About two weeks ago Jeff Zillgitt argued in the USA Today that DeMar DeRozan is “stepping up” in his second season in the NBA.
More comfortable and confident in his second year, DeRozan wants to stand out.
DeRozan has 14 games of 20 or more points — but 11 since Dec. 1. Those include 37 points against the Houston Rockets on Dec. 31 and 30 against the Miami Heat on Jan.22. He is developing into what the Raptors envisioned for the ninth pick of the 2009 draft — an athletic wing who can score near the rim or on mid-range shots.
“I know and understand the game a lot better than I did my first year. I was learning on the go,” DeRozan said.
Toronto Raptors coach Jay Triano challenged DeRozan to make the rookie-sophomore game during All-Star weekend this season. DeRozan didn’t play in the game last season.
“He’s on a little bit of a mission,” Triano said. “I told him ‘Your goal is to make the sophomore game.’ When you look at his numbers, it’s a pretty good argument as to why he should.”
Raptors president and general manager Bryan Colangelo said the team has been meticulous in helping DeRozan improve.
“When I say that, it wasn’t only the things he was doing with our coaches on the practice court and coming back to get shots up every night,” Colangelo said. “But it’s also investing in the process of developing a young player.”
DeRozan started 65 games in his rookie season.
“It’s a learning experience you can put a price on,” said Colangelo who has studied similar athletic wing players in the first two years of their careers, guys such as Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, Detroit Pistons swingman Tracy McGrady, Houston Rockets guard Kevin Martin and San Antonio Spurs forward Richard Jefferson.
While not saying DeRozan will be just like any of those players, Colangelo said, “His development is trending in the right direction.”
Let me summarize the argument made by Triano and Colangelo (a summary based on the statements in bold above): After much work by DeRozan and the coaches in Toronto, DeRozan is improving. We know this because this is the story the numbers tell.
If you review the article, the only numbers mentioned are scoring totals. When we look at all the box score numbers, though, a different story emerges. The following table reports DeRozan’s numbers in each of his first two seasons in the league. The numbers in red are marks that are below the average numbers we see from an NBA shooting guard.
Let’s start with what DeRozan does well. Relative to an average shooting guard, DeRozan is above average with respect to taking shots from the field and the free throw line, turnovers, and blocked shots. Because he takes so many shots, he is also above average with respect to scoring. And since – as the above story illustrates – people focus so much attention on scoring totals, DeRozan appears to be a “good” player; or at least a player trending in that direction.
But when we look at the other numbers, a different picture appears. In his second season, DeRozan is below average with respect to shooting efficiency (from the field and line), rebounds, steals, assists, and personal fouls. His assist numbers are especially low, suggesting that once DeRozan gets the ball he thinks first (and second and third) about taking a shot. And who can blame him? This strategy has led to praise from both his head coach and general manager.
When we put all these numbers together, we see that DeRozan has posted the following Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] numbers at shooting guard (it appears DeRozan has also played some small forward, so his overall numbers – reported in the table below — are somewhat lower that what is shown right here):
- 2009-10: 0.054
- 2010-11: 0.026
So in both his first and second seasons, DeRozan has been below average as a shooting guard (average WP48 is 0.100). But to the extent that two data points establish a trend, the trend line is not going up (as Colangelo contends). No, it appears that DeRozan’s overall productivity is declining. Certainly he is taking more shots and scoring more points. But because he is not scoring efficiently, or doing anything else to help his team win games, DeRozan should not be thought of as a player the Raptors can build around. One suspects, though, that this is exactly what the team is thinking.
The discussion of how the Raptors view DeRozan should remind people of past discussions of the Raptors and Andrea Bargnani. Like DeRozan, Bargnani was a lottery pick by Colangelo and the Raptors. And like DeRozan, Bargnani was
- below average last year and
- is offering even less this year.
To see how much less, let’s look at where the Raptors are as a team this season. After 55 games in 2010-11, the Raptors have posted a -6.0 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency). Such a mark is consistent with a team that would win 17 of their first 55 games (the team has won 15 times). When we move from efficiency differential to Wins Produced, we can see where these wins are coming from.
As the above table notes, the team is being led in Wins Produced by Amir Johnson, Jose Calderon, and Ed Davis. Each of these players is posting a WP48 mark above 0.200 (or twice the mark of an average player). In general, teams with three players who are twice as good as average tend to be very good. Unfortunately this team is being held back by the players who lead this team in shot attempts.
If you look at the statistics for the Toronto Raptors, we see the following players leading the team in field goal attempts per game: Andrea Bargnani, DeRozan, Leandro Barbosa, Linas Kleiza, and Sonny Weems. These five players are the only players to attempt at least ten field goals per game. And these five players have combined to produce -5.7 wins, with only Barbosa posting a WP48 mark in the positive range (and Barbosa is only barely above zero).
The evaluation of DeRozan suggests the Raptors’ decision-makers focus on scoring. And when we look at the productivity of all the players who lead the Raptors in shots attempts, it seems that the problem in Toronto – remember this team has only won 15 games – might be with how players are evaluated. Players seem to know that if they take shots and score, the Raptors decision-makers will be pleased. Taking the actions that lead to wins (i.e. shooting efficiently, rebounding, taking care of the ball), don’t seem as important.
Once again, the Raptors have only won 15 games this season. When we look at the individual players, it appears that the players holding this team back are the players who are leading the team in shot attempts. And it appears the people making decisions in Toronto can’t see past the scoring these players provide.
– DJ
P.S. If you would like even more discussion of the Toronto Raptors, click on over to NBAEh? This blog – from Devin Dignam – examines the Raptors from the Wins Produced perspective. In addition to providing some great analysis of the Raptors, Devin’s site also offers a list of Required Reading for anyone interested in Wins Produced.
Wages of Wins Journal 
dm
February 15, 2011
As a raptor fan my despair runs deep. It’s bad enough to have such unproductive players but to “build around” them?
The only possible hope is a change of management at the end of the season when Colangelo’s option comes up. I have my doubts though, the guy is a grade A charmer and probably has a thousand excuses lined up already.
To think that the Raptor fans that believe the company line believe the future is bright! Little do they know they pin their hopes on some of the worst players in the league to save their franchise.
With Derozen and Bargnani the teams supposed “centerpieces” for the foreseeable future I can’t even hope Colangelo will stumble on wins like the year he arrived, it’s just too much negative production to overcome.
All I can say is good luck to Ed Davis, good luck cleaning up Derozen,Klezia,Weems and Bargnani’s garbage for the next 5 years while your contributions are largely under rated.
Italian Stallion
February 15, 2011
I seem to recall someone mentioning Colangelo being a fan of Wages of Wins. It’s hard imagine that’s case given the team he has built.
dm
February 15, 2011
IS,
I remember that reading something like that although as I recall it was actually the owner that praised Wages of Wins as well as saying he gives it to his GMs.
That’s not to say Brian Colangelo didn’t get some use out of it maybe some papers were less likely to fly of his desk, or maybe he used it to stabilize that coffee with the one short leg
dm
February 15, 2011
Damn pressed publish too early mean’t too say coffee table with a short leg.
Anyway I think minimum Wages of Wins has allowed Brian Colangelo to get a few more minutes out of a dwindling fire.
Italian Stallion
February 15, 2011
dm,
OK, it was the owner. That explains it. My bad.
Devin
February 15, 2011
You’re stealing my thunder, Dave!
Yep…this is the story I’ve been harping on for months. I noticed someone over at the Globe and Mail talk about DeRozan’s “improvement” at the beginning of January. This is what I wrote at the time:
“For all the recent talk that DeMar DeRozan has improved during his second year, his WP48 continues to remain in the negative range this season (at least last year he posted a WP48 of 0.026). But do you want to take a stab at what has increased for DeRozan this season? PPG and his scoring rate, of course. Even though his shooting percentages are down. When will people learn? DeRozan is Bargnani all over again.”
But hey, his dunks sure do look purdy!
dberri
February 15, 2011
I think of this post as a tribute to Devin :) Certainly you have said all this before.
Evan
February 15, 2011
As a Canadian and Raptor fan, I can only hope that I can ignore the team for 4 more years until Bargnani’s contract is up.
The fact that Colangelo isn’t trying to make a package deal for Bargnani and Derozan + TPE for shorter term bad contracts is a shame. He could unload a lot, but instead is looking for pieces to build around 2 players who wouldn’t get minutes on a good team.
Statement
February 16, 2011
Devin, what is your outlook for Derozan.
Last year he was above average WRT shooting ability and rebounds. Do you think he can “put it all together” and become an above average player?
Bargnani is, of course, a lost cause. The hardcore fans see him for what he really is and the media outlets have started to report on his suckiness so maybe there is hope that casual fans will see it too going forward.
TM Williamson
February 16, 2011
I hate to pull out the “you’ve got to watch the games” argument, but in this case it definitely applies. If you have actually watched the Raptors play this year, you’ve got to know that Derozan has developed significantly from last year.
Yes, his efficiency has gone down, but it’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be. There’s a tremendous difference between being the 5th option on the floor (as he was last year) and being the 2nd or 1st (as he is this year). Last year Derozan was strictly a finisher. He was a rookie on a team featuring Chris Bosh, Hedo Turkoglu, and Andrea Bargnani. You think there was a lot of shots to go around there? He was only taking what was wide open for him. This year, he has to create shots for himself, on a team that has surrounded him with very limited players. The drop in efficiency doesn’t necessarily indicate a lack of development as much as it indicates a transition into a more prominent, and typically less efficient role (that of the number 1/2 scoring option).
Further, what was constantly cited as Derozan’s biggest weakness during his rookie year? His jump shot. Last year, 53% of his shots were jumpers, and he shot an eFG% of about 40% on those shots. This year, 72% are jumpers, and he’s shooting an eFG% of about 42% on those shots. So while his shooting percentage may be down overall, he’s actually shown an improved ability to take and make the jump shot (which, if you’re watching Raptors games, you know is true, especially of late), which is of the utmost importance to a player like Derozan if he hopes to develop into an above average NBA 2 guard.
He’s still very young, and he got thrust into a very significant role on a very bad team this year. He struggles with the same things a lot of young guys struggle with (check his numbers in the second game of back to backs), but to declare these dips in some of his numbers as a lack of development is a vast oversimplification, similar to what you accuse Toronto Raptors management of in this article.
Italian Stallion
February 16, 2011
I know scoring efficiency is a very important part of this model, but I think it would help some people if a metric was developed that isolated the value of a player’s scoring from year to year.
Most of the conversation centers on either a rise or decrease in efficiency, but all scoring above a TS% of approximately 50% generates value. So there are some players that increase usage at a slightly lower efficiency and generate more value – even on this model.
Tommy Grand
February 16, 2011
Another good article, Professor.
Aside: Remind me again why the Pistons passed on D. Blair?
dberri
February 16, 2011
They didn’t pass on Blair. They just badly mis-pronounced his last name. It sounded a lot like Summers on draft night.
Daniel
February 16, 2011
I’m shocked Toronto has so many great players this year– I knew Evans was having an unbelievable rebounding season before he was injured (and he almost completely stopped shooting, which made him better), that Joey Dorsey was going to produce very well because of his fantastic PAWS in college, that Amir Johnson is a fantastically productive fouling machine, and that Calderon has always been a .200 player. I just didn’t expect them all to be playing so well at the same time– and Wright and Bayless are easily playing the best basketball of their careers as well.
I don’t think there’s any question Bargnani is the worst #1 pick of all time. If he was even an average player, the Raptors would be a .500 team and a playoff lock right now instead of one of the worst clubs in the NBA. When you’re paying a player $10M to singlehandedly sap 10-15 wins from your potential every year, you’re going to have a hard time winning.
What a mess…
Tommy_Grand
February 16, 2011
“They just badly mis-pronounced his last name. It sounded a lot like Summers on draft night.”
Got to hire a better pronounciation coach to get them in shape before draft day….
Devin
February 16, 2011
Statement:
DeRozan is still young, but I don’t think he’ll ever amount to anything more than an average player (if that). His college PAWS wasn’t very good (if I recall correctly, I think it was 39th out of all the players in the draft that year), he’s regressed this year, and he’s been infected by the Yay Points! virus. My plan would be to flip him now before he loses his value.
TM Williamson:
Yes, DeRozan has become a pretty good jump shooter. Yes, his TS% is still above 50% and he is helping his team with his shooting. Sure, his eFG% on jumpers has gone up 2%…but that gain is not worth the decrease in the number of shots closer to the basket. Take a look at his numbers over at Hoopdata, and sort by per40 (to control for MP/g). He’s shooting at the rim 0.2 fewer times per40 and making 0.3 fewer shots. From inside 10ft, he’s taking 0.5 more and making 0.1 more. From 10-15 ft, he’s taking 0.8 more and making 0.6 more. From 16-23ft, he’s taking 1.0 more and making 0.6 more. From 3, he’s taking 0.2 more and making 0.1 less.
So what’s happened? He’s taking fewer shots closer to the basket – which are the easier and more productive shots to take – and his percentages on those shots have also declined. He’s taking more shots away from the basket – which are the harder and less productive shots to take. He’s improved on his percentages from last year, but they are still too low to justify shooting so many long distance shots. His free throw attempts have gone up too, but not enough to counter his increased reliance on outside shots.
Think of it this way: yes, his skills have improved, but he’s not using them properly. I guess you could say he’s a “better” player, but he’s also a more unproductive player.
Italian Stallion
February 16, 2011
>>Think of it this way: yes, his skills have improved, but he’s not using them properly. I guess you could say he’s a “better” player, but he’s also a more unproductive player.<<<
That's a super important statement because it's at the core of all the debates about scorers.
Philip
February 16, 2011
Devin, IS,
I’d argue that choosing when and how to use a skill is a skill in itself, and arguably a far more important one.
Mike
February 16, 2011
This. Times 1,000.
This sentiment, of theoretical ability vs practical output, is at the core of the issue everyone has with which ever side they take on WP48, and can be summed up by the eternal question:
What is talent?
I think some people exaggerate the ability to perform skills, e.g. Jab Step, fade away, drop step and Shooting, and under value the ability to choose when to use which skill.
A tennis player is not good because s/he can play all the shots, but because they play them at the right moment.
Ditto a Basketballer with production.
IMHO, WP48 measures the ability to impact a game with th skillset you have, and rewards reducing the plays that harm your teams’ chances of winning.
Talent evaluation, however, rewards the ability to hit physical benchmarks (height, weight, speed, jumping ability) and assumes it can teach the rest. The ability to demonstrate you can perform advanced skills at all, irrespective of how effectively overall, seems to be the secondary key.
The problem is that some things that don’t appear to be talent, like rebounding and good shot selection, the evidence show a consistency over time that would seem to indicate that either they are talent, or at the very least something that certain personality types are better suited to doing.
The best example of every argument is Josh Smith. In 2005 as a raw rookie, he was a .150 player, as he did the basics. He hovered around this mark for several years: .103 (2006), .158 (2007), .140 (2008) and in 2009, he was a very average .108.
In 2010 he was .230. Why? Because he put away the three point shot. Smith went from hitting less than .300 and shooting 100 a year to 7. That one decision dramatically improved his impact as a player, and this year, when the 3 pointer is back, he is still productive because he is hitting 35.7.
TL;DR Knowing what skills to utilise, and when, is as important as having them at all.
Italian Stallion
February 17, 2011
100% agree with Philip and Mike also.
Devin
February 17, 2011
IS, Philip and Mike:
Preaching to the choir, boys. If we could get people to understand this key concept, I think a lot of the (tired) debate over WP would go away.
The other issue being that context in WP matters (ie: Dirk is a “better” basketball player, but Humphries has certainly been more productive this season, and if we force Hump into Dirk’s role, Hump would be terrible).
Greyberger
February 18, 2011
Context in _basketball_ matters. That’s not why WP does a poor job of explaining player contributions, but if that fact were more recognized around here the debate could return to conversational levels.
As for Derozan: I’m not sure who he should be passing it to. The high-usage, high-minutes players on his team are himself, Barbosa, and Bargnani, and to a lesser extent Kleiza Weems and Bayless.
None of these players is appreciably more efficient than Derozan, and Ed Davis and Amir Johnson aren’t able to create their own offense. Davis (11.7% usage) and Reggie Evans (9.5% usage) are invisible on offense.
All of the WP from the Raptors comes from players who don’t shoot very much. Getting involved in the offense pollutes your WP with all those attempts to score. And since we all know how good a defensive team Toronto is, this makes sense.
Devin
February 18, 2011
Greyberger:
Run plays that play to Johnson’s, Davis’ and Dorsey’s strengths – they have the highest TS% on the team, so give them more opportunities where they are effective. Even if it brings down their TS% down to Bargnani/DeRozan/Barbosa levels, it makes the team less predictable and harder to defend, and Bargnani/DeRozan/Barbosa/Weems’ shooting percentages would probably increase as well. Everyone would win.
“All of the WP from the Raptors comes from players who don’t shoot very much. Getting involved in the offense pollutes your WP with all those attempts to score. And since we all know how good a defensive team Toronto is, this makes sense.”
Yeah, LeBron and Wade’s WP is terribly polluted by their high levels of involvement in their team’s offense. Your second comment about defense is a non-sequitur, but the high-usage players that everyone prefers (Bargnani, Barbosa, Weems, and DeRozan) are bad-terrible defenders who play a lot of minutes.
I think it would be productive if you read Dave’s post on coaching and learning – the one he published immediately following this one.
Greyberger
February 19, 2011
“Yeah, LeBron and Wade’s WP is terribly polluted by their high levels of involvement in their team’s offense. Your second comment about defense is a non-sequitur, but the high-usage players that everyone prefers (Bargnani, Barbosa, Weems, and DeRozan) are bad-terrible defenders who play a lot of minutes.”
It’s not a non-sequitur – The Raptors are the second worst defensive team in 2011, 4.5 points per 100 worse than average. Their offense is ninth worst, 1.7 worse than average.
So the problem is on defense. But looking at just Wins Produced, you would come to the opposite conclusion – the players who are the most involved in the offense are all negative or neutral in WP, and the rebounders who don’t have much of a role on offense (Davis, Evans, Johnson) are the only ones in the positive.
And of course they’re awful at defensive rebounding. So my question to you is – since these players don’t have a part in the (decent) offense, don’t stop other teams from scoring all over the Raptors, and don’t even make them a respectable rebounding team –
How is it that Evans Davis and Johnson have “produced” 13 of Toronto’s 17 wins?
Devin
February 20, 2011
Okay, ignore me calling you out with the LeBron and Wade comment. It’s okay – I didn’t expect a reasonable rebuttal to that one anyways.
Well I wouldn’t say that the problem is only on defense – the offense is pretty terrible too – but yes, defense is the Raptors’ biggest problem.
Who are the starters?
Bargnani
Johnson
DeRozan
Weems
Calderon
Johnson is the only one of these players who can play good defense. Want to know why the Raptors struggle on D? They employ bad defenders.
Of the backups who play the most minutes, we have:
Barbosa
Kleiza (out for season)
Reggie Evans (out for the last 30 games)
Bayless
Julian Wright
Ed Davis
Dorsey
Barbosa and Kleiza are not good defenders. Evans is an okay defender. Bayless…average-below average. Wright is a good defender. Davis has good moments on defense, but so far his opponents see their WP increase against Davis. Dorsey I’d call a good defender.
So what do we have? Almost everyone on the team is bad on D. There are also several players – the ones who happen to take the most shots – who aren’t very helpful on O either. Most of the players who are the best defenders also happen to have the highest WPs. For the sake of argument, let’s say that everyone on the team is bad at defense – in that case, you certainly would prefer Davis, Johnson, Evans, Dorsey, and Calderon over the chuckers, because at least these 5 players are efficient on offense. But why would you say that everyone on the team is bad at D?
The Timberwolves are a bad offensive team – does that mean that Kevin Love is a bad offensive player? No; by any measure, Love is having an outstanding season on offense. So why would you say that Davis, Evans, and Johnson are bad defenders? Good defenders can be on bad defensive teams.
The best way to look at individual defense using WP is to look at counterpart WP; Arturo does this occasionally. That’s where you find out if players who have good WP numbers also allow their counterparts to have good WP stats.
Unless you can produce a new argument, I’m afraid you’ll only be talking to yourself from now on.
Greyberger
February 20, 2011
Apparently I’ve been talking to myself from the beginning. I’m trying to have a conversation about how Wins Produced sees the Raptors as a wasteland of players who are bad on both ends of the court – Except for Johnson, Calderon, Evans and Davis.
Let’s ignore Calderon for a moment. Johson, Evans and Davis have to be producing these wins on the strength of their defense, since they are barely involved in the offense at all (measured by usage%).
There’s really no evidence that these players are good defenders. They’re good at collecting defensive rebounds, but the raptors are not. There are a lot of ways to look at a player’s ‘field defense’ or overall defense these days and none of them suggest this trio stands out from the Raptors.
And that doesn’t matter for the purposes of our non-conversation, as Wins Produced doesn’t use counterpart inputs or anything beyond the box score. Defensive rebounds, steals, blocks and the team adjustment are the only elements of defense that WP considers. That the “WP story” ends up being about defensive rebounds should not be a surprise.
Devin
February 21, 2011
Please read the following post:
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/a-comment-on-coaching-and-learning/
Greyberger
February 22, 2011
I’ve been kicked out of nicer places than this. If the kind of comments I bring aren’t wanted, then you should say so, rather than directing me twice to a post I’ve already read.