Sekou Smith at NBA.com has snapped.
While debating the merits of Al Jefferson over Carlos Boozer as the low post catalyst for the Utah Jazz, someone informed me that Jefferson’s numbers on losing teams don’t compare the stats Boozer put up in a winning situation in Utah the last six years.
I snapped. Seriously, I lost it.
When told that solid numbers on a bad team mean nothing, I couldn’t hold my tongue. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard.
Smith went on to make two arguments.
1. Numbers are numbers, and whether you are on a good or bad team these numbers have the same meaning.
2. The Jazz will at least be as good with Al Jefferson as they were with Carlos Boozer.
Let me address the second argument first.
Here are the career numbers of Al Jefferson and Carlos Boozer.
In terms of Wins Produced, Boozer has consistently offered a higher level of production. In fact, in Jefferson’s best season – with Boston in 2006-07 – he offered a lower level of production than we see from Boozer’s career averages.
What explain the difference? Three months ago Robbie O’Malley actually discussed this issue. According to Robbie, the key difference is shooting efficiency. Yes, both players can score. But Boozer gets more of his shots to actually go in the basket. Consequently, Boozer has a bigger impact on team wins.
So moving from Boozer to Jefferson is not a step in the right direction for fans of the Jazz. Yes, Jefferson is cheaper. And he is probably less of a headache (fans in Utah grew very tired of Boozer’s attitude). But Boozer does produce more wins than Jefferson (and fans everywhere really like wins).
But is it the case that the production we see from Jefferson will actually decline because he is moving to a better team? On this point, Smith is sort of correct (and sort of not correct).
In both the Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins we discuss the subject of diminishing returns. Economic theory – and the empirical evidence – tell us that as the productivity of a player’s teammates increases the production we see from the player will fall. But the effect is small.
To see how small, let’s estimate how the move from Minnesota to Utah will impact Jefferson’s numbers. Our story begins with what every player did last year with the Jazz and Timberwolves.
Carlos Boozer produced 16.2 wins last season in 2,673 minutes. The remaining Jazz produced 38.9 wins in 17,083 minutes. And this means that Boozer’s teammated posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.109.
In contrast, Jefferson only produced 6.4 wins in 2,463 minutes. Jefferson’s teammates played 17,316 minutes but only produced 8.9 wins. This means that Jefferson’s teammates posted a WP48 of 0.025. So it is the case that Jefferson’s teammates were much worse than the players who played with Boozer.
Now what does it mean to move from a team where the players are quite bad to a team with much better teammates?
For an answer we turn to our study of NBA coaches. This study considered the impact a variety of factors (beyond coaching) had on player performance. The list of various factors we considered included the productivity of a player’s teammates, or more precisely, teammate WP48. This study – across 30 years of data – indicated that teammate WP48 had a statistically significant and negative impact on player performance.
The coefficient on this factor was -0.300. And this tells us that the Jefferson’s WP48 should decline by 0.025 as he moves from Minnesota to Utah [-0.300 * (0.109 – 0.025)].
One should note that the change in the quality of Jefferson’s teamates is rather large. And this impact appears somewhat small. To see how small, consider how much Jefferson’s and Boozer’s numbers jump from season to season. Boozer has been consistently above average – and except for seasons where he missed significant time due to injury – Boozer has been consistently above 0.200. But movements of 0.025 in the WP48 numbers are not uncommon.
A similar story can be seen for Jefferson. With one exception, Jefferson has been an above average player who fails to clear the 0.200 mark. Again, though, changes of 0.025 are not uncommon (three times we have seen a larger year-to-year change for Jefferson).
In sum, Smith is sort of right. What we saw from Jefferson in Minnesota is probably close to what we will see from Jefferson in Utah. In other words, Jefferson will probably be above average but will probably not be able to clear the 0.200 mark (and if he does, probably not by much).
Unfortunately for fans of Utah, Boozer consistently did more. Again, this is because Jefferson’s shooting efficiency has consistently lagged behind the mark we see for Boozer. And that means that Jefferson will probably produce fewer wins than Boozer (and therefore, Utah will probably not be as good in 2010-11 as they were in 2009-10).
Wages of Wins Journal 
nerdnumbers
October 15, 2010
DJ,
What kind of home town fan are you? Arturo is holding home that the O’Neals will save Boston. Jeremy is posting mad numbers for Golden State. Chicago Tim and IS are backing the Bulls and Knicks. Even I’m holding out hope for a good Nuggets trade. What kind of Utah fandom is this? Also don’t forget you have Fazekas! It’s good Boozer is gone. We know from experience that bad attitudes hurt teams and should be booted, which is why Magic Johnson (if this makes no sense, look it up!), Dennis Rodman and Kobe Bryant never won anything. . . .
CarlSpackler
October 15, 2010
Its not about how Big Al will make Deron Williams a better player, but more about how Deron Williams will make Big Al a better player. Jefferson has never played with a decent PG in his career, even in Boston it was an VERY young Rondo and a VERY old Glove. His knee injury also really affected his growth.
He’s a competitor and doesn’t enjoy losing situations, I expect a resurgence for him in Utah. Pairing Ak-47 and Big Al could be very interesting, they mesh much better than Ak-47 and Boozer, who both stay outside the lane too much.
GV
October 15, 2010
This is such bunk.
Where is Carlos Boozer right now? Yeah, that’s right – he’s sitting out with a faked injury just as he CONSTANTLY did with the Jazz. Carlos Boozer is extremely overrated, whiny, backstabbing, and a very ungrateful weasel.
Chicago fans don’t realize it yet because they haven’t seen what Boozer is (in)capable of, off the court. Jazz and Cavs fans know who the real Boozer is. Prepare yourselves for a long season of watching Boozer on the bench because of painful hangnails, sore pinky fingers and other phantom injuries.
Just go watch how they both conduct themselves in media interviews and you’ll see the difference. Carlos Boozer is a fraud. Al Jefferson is the real deal.
Chris
October 15, 2010
Irrational Big Al fan comment: I know WOW data shows most player perform consistently when switching teams but I think Big Al might be an outlier due to health and having much improved teammates. Minnesota has literally had no other legitimate offensive options when he’s on the floor. With improved health, D-Will, and Okur stretching the floor, Big Al’s shooting efficiency should go up.
Also, his WP/48 should also rise if he’s teamed with Okur (but maybe not if with Millsap). He’ll be cleaning up all of the rebounds.
fricktho
October 15, 2010
Is Amare expected to have a decline in WP because he’s not playing with Nash? In games Nash missed and Amare played in Pheonix how was his WP affected? Saying Jefferson will be better because he’s playing with a better PG may or may not be true. I have no idea. It would seem WP would be negatively affected because he’s playing with a better player(s), and teammates WP has an effect.
I just have a question about coaching. How does WP explain the Terry Porter time period in Pheonix? I went back and looked for an article about it in the archives but couldn’t find one. Utah and Minnesota don’t have drastically different paces or styles so I don’t think that applies here I’m just curious.
As for Utah fans I wouldn’t expect Jefferson to all of a sudden become a star and produce at a rate higher than he ever has. It will be interesting if he does, but that seems like wishful thinking.
David
October 15, 2010
While this analysis is interesting, it also points out the shortcomings of statistics like these when applied to a situation where other intangibles play an important role in success.
One factor that is completely omitted from your post: How much more motivated Al Jefferson is going to be playing for a team that has a legitimate chance to go deep in the playoffs versus playing for a team that was a bottom dweller the entire time he was there. He is now playing with arguably the best point guard in the NBA on a team with other legitimate weapons. If you’ve ever actually played a sport at a competitive level — and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt there — you know that losing wears away at you, and having a chance to be an integral part of a winner lights a fire inside you. I would imagine that being more motivated will translate into greater success, and based on the preseason so far, it’s certainly looking that way for Al.
Another point: Al is now playing for one of the best defensive minds in the league in Jerry Sloan. Assume that he becomes a better defensive player now that he’s got a future Hall of Fame coach helping him on defense — again, not that much of a stretch — and it’s easy to see how that, too, might contribute more to the Jazz winning.
Statistics are great as part of a larger picture, but to try to use them the way you have here is reductive and limiting. If we were both NBA general managers, you’d have a team with great stats, and I’d have a team that would be beat that team because we’d have stats, and everything else that matters as well.
Shawn Ryan
October 15, 2010
-David
You will note that research presented in The Wages of Wins
(isbn: 978-0804752879) showed that Jerry Sloan (and just about every other coach) has had a negligible affect on the production of players he has coached. Might I offer that perhaps your powers of perception are not as great as you think they are?
I think that of the two teams proffered in your last sentence, yours would be more likely to make counter-productive decisions that would hurt your team because you have overestimated your abilities of observation. Overrating your various eyeball tests would very likely diminish your efficacy despite your certitude that it would give you and advantage.
Shawn Ryan
October 15, 2010
^ *that is “give you AN advantage.”
WRSI
October 15, 2010
If Jerry Sloan can drag reasonably well-rounded play out of Al, Sloan’s going to gain a lot of respect from me. Al Jefferson is among the nicest, most humble NBA players, and I wish him well in Utah. However, the relationship he’s going to have with Sloan this year seems to me, a Minnesota fan, like it’ll probably be rocky.
It’s not like Jefferson hasn’t worked away at stuff like passing out of the post and playing basic defense. He’s sincerely tried. He’s just plain failed to develop those huge weaknesses in his game enough to avoid being consistently exploited by other teams. Sloan now has the task of getting Al to do things like set effective screens in the Jazz offense…. And I’m not at all sure Big Al Jefferson can do that stuff. He wants to. No question. But he doesn’t seem to have it in him.
WS numbers, and DWS in particular, cannot possibly be truly reflecting Al Jefferson’s defensive play. I don’t mean to pull the “by eye” card alone, but ask anyone, anyone, anyone who watched Al Jefferson last year with the Timberwolves to describe Al’s defense. Other teams were destroying Jefferson one-on-one with matchups like Ben Wallace and Nene. When you see the other team, at a crucial moment in a game, toss it in to let Ben Wallace take your center in the post, you know that center is a defensive problem. Rebounding notwithstanding, Jefferson is a major problem for any team trying to play defense around him. Leave aside his shooting percentages (and low rate of FTAs), and you’ve still got that. Boozer, flawed as he is, is not as bad defensively as Jefferson. I’ve never seen worse than Al Jeff last year.
KShio
October 15, 2010
Nice statistical analysis- I have to say that as you pointed out, statistics DON’T get swayed by intangibles or emotion – but players do.
Yes Big Al’s teammates are going to be better. Yes the statistics say his production should drop. NO, they will not. We’re talking about going from “dump it down and try to score against a double team 15-17 times a game” to a system that allowed GREG OSTERTAG to get 4-5 easy buckets a night, and Boozer his looks and points.
Those easy buckets are now going to be added to the ones Big Al will get by working – and it’s an offense predicated on giving his position scoring opportunities -ie: layups and dunks….. we’ll see how it plays out, but I say efficiency, scoring, and defensive presence all increase for Big Al this year, and that will translate into more wins, and then the .200 you’re speaking of (which i admit i haven’t a clue what that means) will be exceeded :)
peace
Daniel
October 15, 2010
One good thing about Boozer’s departure is that Jefferson takes minutes at the 5 from Okur. It also opens up minutes at the 4 for Kirilenko, who has had significantly higher ADJ/48 playing there than he does playing mostly at the 3 (which he has been doing since the Jazz added Boozer) because as a wing player, Kirilenko’s quickness and length for his size are wasted (also, obviously, it’s harder to get rebounds if you’re farther away from the basket, hence the position adjustment). On defense, he needs to have the freedom to play more like a free safety– he’s one of the best weak-side blockers in the NBA, playing similarly to Josh Smith and Marcus Camby in that regard. He’s also significantly more coordinated and quick with his hands than most other big men, which explains the significant drop in his steal rate while playing on the perimeter. In 2006, he posted a .487 ADJ/48, the season before the Jazz drafted Milsap and shifted him to the perimeter. He’s been around .400 since the shift.
Playing at the 4, he dominated Eurobasket 2007 and was named MVP.
Because of these positional shifts, I predict the overall production of the Jazz big men will probably not fall off tremendously, despite the fact that they’ve essentially traded Boozer for a significantly inferior big man.
Dumping Ronnie Brewer and losing Wes Matthews (though at that price they can’t complain) is much more likely going to be the reason for Utah’s decline. With Kirilenko moving back to the post full time, at least as long as Okur is injured, the Jazz are suddenly barren at the 3. Gordan Hayward better be good because more CJ Miles is NOT the answer.
David
October 15, 2010
Shawn — By your logic, if coaches have a negligible effect on the players they coach, we should simply eliminate coaches altogether and let the players coach themselves. Or the Lakers should re-hire Del Harris and stop wasting their money on Phil Jackson.
I’m not saying that these sorts of statistical insights aren’t valuable — clearly, they are. But they’re most valuable when they’re used as a tool, which is what they should be, not the be-all and end-all in terms of decision making. Relying only on statistics contradicts one of the most fundamental aspects of sports, which is that they are fueled by emotion and intuition, and that at the most significant moments, emotion and intuition can often determine the outcome of a game. No statistic can predict that Derek Fisher, after a season of below average three-point shooting, will hit a pair of three pointers to effectively end the Orlando Magic’s season, or that he’ll return the following year and score 12 points that essentially determine the outcome of a pivotal game against the Boston Celtics. All the statistical merits of LeBron James can’t tell you that he’ll pass at the end of the game to a team-mate when perhaps he should shoot himself, or simply vanish in a game when his talents were needed the most, as he did this past playoffs.
My team of passion-driven players would whip the automatons :)
nerdnumbers
October 15, 2010
David,
Two things to consider. First Phil Jackson has been shown to do well. Another thing is not that coaches are negligible but that COMPARED to each other they are. Think of it this way. You go to Wal-mart and you want a pair of ankle high white socks. Wal-mart has a ton of these. Some are more expensive than others. Odds are though that the difference between each brand is minor at best. Odds are no one will notice the difference regardless of which brand you buy. However, not wearing any socks will be completely different.
Second this is a good point people bring up. The stats don’t predict the “Sports Center” moments. A good team gets the best players that are most likely to succeed and if things happen they happen. The thing is no one can really predict these and for every person that “knew X was gonna be clutch” there are a million silent ones that were thinking the opposite thing on the losing side.
some dude
October 15, 2010
Jefferson will be an interesting watch. I think it could be the case of Jefferson’s numbers improving while the team getting worse.
Boozer was a perfect fit offensively for the Flex offense because he’s one of the better passing big men in the league while Jefferson is a poor passing big man. Jefferson is also a worse defender (not that Boozer was any decent, but still) and should hurt the team. However, Okur will be off the bench and AK47 could play more at the 4 and these things should help the Jazz. And Jefferson should increase post scoring but also reduces the floor spacing (Boozer and Okur shot a lot outside while Jefferson has been a poor jump shooter).
It’s hard to say what the final outcome will be (and the loss of Matthews and Korver will hurt too), but it will be interesting to see. I am pretty sure Jefferson’s passing will hurt the team but I also think he should be more efficient this coming season playing with competent players.
Michael
October 16, 2010
It will be interesting to see the effect Jefferson has on his new teammates, and vice versa.
Filipe Furtado
October 16, 2010
“Saying Jefferson will be better because he’s playing with a better PG may or may not be true. I have no idea. ”
Actually, % of assisted field goals last season:
Boozer – 74%
Jefferson – 45% (lowest number among any big man that scored 10+ points/game)
That’s a really large gap. And if the main knock against Jefferson WP is his shooting efficiency getting more easy baskets should improve it.
Dhruv Ohri
October 16, 2010
Guys, I’m lookin for an affiliation http://netssn.wordpress.com/ can you check me out and let me know if that would be possible.
Thanks
thefatkid
October 16, 2010
The assumption that individual WP falls with more productive teammates is a blanket assumption that cannot be relied upon in this instance.
For the vast majority of players whose WP decreases in the instance of more productive teammates, this decline is due to the WP system of accounting for defensive rebounding. While defensive rebounds are accurately accounted for on a team basis, WP distorts the mechanics of individual defensive rebounding to favor those who relentlessly pursue caroms, regardless of whether teammates were positioned for those same rebounds. This means that when such a player leaves an inferior defensive rebounding team for a better one, their WP statistics are likely to decline in a commensurate fashion to their involvement in defensive rebounding.
However, this is obviously not applicable to the case of Jefferson. Jefferson’s own offensive efficiency is directly related to his paucity of offensively talented teammates. Obviously his individual efficiency will likely rise in his new role in Utah, as he will have better teammates demanding more attention from opposing defenses. Consider this a contrast to Trevor Ariza’s great decline in efficiency in Houston.
Tommy_Grand
October 16, 2010
The numbers show that a few NBA coaches do have a positive impact on players’ performence. These NBA coaches are better than the average NBA coach. But, in general, the difference between NBA coaches is not large. If the definition of a great coach is “he can beat your squad with his or he can beat his squad with yours,” then you will not find many coaches of that caliber in the 2010-11 NBA. I think J. Sloan is a better coach than E. Spoelstra, but I bet whichever coach has Lebron, Dade, and Bosh wins more games head-to-head. but if you just grabbed some fool off the street and asked him to coach an NBA team, he would have a large negative impact on that team’s performance.
Tommy_Grand
October 16, 2010
Dade = South Fla codename for D.Wade
WRSI
October 17, 2010
With respect to the rate at which Jefferson’s baskets were assisted last year and over his tenure with the Wolves, there are two things to think about.
In immediate terms, last year Big Al was playing in Kurt Rambis’s offense — the “trike” as we Minnesota fans sometimes call it, because it includes elements of the triangle but the Wolves brass emphatically denies that it’s a true triangle — which for whatever combination of reasons dampened PGs’ assist rates. The career arc of Ramon Sessions will show you that.
Secondly, Al Jefferson’s post game is just not an assisted one so much. What you get with Al is a pitch down low, followed by long wheeling, winding, ball-faking sequences in which he duels with the defender to get a shot up. It’s an art form, but it’s a solo one. So, Jefferson’s “assisted” rate was a bit higher in previous years, but not enormously. He parks down low and waits for the ball, and then he kicks off something like what you see when you hit the “Layup” button in a video game and a player’s signature sequences starts up; there’s no way to stop the thing, and the PG isn’t going to get credit for a dime.
drryanpepper
October 17, 2010
This is certainly an interesting topic, Dr. Berri, but I am eagerly awaiting your two cents on the Jordan interview being discussed on espn.com.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5686980
Plenty of good material there and I am curious how you would respond to Hollinger’s interpretation…whenever you find the time of course.
EntityAbyss
October 17, 2010
You know what’s funny. I did fantasy basketball last year and noticed that the projections in certain cases weren’t different from what actually happened during the year (unless injury occurred). Today, I did my fantasy draft and for some reason Al Jefferson’s stats are not expected to change much. I found that interesting.
Also, what I noticed is, when players go from team to team, their shooting percentages increase and decrease depending on the amount of assists their teammates get, but not by a big margin. That’s because, for the most part, they score the same ways. One on one players will play one on one basketball regardless of where they go. That’s why you shouldn’t look at assisted baskets, thinking there’ll be a dramatic increase. There tends to not be. A player can have Steve Nash on his team. Yea, he’ll shoot a higher percentage, but he’ll take a lot of the same shots he did before. I noticed that this is included in WP formula in the MATE48 calculation.
At first I thought, if a player is not being assisted on a basket, doesn’t that make it better than a player that does? Then after some studying (82games.com), I noticed they tend to not get assisted a lot because they go one on one a lot. Don’t expect an increase (at least a big one) in al jefferson’s ts%, lebron james ts% or anybody else who changed teams, cuz if you noticed, people that change teams don’t see a dramatic increase or decrease in ts%. Also, the increase or decrease will probably be because of their teammates assist numbers, not the amount of assists go to them, cuz that won’t be much different. Ask Kobe. He got better passers on his team, but hasn’t seena dramatic change in his shooting percentages.
brgulker
October 18, 2010
Lots of people seem to be assuming that playing next to Williams will help Jefferson. However, I think there’s one important reason to be extremely skeptical of this (beyond Dr. Berri’s analysis).
Al Jefferson isn’t that mobile; Carlos Boozer (when healthy) is. Why does that matter? Utah lives and dies by the pick and roll, and the main way that Williams could “create shots” for Jefferson is through the pick and roll (or maybe the occasional dribble drive and dump off pass). But Big Al isn’t really a pick and roll guy … at least as far as I’ve been able to determine. Obviously, then, playing next to Williams won’t matter as much as some Utah fans may want to believe.
Adding Jefferson through a trade exception was a very solid move. What other big man could they have added that would have been better? If Big Al stays healthy, he’ll contribute to a winning team. But he’s an obvious downgrade from Boozer.
wjmooner
October 18, 2010
As a Jazz fan I hope that Jefferson sees an increase in his production once he is exposed to a different system that works to get him more efficient looks. The comparison that comes immediately to my mind is Donyell Marshall when he was traded to the Jazz from a poor Golden State team. Marshall’s WP48 doubled from one year to the next because he suddenly became a much more efficient scorer. Of course, if Jefferson can double his production this won’t look like such a bad exchange under WP.
Mike
October 19, 2010
One thing I’m curious about is the effect of Jefferson’s injury on his numbers. For his type of injury, isn’t it supposed to take about two years to return to form. Can anyone cite examples of players going through this surgery who eventually had the same production?
Mike
October 19, 2010
all these comments saying that Jefferson is downgrade from Boozer are insane. Boozer was and is black hole on defense – he in fact may be the worst defending big man in akll NBA history. All us Jazz fans needed to see was this presseaosn game vs Lakers to see how much of an upgrade over Boozer is Jefferson, his size bothered Gasol way more and he took it to the hole with ease while Boozer was getting at least 3-4 of his pathetic layup attempts blocked every time we played Lakers. At the end Jazz are clearly better with Jefferson, I can’t believe somebody can even argue about that.
Daniel
October 19, 2010
Wow. I was totally wrong about Kirilenko shifting to the 4. Jerry Sloan said in a recent article that even though they only have 2 competent big men healthy, they’re probably going to start Kirilenko at the 3. I’m beginning to see why he’s never won a COY award.
Mike
October 19, 2010
Big AL had 4 blks tonight vs Lakers. I think Boozer had total of 4 blks in all season. That should end the debate right there.
Mike S
October 19, 2010
Its not Jefferson’s blocks that are in question. Boozers shooting percentages are what make him more valuable. If you go to basketball reference and look at their career numbers the difference becomes more clear.
Mike
October 20, 2010
Mike S, Boozer’s FG% was bloated by Jazz system and PG giving him the ball for easy layups. Just wait for Al to post career high in FG this year. And to put in perspective whats from Boozer’s 20pts and shooting 50% if in the same game he allows his opponent to score 25? Plus he always, always struggled against tall athletic defenders, you can’t teach size and there AL has such a huge advantage – just watch Boozer sulk and shy away from the basket vs Gasol, Odom, Bynum and watch AL take it right ot the basket – such a nice change from Boozer fade away jumpers.