Chris Iott – of mlive.com (my favorite website for Detroit sports) – recently asked the question: If no more roster moves are made, how good will the Pistons be this season? In answering this question, Iott made the following observation: “Good health should count for something. The Pistons were decimated by injuries last season while stumbling to a 27-55 record.”
When I read these comments I contacted Ben Gulker (a fellow Pistons fan – who previously offered a great discussion on the relative merits of Rodney Stuckey and Rajon Rondo) and asked him to help me write a post centered on this question: How good would the Pistons be without injuries in 2009-10? In other words, were the Pistons really “decimated” by injury?
To answer this question we start with Table One, where we see what the Pistons did in 2009-10 (according to Wins Produced) and what we would have seen had each player maintained the per-minute performance we saw in 2008-09 (the performance of rookies – in red – are the same from both perspectives).
The Pistons won 27 games in 2009-10, and that is essentially what we see from the summation of Wins Produced. Before we get to the impact of injuries, it is important to emphasize the impact of Ben Wallace and Jonas Jerebko. Of the team’s 27 wins, about 16 can be traced to the play of these two players. Jerebko was a second round pick, so it seems unlikely that the Pistons were counting on him to produce six wins. What about Big Ben?
Here is what was said about the Wallace acquisition last fall:
Dumars valued Wallace for his presence, his leadership and his intensity in the locker room. Any on-court production would be a bonus from a 35-year-old center who had missed 36 games during the past two seasons with assorted injuries.
“I just wanted to him to be an example for the younger guys,” Dumars said. “I thought he could still play, but I had no idea how much. I did know that, whatever he had left, he was going to give it all being back in Detroit. If there was one team that was going to get his maximum, it was Detroit.”
Ben Wallace went on to add in the same story:
“I came into this season with no expectations,” said Wallace, who was named NBA Defensive Player of the Year four times in Detroit. “I didn’t expect to play one minute. I was just coming in here to do whatever I could to help this team.”
The stats and these quotes lead us the conclude that the Pistons – who only won 27 games last year – would have been far worse had the team not received significant production from two players who were not expected to make much of a contribution at all.
Of course that observation doesn’t entirely get at the issue at hand. What about the impact of injuries? The second half of the above table indicates that the Pistons would have won about 35 games had per-minute performance remained constant from 2008-09 to 2009-10. This would not have been good enough to make the playoffs (and it is still the case that 12.5 wins are linked to Wallace and Jerebko).
Looking at per-minute performance, though, is not the entire injury story. Injuries also limited the number of minutes the players were able to play. To address this issue, we looked at how minutes would be allocated had Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, Charlie Villanueva, Ben Gordon, and Richard Hamilton played 82 games. The results of this analysis are reported below.
The numbers for 2009-10 consider the per-minute performance we saw last year with our “injury-free” allocation of minutes. As one can see, that improves the Pistons to about 31 wins. If we take performance from 2008-09, though, the victory total rises to 41. And that might have been enough to land the Pistons in the playoffs.
So were the Pistons “decimated” by injury? Like much in economics, the answer depends. Specifically it depends on what we mean by “decimated.” More specifically, what did people think would happen if this team was healthy? In 2008-09 the Pistons won 39 games. If everyone was healthy last season, it is possible the Pistons could have replicated the 2008-09 season. Of course, after giving all that money to Gordon and Villanueva, fans of the Pistons probably expected a better season than just a repeat of 2008-09. In fact, Detroit fans might have expected something closer to what we saw in 2007-08 when the Pistons won 59 games. It does appear that no matter how you slice the data, the Pistons – as constructed in 2009-10 – were not going to be serious contenders for a title. And that suggests that the Pistons problems last year were not simply the health of the players.
This is also bad news going forward. Of the twelve players listed on Detroit’s depth chart at ESPN.com, eleven were with the team in 2009-10. The lone exception is Greg Monroe, the team’s reward for losing so much last year. Unless Monroe is truly exceptional (and he wasn’t last year at Georgetown), the Pistons are probably not going to improve much in the standings with essentially the same line-up.
And this is the same conclusion reached by Chris Iott: … I would argue that the ceiling — the absolute best the Pistons could hope for this season with their current roster — is a .500 record and an eighth seed in the playoffs. More realistically, it would appear they are headed for another sub-.500 season — probably around 36 wins — and another trip to the lottery.
Yes, even if healthy the Pistons – as currently constructed – are not nearly as good as the team we saw back in 2007-08. And until the construction of this team changes, the outcome for the Pistons is probably not going to change.
Update: Let’s amend this post with one more observation. Arturo Galletti has updated his free agent guide and listing of winners and losers in the NBA this summer (if you have not seen this, click on over and look at what Arturo has done). According to Arturo, the Pistons currently rank just behind Miami and Chicago. Before fans of Detroit get too excited, we need to read Arturo’s explanation:
Detroit kept Ben Wallace and four of their current players. That’s real forward looking. 4 players for about $10 million per year that netted an average of 15 wins per year for the last three years. My Grade: B for good value but not enough
Yes, the Pistons haven’t made any significant mistakes this summer. But as Arturo notes, they really have yet to do enough to make real progress in the standings.
– Dave Berri and Ben Gulker
Wages of Wins Journal 
brgulker
August 4, 2010
Thanks for the chance to contribute. I’ve returned to those quotes from Dumars and Wallace a few times since I first read them. It’s frightening to think where we may have been without Big Ben and Jonas Jerebko (and if you attended a game at the Palace last season, it’s easy to tell are fan favorites in addition to being productive).
The irony of it is, however, had Big Ben and Jonas not surprised, DeMarcus Cousins might have wound up being a Piston…
robbieomalley
August 4, 2010
Dave,
I’m glad to see you writing more. Arturo, Dre, Shawn, and others writing are really good. But yours still seem to be the best, at least to me.
Second, it’s possible that Monroe could take minutes away from Ben. Also Ben should eventually run out of gas. I don’t think you’ll be able to count on him for as much production as usual.
dberri
August 4, 2010
That’s nice of you to say. But ever since we had our blogging panel at the WEA meetings I have become painfully aware of how much time I have spent writing posts.
So I can now say… anyone else who writes is clearly doing a better job than me :)
reservoirgod
August 4, 2010
What’s the latest w/ the ownership change? Have any strong bidders thrown their hat in the ring? If so, then would they clean house? Do Pistons fans still have faith in Dumars’ ability to build a contender? And isn’t Danny Ainge 3 yrs away from the same fate? The NBA is a cruel business…
fricktho
August 4, 2010
Thank you for getting this Pistons preview up. I’ve been waiting for it. I really enjoy the wins produced model, in fact i’ve got my own little spreadsheet i’ve put together that just about duplicates these results. Now I can check it against some official WoW data and it pretty much tells me what I already knew – the Pistons talent level is sub-par. That is about all that needs to be said. It’s a bit worrisome that the Pistons most productive player is 36 years old with a game that relies on athleticism, and won’t be able to be relied on for too many minutes. Without Big Ben the Pistons’ outlook is disastrous, and I would have to expect a decline in his production somewhat this season as well. Monroe has to be better than average or this team is in for a rough one.
Dynamizer
August 4, 2010
Umm there is such a thing as chemistry in basketball, so that win total could possibly be higher if all the players, at least six of which were brand new to Stuckey, had played a full season together. He was also on his third coach (and system) in three years.
The fact that so many man games were lost not only matters in the lost stats but also in how the players learn to play with one another. I don’t think your analysis takes this into account.
On top of that I’m not sure any Pistons fans were thinking 59 wins out of this team was going to happen. Most predictions had us around the 5-8 seed preseason.
I will say however that the Pistons need 1-2 more big men (preferably centers) but it might take until the trade deadline to find a suitable partner.
Laser
August 4, 2010
excuses, excuses, dynamizer.
maybe they would have been so lost trying to find reasonable rotations that they would have done worse? some of the best basketball they played was with major injuries.
this is all speculation anyways, but i suspect fully healthy this team would have STILL STUNK.
Dynamizer
August 4, 2010
Laser I am not offering any excuses.
What my post was about was that the conclusion this article came to was based off of partial data.
You are absolutely right that it is possible that the Pistons may have done worse with healthy players due to rotation issues. I only said that with chemistry taken into account the team may have gotten even more than 41 wins predicted, not that a healthy team was certain to get more wins.
But I suspect that you don’t really care, as you seem to be happy dreaming up straw men to express your opinions about.
arturogalletti
August 4, 2010
Dave,
Thanks for the shoutout to my free agent post.
The Pistons put me in mind of something I’ve got written on the whiteboard in my office : “Never confuse hope with a plan” . They’re hoping to improve but did nothing to get better.
fricktho
August 4, 2010
dynamizer – the article takes chemistry into account to some extent. not directly, but by using 2008-09 as a basis for the wins produced numbers it is saying what would happen if the players produced as they did the previous season, and remained healthy. not just what would happen if they were healthy.
Dynamizer
August 4, 2010
Fricktho – I see what you are saying but we are talking about at least six players who have never played together, previous seasons potential could be very far off from last seasons potential based solely on players being new to each other.
Besides that the article uses last years predicted potential as a prediction of this years team still without taking into account the chemistry of these players playing with each other (not teammates from Chi, Mil, or college).
I am aware that there is no real way to measure how a teams chemistry will develop but that is kind of my point. Analysis like this, while well thought out and informative is only a partial picture and should be taken with a healthy helping of salt.
Tom Mandel
August 5, 2010
Chemistry?
It’s amazing how often better players improve a team’s “chemistry.” :)
Leroy Smith
August 5, 2010
Chemistry is way overrated. The Clippers had great team chemistry last year. Ron Artest of the Lakers is known as a Chemistry destroyer. Yet we know what happened last year to those two teams. Tallent will always trump the mythical and vague notion of “team chemistry”.
Dynamizer
August 5, 2010
Tom – Yeah better players often improve chemistry when they get to “play” together. Something that the Pistons really didn’t get to do last year.
Leroy – Um you are confusing personality with chemistry. Chemistry as I am defining it is the level of familiarity of players with each other, for example knowing were a player likes to have the ball passed to them. Artest has been known as an explosive personality that can upset locker rooms. Not that he is a chemistry destroyer.
And no talent will not always trump chemistry. Does anyone remember the USA Olympic team that was stacked with talent but LOST to I believe Argentina? But that had nothing to do with their chemistry though right?
brgulker
August 5, 2010
reservoirgod,
There’s not much news to report on that front, unfortunately. The current owner, Mrs. Davidson, has publicly stated that Dumars is allowed to conduct business as usual. I have a difficult time seeing the Pistons sold to any ownership that won’t spend money to win, personally.
Dynamizer,
The chemistry discussion has been discussed (to death?) on this forum before. But what you seem to be saying is that the newness of the players with each other caused a drop in performance. But I don’t see that in the numbers or in my subjective experience of watching the Pistons play.
Stuckey was marginally worse this year than last year. He was also injured this season. Rip was much worse this year, but he’s also aging, and he was also injured. Ben Gordon was worse but also injured. Charlie V. was worse but also injured.
Inujuries, not poor chemistry, hurt the Pistons this season. The point of this article isn’t to deny that; rather, the point of this article is to question whether or not the Pistons were “decimated” by injuries. We’re arguing that even in a perfect scenario, the Pistons wouldn’t have been that good; therefore, it’s not accurate to say that we were “decimated” by injuries. Injuries are not the root of the Pistons problems; they are the scapegoat.
In other words, the best-case scenario for the 2009-2010 squad was something akin to 2008-2009. And that is problematic, given that the 2008-2009 makeover was designed to give us a better product in 09-10.
If we can’t measure it, how can we be confident that it actually exists, let alone has an impact on basketball games?
robbieomalley,
I think that Monroe and Big Ben will probably share minutes at C, and it’s possible Maxiell might see time there again this season as well. That doesn’t bode well for our record next season, and I’m skeptical that Wallace can play as many minutes as he did last season next year. However, it might actually be a positive for the franchise over the long-term. If we play Monroe enough, two things might happen. 1) He improves. 2) We lose enough games to get a high lottery pick.
That’s not really an inspiring plan, but it seems to be the only silver lining I’m able to find as a fan…
Tommy_Grand
August 5, 2010
To those who value history and language, decimate means: reduce by a tenth. But the plebs support a looser definition.
Dynamizer
August 5, 2010
Brgulker – How do you measure the comfort level of players with one another? That is something that definitely exists but because of the nature of the event it is not really measurable, unless you can read minds.
Yes injuries played a role in how the team performed last year, and my point is that those injuries effects extend into areas that cannot be measured such as chemistry (especially when the stats used were of players playing with totally different teams and in some cases different leagues). So by extrapolating data from previous seasons to predict potential without injuries you are missing part of the picture.
brgulker
August 5, 2010
Presumably, increased comfort level would result in players producing better, right?
But you’re moving the goalposts. The argument you made was that lack of chemistry is partially to blame for the Pistons’ season last year. However, I’m arguing that there are more reliable and more easily verifiable reasons for the Pistons’ struggles.
I’m also assuming you haven’t read Dr. Berri’s work. He makes several convincing arguments using players that have changed teams and teammates that might interest you.
Dynamizer
August 5, 2010
Brgulker – One might assume that increased comfort levels would result in better play but that might not always be the case. You can be comfortable playing with someone who is a bad player but that might not make you produce anymore than you playing with a person who is good yet you are unfamiliar with.
I am not moving any goalposts. All my posts have been pointing out that this article does not take into account chemistry, and as a result is skewed in some way that is not entirely predictable. Granted my first post did say it may have pushed the win total higher but I never said it was a forgone conclusion.
I haven’t read a lot of Berri’s work you are right, but we are talking about not just one player switching teams but almost an entirely new cast of teammates. If he has an article that negates what would presumably be a learning curve for that situation I would love to read it.
As a side note I’m aware that teams have done very well with a whole new cast of players (Boston) but again they had a full season to play together and had three “super stars”, neither of which Detroit had the luxury of having.
fricktho
August 5, 2010
dynamizer – there is no way to measure chemistry, or continuity as i believe you are trying to put it. but your saying the players were bad last year because of a lack of continuity or familiarity, and that coupled with injuries caused them to produce poorly.
the data ran includes the 08-09 seasons productivity levels, which takes continuity out of the equation, and then adjusts for minutes played, which takes health out of the equation.
CV and Gordon both had their most productive seasons of their careers in 08-09. So that is pretty much best case scenario. Continuity isn’t going to make them better than they’ve ever been, or at least its not something you’d be willing to predict in a reliable equation. So if you take CV and Gordon’s best seasons, Stuckey’s better season, and Rip’s consistent season, and use those numbers in your data you still only come away with 42 wins tops if the team remained healthy.
fricktho
August 5, 2010
Also – this is not a prediction for next year, it was an analysis of last year, but very little has changed in terms of the roster. Monroe replaces Kwame on the roster, and Kwame only played 660 minutes. Monroe will hopefully be playing many more minutes than Kwame did, so he will be stealing someone’s minutes and if he’s not more productive than the players’ minutes he’s stealing the result will likely be as predicted, or worse.
Leroy Smith
August 5, 2010
No Dynamizer, I understand what you’re saying. i’m simply saying that chemistry is overrated. The Cavs last year had great chemistry irrespective of how you define it. But bad minute allocation and a disinterested James killed them.
I will bet you anything that any team that Nash goes to will have instant “chemistry”. He can put the ball whereever whoever is.
Dynamizer
August 5, 2010
This is my last post as no one seems to want to admit that the conclusions this article came to were based on data that has numerous variabilities not accounted for.
Fricktho – I understand that CV and BG had their best seasons before coming to Detroit, but again that was playing with totally different teammates in totally different systems.
What happens if the system they are in now asks different things of them so they have to utilize different skill sets? What made them good in previous years might not be what makes them good in the present (to a certain extent).
On top of that who’s to say that opposing teams wouldn’t have had to play differently due to a healthy Pistons team. The Piston defense could have possibly been better due to chemistry which could have altered opposing teams shot percentage. Or it could have been worse due to rotation issues. The article doesn’t address any of these issues.
This whole concept seems designate players as interchangeable cogs that remain constant no matter what pieces are around them, as such I just don’t think that the conclusions hold much water. And yes the article does make the prediction that the team will only win 41 games even if it is put in a transitive way.
Leroy – You still are not understanding me. The Cavs example you give only proves that there are other things to winning in basketball than chemistry, not that it doesn’t matter.
You also seem to be confusing skill with chemistry. Nash has the skill to pass the ball anywhere, but knowing where his teammates like to have that pass placed is chemistry. That can take time for players to learn but Nash is good enough that it won’t take him long to develop that with new teammates.
dberri
August 5, 2010
Dynamizer,
There is quite a bit of research on performance consistency across time. I think the problems you are having is that people in this forum have seen this research. That is why they are skeptical of your arguments.
Furthermore… chemistry — as has been noted — is not something that you have measured. So although you believe this is important, you don’t know that this is important. Therefore you don’t really know that something important has been left out of the analysis that is presented. Until you provide us with a measure of chemistry, you are not going to persuade people that your argument has much validity.
brgulker
August 5, 2010
Please tell us how to account for them, then. I am certainly open to learning something new!
This article isn’t a prediction. It’s an evaluation of what might have been if the Pistons players hadn’t been injured.
Dynamizer
August 5, 2010
I guess I can do one more post since it is in response to the author.
Dberri – First let me thank you for the article. It has kept me entertained for some time the last day.
I get the logical work around you are trying to do. Since I can’t quantify chemistry, it doesn’t matter. That is faulty in that your premise assumes that only quantifiable data matters.
Chemistry can show up in ways that aren’t recorded on stat sheets. Knowing how your teammates run down the floor so you can get your spacing right. Knowing how fast a teammate is so you can adjust your speed to compensate on defense. Trusting that teammates will be where they are suppose to be. All these things are hard to quantify but matter.
The point is that we have no way of really knowing how chemistry mattered or how much. Which means that this work you have done, while interesting, is an extrapolation of imperfect data.
One of statistics main tenets is that extrapolation of even good data can lead to wildly inaccurate predictions. That’s not to say I think you are way off base, just that people need to take statistical research like this with a grain of salt.
I would like to see this research on consistency that people seem to be talking about. Brgulker said you have written about it before. Maybe it would change my mind.
Nick
August 5, 2010
I know this is completely unrelated to this topic…but this is a very WoW-ish review of Carmelo Anthony. For ESPN Insiders:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/news/story?id=5439653
Main point is that Carmelo is average in the league efficiency wise, but the #1 shot taker in the NBA, and thus he’s not a true MAX player.
brgulker
August 5, 2010
Dynamizer,
Basketball games are won and lost by quantifiable data, which is why some of us value the quantifiable stuff more than the unquantifiable stuff. I can quantify how many points my team scores vs. my opponent, for example. It’s my opinion that knowing this fact matters more than knowing how fast my teammates can run.
The point I tried to make above was that the things you just listed should be quantifiable, at least in some way.
Examples,
Getting your spacing right should lead to high percentage shot opportunities, which should lead to more points (and presumably more assists).
Getting to the right position on defense should result in missed shots by your opponent (due to a higher percentage of their shots being contested), and advantageous positioning after the shot should lead to rebounds.
Good ball movement leads to assists. Good screens lead to high percentage shots which lead to points. And on and on we could go.
(I don’t think knowing how fast one’s teammate is matters, though, sorry.)
The Wins Produced numbers suggest that the Pistons produced 27.3 wins. The Pistons won 27 games. In the most literal sense of this expression, it couldn’t get much closer. To put it another way, that’s a strawman you’re knocking over.
brgulker
August 5, 2010
“Basketball games are won and lost by quantifiable data, ”
That is a poor choice of wording. Don’t crucify me!
Tommy_Grand
August 5, 2010
While I’m comfortable reading between the lines to see the truth of the assertion that “Basketball games are won and lost by quantifiable data,” I cannot ignore Leroy’s outre allegation that a “disinterested James” caused the cavaliers to founder. Was Lebron indifferent to the decisive game’s outcome?
Dynamizer
August 5, 2010
Ok for real this time this is my last post. This has eaten waaay too much time.
Brgulker – Maybe I should clarify. By implying that the team could only win 41 games last year and then saying they haven’t made significant changes to the roster would lead me to believe that this article is saying they can only win around 41 games this coming year max. There’s even a quote from another article within this article saying they are realistically on their way to a 36 win season, that’s not a prediction?
You don’t need to explain quantifiable data to me. So the example of scores was less than helpful.
I agree that chemistry can show up in stats through 2nd degrees. Such as knowing where a player likes the ball fed which should result in higher assists.
In trying to measure something indirectly you leave room for errors in data where you cannot see them. Which can lead to inaccurate conclusions being drawn (notice I didn’t say always).
For the record knowing if a teammate is fast or slow can help when trying to determine if they need help on defense depending on the player they are guarding, sorry.
And please try not to take my statements out of context. I followed my statement about extrapolating data with a statement saying that I did not think the author was way off base, just that articles like this should be taken with a grain of salt.
khandor
August 5, 2010
brgulker,
Are you at least a little bit surprised that I’ve held out this long?
——————
Dynamizer,
Continue to fight the good fight … but please know, in advance, that you are immeasurably out-numbered, in this specific environment.
——————
re: There is quite a bit of research on performance consistency across time. – dberri
——————
You are quite correct to question the validity of an observation like this one, and to ask to be shown it; and, then, to also follow-up with a second question concerning, “How the applicability of such data/research/conclusions/etc.actually transfers to and is particularly relevant to the highly specific situation which existed last season for the Detroit Pistons?”
Yes, last year’s Pistons endured a great many injuries.
Yes, the talent level of last year’s Pistons was generally considered to be representative of a less-than 30 Win team.
Yes, the “production numbers” associated with the players on last year’s Pistons equated with a Total of 27.3 wins, according to the metrics used by dberri, which is an exceptionally close approximation of Detroit’s actual 27 Wins.
And, yes, last year’s Pistons were, in fact, not “decimated” by the injuries they sustained.
But, no, it is simply not a foregone conclusion that … based on the ALL the available data, pertaining to last season … the Pistons’ fate was, in fact, determined [or best explained] by the overall “poor” quality of their player roster, as outlined by the methodology associated with the WoW/SoW … given the existence of other unaccounted for variables, one of which you’ve made reference to here, i.e. the always difficult to measure, but nevertheless-essential element known as “team chemistry”; and, others which would also include, e.g. “team cohesion” and “the effects of authentic elite level coaching practices, or the lack thereof”, etc.
“ … more reliable and easily verifiable reasons” do not necessarily make for a more sound position, or an accurate interpretation of what actually took place within a specific environment.
– A Poor Man’s Version of Juror No. 8
fricktho
August 5, 2010
chemistry provides nothing to measure. there is no data, because there is no effect. if you play with nash you might see an increase in production, but is that chemistry? and if it is why can’t any two players develop that same chemistry? chemistry doesn’t make players better, better players make players better. thats where i stand anyway. i’m sure that can be rebuffed as well.
the flaw i see with using the data as a predictor for this season, or even the flaw i see in general is the use of big ben’s wp/48 from 08-09, one of his least productive seasons. a more accurate measure might be to include everyone’s 08-09 production except big ben’s. then again wallace is a year older and it’s difficult to assume he can be as productive this year, but he still likely won’t be as bad as he was in 08-09.
vick
August 5, 2010
I’m no statistician,
but wouldn’t it make sense to take into account the pistons non-injury ’09-10 record. To me that would be the most logical indication of the true potential of the team.
Wasn’t it well over .500, like 10/6, or 10/5?
winniepoo
August 5, 2010
Hi Vick,
The issue I see with taking that approach is that it is a small sample set and could have been achieved against subpar opposition so you would need to include some strength of schedule weighting for that part of the season to perform a reasonable extrapolation for the season in total.
It also does not take into account home/road status so again it might have been a long home stand skewing the results.
Note I have not actually validated either variable but offer them to show that the raw record with all players healthy may not necessarily be indicative of the piston’s true season long potential.
Leon
August 6, 2010
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/the-magic-and-pistons-go-different-directions/
In the end what you came up there wasn’t too badly off. Of course the addition of Wallace (and Jerebko) should have improved meant Detroit should have done better than they did. But injuries don’t just hit minutes, they hit performance. So I would expect Rip and co. to improve back to career numbers provided they don’t get injured again.
khandor
August 6, 2010
————————-
re: So I would expect Rip and co. to improve back to career numbers provided they don’t get injured again. – Leon
————————-
As long as John Kuester continues to use the same coaching practices which he employed last season, I would not hold my breath on the likelihood of Rip & Co. actually returning to their career numbers next season.
Unfortunately, in basketball, nothing holds a good player down, like a coach who simply doesn’t know what he is doing [i.e. relative to the best in the business]. :-)
jbrett
August 6, 2010
Hebrews 11:1
khandor
August 6, 2010
Skeptics 17:76