lamar play starter minutes off the bench.
some dude
June 20, 2010
I’d like to make one more point about Rondo, because of his high WP48 numbers.
First, I believe Rondo is a top 5 PG and the best defensive PG in the league, but the Celtics most likely lost game 3 because Rondo kept misplaying the Kobe-Fish screen in the 4th quarter. Time and again he made the wrong decision and allowed Fish to break down their defense. This also happened to be one of only 2 decent offensive efforts for L.A. in the series.
That’s why I have trouble with the results provided. rondo is Boston’s best player and he’s a great player at that, but he screwed up in game 3 that most likely cost the team in game 3 and throughout the entire series Boston’s offense was stifled with him on the floor because of his inability to shoot.
His only real solid offensive outing by my count was game 2 when he went at Kobe who was hampered by foul trouble.
But this was a problem for all the Celtics. No single player was consistent or even remotely good offensively in over half the games with the possible exception of Davis in limited minutes. But I do believe a lot of this was a trickle-down effect due to Rondo’s shooting deficiencies.
I’d go so far as to say that in this Finals, no single player played “amazing.” Not Pau or Kobe or KG or Rondo.
This was a series of attrition where both defenses played amazing and no single player had a great offensive series whatsoever, just a few amazing games sprinkled in.
jbrett
June 20, 2010
I find it hard to believe that Kobe’s backing off Rondo affected Ray’s shooting. Kobe didn’t affect his shot even when he was guarding him; the idea that Ray was held down by Kobe lurking seems flawed to me.
Fact is, with the exception of one game, Ray couldn’t shoot. Boston beat Fisher to death to get him open shots, and he missed them. (I didn’t check the numbers before writing this; I’m just remembering what I believe I saw–and that’s the standard for this thread, right?)
On that topic: It’s reasonable to say that Kobe guards Rondo largely to keep him off Allen, who has long made him miserable. Kobe’s never been much better on Pierce, so I’m prepared to argue that a significant factor in the Lakers’ win was Artest’s defense on Willis; if anyone cares to provide numbers from this year and 2008 that prove I’m wrong–well, I think I’ll just admit it and move on.
some dude
June 20, 2010
Jbrett,
You’re right that Kobe doesn’t want to defend Allen or Pierce.
And Ray only shot well for a single half. But what’s important to note is that someone like Allen, especially in this stage of his career, is a rhythm player and relies on recent muscle memory. When his normal patterns are taken away, it ends up hurting him. Some of this was also the result of defending Kobe with so much effort on the other side, as well. But Kobe’s presence forced Ray to take different routes to get his shots, and he wasn’t open very much after game 2’s first half.
Lakers also cut off most of Ray’s transition 3s which he thrives on (again, after game 2). He had only a couple chances.
And there were times where Fish and Kobe switched and the switch was made much easier because of the position Kobe was in.
I also gave lots of credit to Ron Artest’s man to man defense as well as LO/Drew finally playing the screen & roll hard in game 6 which neutralized it for Pierce. But make no mistake, Kobe’s hedging was very significant in containing Pierce. Pierce is still capable, even against Artest, to at times get to his sweet spot to rise up for a shot, but Kobe would intentionally make sure Pierce wouldn’t have that option all series long.
I’s why Doc switched to the screen & roll game for Pierce that worked until the Lakers adjusted the defense on it.
Don’t underestimate how much Kobe working with procopio helped in this situation to figure out with the team what spots to cut off.
My point is that Boston lost because of poor offense, not defense and rebounding. From there, we have to figure out why. We know Allen, Pierce, and Rondo shot poorly and we are pretty sure Ron, Fish, and Kobe had a big part to do with this, but there are other reasons.
IMO, Rondo’s inability to shoot caused the offense to flutter when up against a team that had the personnel to exploit it.
some dude
June 20, 2010
Another point i want to make is determining someone played “amazing” based on WP48.
This isn’t necessarily true.
WP48 attributes the wins to players, but that does not mean the player played well…it just is supposed to mean he played better than others.
If each team fields only 5 players and 4 players on each team don’t rebound well, shoot sub 30%, turn over a lot, etc and 1 player from each team shoots a lot of shots at 35%, turn over a bunch, but not as much as the teammates, and rebound better than his teammates (though the ball usually airballs out of bounds), WP48 will tell us those two players on each team played “amazing,” when in reality they just sucked less than the other guy.
The idea that Rondo played well, offensively, is incorrect. he just didn’t play as consistently crappy as Ray, Pierce, and KG. That hardly qualifies for “amazing.” in my book.
some dude
June 20, 2010
I’d also like to know how Ron Artest looks worse than Kobe in game 7 based on WP48.
Ron was the team’s MVP that night, at worst 2nd only to Pau.
he was the best defender on the floor, saved L.A. when they were down in the 2nd quarter, and hit some big shots (with Fisher) that changed the complexion of the game.
Does anyone believe Ron was worth less than Lamar in game 7? Really?
jbrett
June 20, 2010
The actual difference in 0.095 and 0.116 is miniscule, in a very small sample for an average like WP48. And I won’t presume to speak for anyone else, but I believe Ron’s individual defense was vital, and possibly not easily quantified. I’ll stay away from the idea of clutch, but it did seem many of the plays he made were timely and momentum-changing. I’m not inclined to argue that the boxscore contains all we can go on–nor, I must add, am I aware of ANYONE here who thinks that.
We can perhaps safely say that Gasol was the most productive player in the series (and, as I missed in previous comments, Kobe was actually second, Rondo third), and this appears true for Game Seven, as well. A handful of players raised their production for the Finals (including Artest), but most declined; not a big surprise, in such a defensive/ ugly series. We know Rondo slipped from previous output, but he was still a positive for Boston when others declined even more, and Allen fell off a cliff. If Rondo’s weaknesses allowed LA to play defense in a way no other opponent could attempt, he was STILL the only Celtic whose production was significantly above average. To draw the conclusion that his unwillingness to take what is, for him, by any definition, a low-percentage shot is the root cause of their defeat, when other players not only shot as poorly, but also failed to make contributions in other areas, is not a judgment I’m prepared to make.
some dude
June 21, 2010
^^ I can agree with most of that.
But when you say rondo’s production was “significantly above average,” to what average are you comparing? The average of his teammates? That’s not saying much, now is it?
Especially when I think his play is what caused his teammates to play worse than they would have otherwise.
marparker
June 21, 2010
Tomas,
I don’t know if this comment thread is going to continue to stay active but the team that wins the 1st quarter wins about 80% of the time if I’m remembering correctly.
Are we talking regular size trucks or tonka trucks?
jbrett
June 21, 2010
some dude,
Again we run into the paucity of sample size with only 7 games, but I use terms pertaining to production to distinguish WP48 comments from ‘everyone knows Iverson is the best/ most skilled/ most exciting player in the known world’ comments. Rondo’s production is, by the definition of Wins Produced, significantly above average for NBA players; it is also above the average for his teammates for the series.
I’m not prepared to debate whether he made his teammates less productive by not making or taking outside shots; I must repeat others’ comments, though, that he couldn’t shoot a lick in 2008, either. If Boston lacked outside shooting this year, they could not possibly have counted on him to provide it; therefore, his poor shooting cannot be the culprit in their loss. (I’ll add that a 4 point loss, in a 4-3 series, in an away game, is as statistically insignificant as can exist; the idea that LA is the better team is tenuous–and I’m a Laker fan.) Rondo is more productive than he was in ’08, but he is still the same kind of player. The Celtics can ask a fish to play the trombone, but it would be a bad plan; they should not be surprised if the fish improves quite slowly, or if the music is not very good. The fish will not be any less of a fish for his lack of trombone skills.
Dre
June 21, 2010
I know this thread is prolly drying up soon but three things:
1) Just a fun note, the following metaphors have been used for comparing players and arguments in this thread: Batman, Robin, Superman, Wonder Twins, Green Goblin, Garbage, Horse, Truck, Straw man, Trombone playing fish.
2) WP48 Compares a player to the entire population of players. For the regular season this is all players. For the playoffs(on my site) it is for all players that played in the playoffs. For the finals it is for all players that played in the finals.
3) WP48 does a really nice job of modeling what happened. It does incorporate team aspects but distributes them on a per-minute basic. While this is not perfect, it works fairly well. As such the attacks of “WP48 doesn’t account for defense!” or “WP48 doesn’t give Artest any credit” are slightly off. I would certainly prefer per minute analysis of defense than ESPN analysts or fans. For example a common analysis of Kobe > Magic is that Kobe is a better defensive player. Magic had more steals and defensive rebounds than Kobe just fewer All Defensive team assignments. . . .
Dre
June 21, 2010
Sorry to double post but on 2), the player is compared to other players that played the same position as them. So the entire population is used but on a per player it is for in position categories (e.g. Rondo is compared to other PG, Kobe is compared to other SG and SF)
some dude
June 21, 2010
“Again we run into the paucity of sample size with only 7 games, but I use terms pertaining to production to distinguish WP48 comments from ‘everyone knows Iverson is the best/ most skilled/ most exciting player in the known world’ comments. Rondo’s production is, by the definition of Wins Produced, significantly above average for NBA players; it is also above the average for his teammates for the series.”
Couldn’t ever player on a team play “below average” and yet one player still end up with a WP48 above league average?
That’s to what I am referring. If everyone plays crappy, he who is least crappy will look good or “amazing” relative to the league average because his WP48 is scored relative to his teammates in a small sample size. therefore it doesn’t tell us anything useful about quality of play across teams when used in such a small sample.
some dude
June 21, 2010
“Sorry to double post but on 2), the player is compared to other players that played the same position as them. So the entire population is used but on a per player it is for in position categories (e.g. Rondo is compared to other PG, Kobe is compared to other SG and SF)”
So to make matters worse, he’s only really compared to Fisher, Nate, and Farmar.
So what this means in that in a 7 game series Rondo can play like crap, but his playing like crap is still better than Nate, Fisher, and Farmar and better than even his teammates played, but it would show up as a number indicating “amazing.”
What this means is that we cannot attribute qualitative status to such a quantitative number derived in a tiny sample set among a tiny amount of other points (by this i mean comparable players).
What I mean to say is, the WP48 numbers in the finals can tell us how the wins were created, but it does not mean any specific player played well. It only arranges a heirachy of quality of performance without stating the actual quality of performance. It is also problematic because a team like the Lakers had 2 players perform consistently (kobe and pau) for the most part where Celtics had none, so whoever turned in 3 non-horrible games will seem amazing in comparison.
That is to say, WP48 tells us nothing about the Finals other than to say who accumulated the lead bad box score stats in comparison to his teammates and the other teams direct opposite player.
Dre
June 21, 2010
Some dude,
I addressed this above. You are scored relative to every player that played the same position(s) as you. So no you can’t have a team full of all crappy players and get 1 above 0.100 WP48. Now the Finals only has 2 teams and is only 7 games. It is the definition of small sample size. But to be above average Rondo has to beat out the Celtic’s PGs and the Laker’s PGs. Rondo did this.
Your argument about WP48 not telling us anything is suspect. If your complaint is “The Finals is a small sample size” then yes ANY metric will have a hard time. Now across 3 years of 82 games for 30 teams Rondo has consistently been shown to be a good player (as have Kobe, Gasol and Garnett)
Your posts show very little understanding of the WP48. I admit it takes some time to learn it perfectly. I would say it would show some respect to at least get a base understanding of it before attacking it as you have.
Crabhands
June 21, 2010
I’d like to give props to “Some Dude” here. I believe he wrote clearly and convincingly. For the betterment of debate in the market place of ideas I hope he continues to post.
Thanks for blog and thanks for everyone’s willingness to listen to each other.
some dude
June 21, 2010
“I addressed this above. You are scored relative to every player that played the same position(s) as you. So no you can’t have a team full of all crappy players and get 1 above 0.100 WP48. Now the Finals only has 2 teams and is only 7 games. It is the definition of small sample size. But to be above average Rondo has to beat out the Celtic’s PGs and the Laker’s PGs. Rondo did this.”
Are you saying that had Ray Allen shot better, Rondo’s WP48 would remain unchanged?
“Your argument about WP48 not telling us anything is suspect. If your complaint is “The Finals is a small sample size” then yes ANY metric will have a hard time. Now across 3 years of 82 games for 30 teams Rondo has consistently been shown to be a good player (as have Kobe, Gasol and Garnett)”
I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue here. Rondo is a great PG. I believe I even said he’s top 5 and the best defensive PG in the league. He was also Boston’s best player during the season and postseason.
And I admitted that over the aggregate (or statistically significant numbers) we can use WP48. My point is that over a 7 games series, everyone no a team can play poorly and one player can still end up with an above league average WP48. In these cases, and above average WP48 does not indicate above average play relative to the league.
“Your posts show very little understanding of the WP48. I admit it takes some time to learn it perfectly. I would say it would show some respect to at least get a base understanding of it before attacking it as you have.”
I don’t mean to attack it in a manner as to try to discredit it.
What I’m trying to do is clarify what it means in the context of the Finals. Am I wrong in my assessment?
I think everyone can agree that WP48 over an entire season or multiple seasons is going to give us a good relationship of who plays well and who doesn’t. The idea that every player in the league at a position will play poorly for the entire season is non-sensical. But the idea that every player who plays over a 7 game series and logs relevant minutes is not nonsensical.
Offensively speaking, every single player on the Lakers and Celtics (with possible exception of Glen Davis and Sheed, who in Sheed’s case was terrible all season) played below their norm for the series.
WP48 won’t be able to reflect that.
Take gasol for example. His win share for game 7 was over .4 which is spectacular, no? Well, Gasol had a mediocre game, but he might have been LAs best player in game 7 (him or Ron). His 1st half was horrendous and he pulled through in the 4th. Now someone who didn’t see the game and saw WP48 would assume Gasol dominated but someone who watched it saw that he simply was less crappy then everyone else on the floor. I mean everyone played crappy in that game on the offensive end except Fisher and Sheed!
winniepoo
June 22, 2010
Firstly as a fan of WP48 I would like to agree with Crabhands in that any constructive discussion can only be beneficial to the development of the model. Somedude thanks for your analysis I know it is not pure statistical analysis but it provides an alternate viewpoint.
I can see that the end result is somewhat captured by the poor games endured by Allen and Pierce although WP48 would not provide cause although knowing they had bad games would allow the C’s to investigate why – perhaps due to Kobe dropping off Rondo due no jump shot – poor rebounding due to Lakers crowding the lane with quality bigs and Kobe or some other reason.
I wonder about the usefulness of WP48 in a small sample set given the relative nature of the measure to the contents of the sample set. Admittedly there is still 48 minutes on offer at each position for each team each game as a sample size but your point that Rondo only needs to be average or above average to look brilliant in comparison to all other PG’s especially considering that the Laker triangle offense devalues PG play is interesting.
I would interpret that as downplaying the performance of players at a particular position if that position was played well all series while overstating the performance in a position where one player on one team was completely dominant over all players at that position on the other team (and their own).
Perhaps the interpretation needs to be adjusted to compare WP against team WP and the expected season performance to show how well the player played. Please excuse my lack of knowledge regarding WP totals and season win estimates based on WP in the example as I offer it only for explanatory background
e.g. Pau provided .4 wins for a team that produced .7 wins which is the benchmark for a team that will win say 35 games in a season. i.e. Pau played like a superstar on an average team. I guess WP48 reflects the superstar part without reflecting the quality of the game overall.
It is easy to see that a season long sample size eliminates such anomalies but I would appreciate some feedback from people more well versed in WP and WP48 so I can understand the interpretation better.
Thanks
reservoirgod
June 22, 2010
The argument of small sample size is retarded in this discussion. You could call the sample size “small” if it didn’t include every minute of every game in the Finals – but it does. The only analysis based on small sample size in this discussion have come from some dude’s & Tomas’ anecdotes about a few plays from a few games. Rondo didn’t have to be an above average NBA PG in order for his production to be above average in the Finals – he just had to be better than the other PGs in the Finals and that’s all Boston should’ve needed from him. Now, if you want to discuss whether his production came at the expense of other’s production, then that is something that furthers the discussion of the Wins Produced model (in my opinion) but that has nothing to do w/ sample size in the Finals.
some dude
June 22, 2010
I don’t think you understand my point. My issue isn’t that the WP48 says Rondo was above average. That’s fine and dandy because it’s relative to the series and series alone.
My problem is using this bit of info and making statements like “he played amazing,” which is pretty absurd to anyone who actually watched the series.
You can’t use these WP48 numbers an extrapolate them against the whole rest of the league. As I said before, no one on these teams minus a couple minor bench players played as well as they did all season and even the rest of the playoffs. WP48 for a single 7 game series is incapable of capturing this at this moment.
dberri
June 22, 2010
The WP48 numbers I posted are not relative to the players in this series. They are relative to an average player at that position for the 09-10 season.
some dude
June 22, 2010
Right, but you still can’t make that comparison.
You said Rondo played amazing. His box score stats tell us something completely different (as does watching the game). He played better than most players in this series, but not amazing or anywhere close to it.
As I said before, if everyone plays like crap, but someone plays less crappy than everyone else, they will appear to have played well by this statistical measure.
Dre
June 22, 2010
Some dude,
Reservoirgod made a chart of finals analysis a while back. This used averages for each position from the finals. Dr. Berri in his analysis used position averages from the regular season. I mispoke when I said the finals WP48 were relative to other players in just the finals . My apologies for the mistake and any confusion it may have caused you.
Your analysis of Rondo may have some merit. He played below his standards and did have some “off” games in the finals. His last game though he played rather well shooting above 45%, getting 8 rebounds and 10 assists. Not to mention he did get a triple double early in the finals.
Your comment “if everyone plays like crap but someone plays less crappy. . .” is true. But then case for a player to be good it requires the entire position across the league to play very badly for an average player to look good. So the two scenarios are
1) A player plays well.
2) The rest of the league tanks so that the one player will look good.
Also Rondo’s box scores in the finals and in game 7 do paint a positive picture. Perhaps those watching the game saw something else. . .
some dude
June 22, 2010
Rondo had a very good game 2 and a decent game 7, but everything else was pretty mediocre or bad.
14-8-6 on 45% shooting and 26% FT% is above league average, but definitely below Rondo’s norm and certainly not good enough for the best player on the team (and his minutes increased). Only his rebounds went up and his TOs didn’t, but everything else pretty much declined.
Two games of 5-15 shooting, another game with 7 TOs and in all those games below his playoff averages for rebounds and assists.
I’d be interesting in Rondo’s WP48 numbers if we took out game 2 and just ran the other 6 games. He probably still leads the team, but I have a feeling that game skews things quite a bit (though who knows since it was Ray Allens only game that wasn’t craptacular).
I mean, it’s hard for me to accept a PG, who is the best player on the team and has the ball in his hands the majority of the time on offense, played “amazing” when his team’s offensive efficiency was awful AND all his numbers were down offensively across the board. And we have 3 separate games where he either shot horribly or turned it over 7 times.
Heck, Boston won game 4 because they took him out and put Nate in.
some dude
June 22, 2010
One more restatement. I can definitely agree with his total win produced score in this series. I got no problem with it.
My issue is by making claims that he played “amazing.” he most certainly did not, with the sole exception of game 2. If you’re drawing this conclusion based solely on WP48 numbers, then I question whether we’re reading the meaning of the number properly,
I can give a game by game breakdown if desired. :D
winniepoo
June 23, 2010
ReservoirGod with respect to my comment I mistakenly thought it was based on only the finals minutes. Thanks for clarifying that Dre and Dr Berri.
I was a little worried that Rondo looks better because the Lakers don’t tend to follow the traditional let the PG control the game strategy thus their PG’s have less overall impact which may have created a perfect storm for spiralled numbers on Rondo. Thinking that further the Laker strategy probably helps keep their PG possession lost stats down so in the end they probably produce as expected.
Don’t get me wrong I think Rondo is an awesome PG and I wish he played for anyone but the Celtics but that aspect concerned me at that point in time.
I will drop back to the background and observe. Thanks for responding so quickly.