Glen Davis – of the Boston Celtics – celebrated his 25th birthday on New Year’s Day. And that means – if you have read Stumbling on Wins – that we shouldn’t expect Mr. Davis to get much better as an NBA player (players tend to reach their peak performance in their mid-20s). And that means – if you are a Boston Celtics fans – that you might be happy that the contract for Glen Davis expires at the end of this season.
Why should this make fans of the Celtics happy? As the following table indicates, Davis is below average in 2010-11 with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, blocked shots, and assists. In other words, he is only above average with respect to free throws, turnovers, and personal fouls. Consequently, Davis has produced -0.4 wins this season with a -0.021 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. Entering this season he had produced -4.5 wins with a -0.056 WP48. In sum, Davis is not a very productive NBA player.
And yet, this story from Sports of Boston (yes, I searched and search until I found someone to say this) argues that Glen Davis might be able to replace Kevin Garnett.
Quoting the story… “Statistically, Davis and Garnett have more similarities than differences, especially recently. Garnett has averaged 14.4 points per game since December 1. Davis is just a half-point behind at 13.9. And Davis’ minutes have incrementally increased each month, from 28.7 in October to 29.6 in November to 30.2 in December, to the point that Davis is producing nearly as many points in nearly as many minutes as Garnett (30.0 in December).”
The article does go on to note that Garnett is a more efficient scorer, a better rebounder, and better at both steals and blocked shots. Yet, these players have “more similarities than differences”? Okay, that is only true if you focus primarily on scoring (yes, people tend to do this from time to time). When we look at everything we see that the move from Garnett to Davis is not a step in the right direction.
This point can be further illustrated by looking at the Wins Produced numbers for the Celtics in 2010-11. The following table indicates that after 31 games the Celtics are on pace to win about 62 games.
Of these 62 wins, nearly 59 can be traced to the play of Garnett, Rondo, Pierce, and Allen. In fact, the 20.4 game “improvement” seen for this team nearly vanishes if we assume Garnett, Rondo, and Allen return to the ADJ P48 observed in 2008-09 and Pierce returns to what we saw in 2007-08. In other words, if these players offered what we saw during last year’s regular season, the Celtics would not be contending with Miami Heat in 2010-11. Yes, Marquis Daniels and Shaquille O’Neal are above average performers, but their contribution is almost entirely offset by the poor play of Davis, Jermaine O’Neal, Avery Bradley (in just 62 minutes), and Semih Erden. Consequently, the Celtic Four are still the reason this team is winning [a similar story to what we have seen since 2007-08].
The importance of this quartet addresses a statement I saw in the Salt Lake City Tribune this morning. The following was offered on a discussion of the problems the Jazz have had this season: “(Raja) Bell pointed out that the best teams in the league — primarily Boston — learned long ago how to overcome the sudden loss of key players.”
When we look at Boston, we see that Raja Bell is incorrect. The Celtics are not going to be a title contender without Garnett, Rondo, Pierce, and Allen. Or – as note earlier – replacing KG with Big Baby is not going to help.
And this returns us to a point that is frequently made. Coaches and clothes do not win games. Players win games. When the players who produce wins are replaced by players who do not produce wins, teams typically find less success.
So just because Davis and KG wear similar clothes, or score at a similar rate, it does not mean they have similar levels of production. And fans of the Celtics should not see the loss of Garnett as an “opportunity”; unless, of course, the chance to see more losses is considered an “opportunity”.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Phil Maymin
January 1, 2011
Question about your model: with Davis leading the league in charges, a stat not in the box score, is it possible he is actually above average? As he eloquently puts it, a charge is better than a block because you definitely get the ball and the other team gets a foul. Another way of putting it is, can you estimate how many charges per game he would need to be ab average power forward?
dberri
January 1, 2011
He would need to draw two to three charges per 48 minutes to be average. Hoopdata says last year he drew 0.37 charges per game, or maybe one per 48 minutes. So adding in charges won’t make Davis average. And it certainly doesn’t make him KG.
bags fly free
January 2, 2011
How does someone so nonathletic and fat even make it to NBA? It’s truly mind blowing. For once I will side with lebron, nba talent pool is extremely watered down.
Michael
January 2, 2011
Given that a tiny minority of NBA players are responsible for the vast majority of the results, how can the league possibly be anything other than ‘watered down’?
curtains
January 2, 2011
Glen Davis is leading the league in charges; the most recent unofficial count was 33. He’s played 31 games, which is just more then 1 per game; per 48 mins, that’s 1.7 per game. That isn’t enough to bring him to the average level, but he for sure isn’t a negative producer, either.
kevin
January 2, 2011
With the influx of foreign players, is it really watered down though? And Davis isn’t any fatter than Oliver Miller were, and Miller could play.
Davis has made an attempt to get in shape. And it shows.
His ability to draw more charges this year reflects his increased quickness. He is never going to be able to replace Garnett. But I think he can be a decent bench player. His 8 assists tonight should put him closer to the neighborhood of average.
todd2
January 4, 2011
The value of a blocked shot is debatable. A great shotblocker changes a game, similar to pitching around a strong hitter in baseball or throwing away from a great cornerback in football.
Nick
January 4, 2011
@curtains:
I think while in most cases charges are relatively insignificant, at the extremes it may make a huge difference.
Glen Davis may end up being the biggest argument for including charges if it turns him from a negative player, who should not play any minutes, to a player who at least deserves a rotation spot.