David Biderman – of the Wall Street Journal – has looked at how often teams with two starting All-Stars have played as badly as the Knicks have played since Carmelo Anthony came to the Big Apple. The answer… not often.
Okay, the Knicks – despite defeating the Magic in Monday night – have not been good. Could anyone have expected this outcome?
Before this trade happened, I thought the Knicks were about a 50 win team with Carmelo. At least, that’s what I told the Wall Street Journal. But that forecast required that we not only know the productivity of the players the Knicks employ, but also the minutes each player would player.
Now that the Knicks have played 20 games with Anthony, we now know the minutes. So let’s re-visit that forecast. The following table reports what we should have expected each player to do in the past 20 games, given the performance this season before “the trade” and minutes played after “the trade”. The table also reports what has actually happened.
The team’s record with Anthony is 8-12. Given performance before the trade (and again, minutes after the trade), we would have expected this team to be about 10-10. In other words, now that we know who has actually played, the forecasted wins for a season would be revised from about 50 wins (or what I told the Wall Street Journal before the trade) to about 41 victories.
When we look at actual Wins Produced, the team should be about 9-11. In sum, the Knicks – as a team – are not really performing much different from expectations. And again, these are expectations we would have if we knew minutes played (which we didn’t know before the trade).
To understand the reduced expectations, let’s go back to the explanation behind the 50-win forecast. Here is what I said in February:
In the article it is noted that I think the Knicks could be a 50-win team with this trade. Forecasting is of course difficult. Especially about the future. But here is a quick summary of my thinking on this move. Essentially I see the trade as having three key components:
- Carmelo Anthony replaces Wilson Chandler
- Chauncey Billups replaces Raymond Felton
- Someone (probably Ronny Turiaf) takes the minutes of Timofey Mozgov
A month ago I offered some numbers that indicated these three components improved the Knicks to about 50 wins (or about 8 wins better than they were across a complete season). Now that we see the minutes played, though, we see that two of these three aspects of the trade didn’t quite happen.
Specifically, Billups has been hurt. So he hasn’t played as much as expected. In addition, the minutes that went to Mozgov have essentially been replaced in the frontcourt by Jared Jeffries. Soon after this trade happened, Jeffries was cut by the Houston Rockets and signed by the Knicks. Although Jeffries has been somewhat productive in the past, this year he has been about as good as Mozgov. And that means the small gain I expected the Knicks to realize with Mozgov playing elsewhere haven’t been realized. In fact, because Jeffries plays more than Mozgov, the “swap” of Mozgov for Jeffries has really not helped.
The injury to Billups and the addition of Jeffries are not the only observations we could make about the Knicks. Since the trade…
- Landry Fields is still the most productive player on the team, but he has declined. So he is not leading by as much as he was before.
- Amare Stoudemire – who some people saw as an MVP candidate earlier in the year – was below average before the trade. He is still below average (and maybe I should offer a post on that issue in the future).
- Carmelo Anthony was above average before the trade and is above average in New York. But he is not very far above average. And he is not really a star; at least, not in terms of production.
- Tony Douglass and Roger Mason have both played well since the trade. So the strength of this team is not their star forwards (i.e. Amare and Melo). The strength is in the backcourt.
- And that strength in the backcourt would be improved if Chauncey Billups played all the time and produced as he did in Denver. In other words, with a healthy Billups the Knicks would be a bit better than average. But even with Billups healthy, this is not a contending team.
Although the Knicks are getting productive play from their guards, once again, it is not enough to turn this team into a contender. And there is a simple explanation for this outcome: The Knicks do not have enough productive players to contend for a title.
Yes, they have two starters from the All-Star game. If this starting duo had been taken from a group including LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, or Chris Paul; then the Knicks would be contenders. The Knicks, though, have acquired relatively unproductive stars. Consequently, fans of this team shouldn’t expect to see a contender until more productive players are added.
And just to note… changing the coach –without changing the players – is probably not going to make any difference.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
fricktho
March 30, 2011
Landry Fields’ production probably wasn’t sustainable, but he is still a very good player. His rebounds are falling off. Anthony, Amare, and Billups are all playing below their career averages. Toney Douglas is playing very well, coupled with Fields, Mason, and Billups the backcourt is very strong. Something missing is accounting for the loss of Gallinari. You mentioned Anthony, Billups, and Turiaf replacing Chandler, Felton, and Mosgov, but nothing about the fact Jared Jeffries and Shawne Williams have combined to replace Gallinari, and there seems to be a big drop off there. It would also appear the Knicks need to be giving more minutes to Sheldon Williams and fewer to Shawne Williams and Jeffries, but we know that D’antoni prefers his players be able to stretch the floor, which leaves Amare at the center position, and that is not an ideal spot for him. He’s not Dwight Howard where he can rebound and protect the rim all by himself, especially on a team known not to emphasize defense.
This seems to be a case where you don’t really need WP to tell you why the Knicks aren’t that good. Yes it helps, but it’s clear they lack front court depth and size, and the coaches preference for certain players doesn’t help in that area. Randolph has a WP48 of 0.99 since going to Minnesota and Gallo has a WP48 of .210 in Denver. Bet the Knicks would like that production at the moment.
TRad
March 30, 2011
Your analysis is invalid. You’ve completely forgotten about such essential factors as clutchness and veteran leadership. Oh, and team chemistry, do not forget about chemistry ever again.
Matt
March 30, 2011
The WSJ article is a little ridiculous; I was expecting much more when I clicked the link. Its a little absurd to ask Amare and Melo to match the production of prime Kobe/Shaq and prime Jordan/Pippen. And, both of those examples referred to better teams that had been together for years, not 6 weeks on the Knicks.
Regardless, I imagine the Knicks’ trade was made to ignite the fanbase (success) and with the goal of building around two “superstars.” While I agree entirely that Melo and Amare are largely overrated, I can’t fault Knicks management for pursuing a strategy that consolidated several good players for one very good one.
As much as I hate the Knicks (76ers fan), Melo/Amare (WP fan), and the idea of firing a coach simply because the team is stuggling, getting rid of D’Antoni could help this team a lot if they’re able to bring in someone with comparable achievements. They were doomed when they tried to combine 3 (Melo/Amare/D’Antoni) overrated, one dimensional components into a single, winning structure.
Perhaps you need someone like a Thibs to balance Amare and Melo’s inefficiencies with his own game plans. It’s certainly working in hiding Derrick Rose’s flaws.
Schermeister
March 30, 2011
Im loving the train wreck knicks. I got to see a lot of Carmelo in the west here and never liked his game. Plus its just funny after all the drama and build up
Michael
March 30, 2011
Prof, you might want to amend this section:
“A month ago I offered some numbers that indicated these three components improved the Knicks by about 50 wins”
Thats one heck of a projected improvement!
Rudruff
March 30, 2011
Try not to make up words when refuting an argument.
Italian Stallion
March 30, 2011
I don’t think the initial trade analysis is correct even though I essentially agree with the conclusion.
Carmelo Anthony is not replacing Wilson Chandler at SF. He’s replacing Danilo Gallinari.
Wilson Chandler was used for around 36 minutes a night, but his minutes were a mix of SF/PF and even some SG depending on whether he was starting and the Knicks were going with a small line up (PF) or coming off the bench and subbing for Gallo (SF) or playing SG/PF with Gallo.
IMO one of the minor problems for the Knicks has been the loss of Chandler.
Some of his minutes are going to less versatile, inferior, poorer defensive players. I believe he is playing a lot more SF for Denver (subbing for Melo) and it would not shock me if he’s one of the reasons Denver’s defense has improved.
dberri
March 30, 2011
Thanks Michael. I fixed it.
Adam C. Madison
March 30, 2011
Isn’t this site supposed to, ya know, go against the grain a bit? Be an outlier?
Monkey see, monkey do.
nerdnumbers
March 30, 2011
Adam,
I don’t understand why you visit this site. I think in some weird way you think your negative comments are helping or that you come across as intelligent. Really (and some of the replies including Philip’s dissertation on the subject seem to reinforce this) you are coming across as a negative internet bully that enjoys kicking over sand castles.
Let me say this the way I see it. There are people at this blog having fun with numbers (even if they say Melo sucks, sorry IS!) You’re welcome to join us. If you’d rather to be negative and pompous then you’re welcome to shut up.
Italian Stallion
March 30, 2011
nerdnumbers,
Unfortunately, you are preaching to the choir when it comes to my view on Melo.
I have only one hope. IMO D’Antoni’s reputation as a genius offensive coach is well deserved (even if he’s somewhat limited). Almost everything he does is designed to improve offensive “efficiency”. He’s great at it. So if anyone can change Melo’s game and get the best out of his natural “physical talent” on offense it’s D’Antoni.
Of course I’m not even sure Tom Thibodeau could make the Knicks a good defensive team, but if they add anything to deepen the bench next year they’ll have the #1 offense for sure.
Gil Meriken
March 30, 2011
In much the same way that I think fundamentalist Christians should express their closely held but unpopular beliefs, I think that true believers in Wins Produced should do the same.
A fundamentalist Christian, by following the word Bible, must admit that all non-believers are going to Hell, regardless of the life they lived.
A Wins Produced fundamentalist believes that Kevin Love has been much more productive (per 48 minutes) than Lebron James this year, and that Miami would have been better off with Kevin Love, and Minnesota would have been worse off with Lebron.
I think that WPers should express this as loudly and clearly as they can, and publish this fact in every reputable media outlet, and send an email to every team in the league expressing this opinion. It may be unpopular, but at least people will know what you stand for.
Schermeister
March 30, 2011
1 rebound for Amare in the nets game. WoW
Italian Stallion
March 30, 2011
Gil,
It seems to me that everyone that has a serious interest in advanced stats already knows what Wins Produced says about the productivity of all the high level players in the NBA.
The ratings are updated daily here: http://nerdnumbers.com/seasons
Some people agree and some don’t.
I’m not so sure swapping Love for James would work well for Miami given that they already have Bosh at PF. However, personally, I would love to see what would happen if they also swapped Bosh for an equal value C and Miami’s “big 3” became Wade, Love, and “X”.
Wade dragged a team of moderate talent to 47 wins and the playoffs last year. I’d have to think Wade, Love, and a legit C would be quite formidable.
As to the T-Wolves, IMO it would take an act of the Christian God that raised Lazarus from the dead to win with that team in 2010/2011. :-)
Philip
March 31, 2011
Schermeister, Amare isn’t a bad rebounder. He just prefers not to take rebounds away from his teammates.
marparker
March 31, 2011
Changing the coach might help. You think Larry Brown would ever play Jarred Jeffries?
Thomas
March 31, 2011
Doesn’t “the decline of Landry Fields” highlight a flaw in WP? His startlingly high productivity was largely based on the fact that he rebounded well above expectation. With another above average rebounder coming in, he has declined. I would think this to be self-evident, but was apparently not accounted for in the initial projection.
Italian Stallion
March 31, 2011
Philip,
lmao. :-)
Thomas,
IMHO, if you are willing to recognize that there is some level of diminishing returns for rebounds, you should incorporate that into your model. Even if that adjustment doesn’t shift most of the values much, there are some players like Fields/Kidd that would be impacted by enough to matter. If anything, IMO that adjustment would tend to INCREASE acceptance of the model.
nerdnumbers
March 31, 2011
IS,
I’m curious about your thoughts on D’Antoni from a minute allocation perspective. Amare started rough but improved but has now declined. Landry Fields and Felton were playing great but declined. Looking at the minutes D’Antoni has been playing his stars a lot and it looks like fatigue could be a factor in decrease. Felton has played fewer minutes in Denver and his production has gone up (altitude also helps). I heard someone say Fields is playing less because he’s burned out. Melo is also playing more minutes in NYK than in Denver. Thoughts?
John
March 31, 2011
One of the reasons according to the Knicks beat writer that Fields is playing less is that Billups has trouble guarding point guards so they play him with Douglass so he can guard the 2. Although Billups has been hurt so i guess that does not totally explain it. Better explanation is that Fields does not put up high scoring totals and as a life long Knick fan I can tell you that is what they value most.
Italian Stallion
March 31, 2011
nerdnumbers,
I have reason to believe that players get tired when the schedule gets tougher short term, but I have never seen a study on whether high minutes early in the season translates into lower productivity later in the season. Popovich is known to try to save players for the end of the season. Perhaps it might be wise to trust his judgment considering he’s had a lot of success in the playoffs and later in seasons.
Maybe it has something to do with the accumulation of minor injuries that aren’t given enough to time to heal.
There’s no doubt that D’Antoni pushed a few of his players really hard early in the season and even played several right through injuries that might have sidelined them for a couple of nights elsewhere.
As John said, Fields playing less probably has something to do with Billups’ inability to defend really quick PGs. They are playing Douglas/Billups together and that leaves Fields as the odd man out.
marparker
March 31, 2011
re; Billups defense
ok, isn’t a little funny to assert that the Knicks defense could get any worse
re Popovich minutes allocation
I know the Spurs have been really good for a long time, but shouldn’t a team with Ginoboli and Duncan and a really good supporting cast have been able to win back to back championships at least once?
Philip
March 31, 2011
marparker,
It requires a fair degree of luck to even win one championship. I say this as a Spurs fan – except for ’99, during every one of our championship runs we could have fallen short. It could have happened in ’03 against the Nets, ’05 against the Mavs, or ’07 against the Suns.
No matter how good you are, there are usually at least two other teams that are pretty close to being as good as you. Some combination of the Lakers/Suns/Mavs/Kings/Blazers/Wolves have always been pretty close to the Spurs out west, as were the Pistons/Nets out east. You’re right that the Spurs have been really good for a long time – it’s just that there’s always been really good other teams as well. The Spurs could have repeated several times. They could also have ended every playoffs between 99 and 07 with a loss.
It requires luck, both in terms of how individual games go, and how healthy your players are – really, the only thing that’s kept the Spurs from contending the past four years has been Manu’s myriad of injuries. And if you’re run into a player playing out of his mind – think 06 Wade – then it’ll be an extremely tough out. (It does go both ways. ’03 Duncan was great but his playoff run was otherworldly. If Horry didn’t go all Horry against the Pistons in ’05, the Pistons probably would have taken the series. I can’t remember anyone of note having anything less than 100% health against the Spurs, however; ah, the joys of recall bias).
dberri argued that you’d need a 23(?) game series to get a statistically reliable result of who’s the better team. So there’s that.
ballin
March 31, 2011
Again, I’m going to have to agree with the dismissal of the value of coaching.
Sure, it’s MOSTLY about what players you have on your team. No doubt about that. But convincing a team to commit to play good, hard, *intelligent* defense night in and night out, all in an effort to perfect the system for the playoffs, well that’s just simply a job that not all coaches can do.
Every player on the Knicks is physically gifted enough to play great defense, yet they don’t. On the other hand, by NO measure should the aging Boston Celtics be phenomenal at defense. Yet they are. I honestly believe a lot of that has to do with the coaching and the mentality the coaches instill upon their players.
Just wait, once Dantoni is fired the Knicks will suddenly play much better defense with a new coach. Then I’m sure somebody on this site will attribute the better defense to the Knicks acquiring some role players or making minor personnel changes. *sigh* It’s predictable.
ballin
March 31, 2011
i meant to say disagree* can the mod edit that please?
nerdnumbers
April 1, 2011
Ballin,
Gotta be some irony here. We’re predicting a coach will be fired. You’re predicting how we’ll act once it happens. “*sigh* it’s predictable” – with so much unpredictable stuff in the world be happy when you can know something ahead of time!
I’d say a few things on the coaching note. It’s not that coaching doesn’t matter and in fact some coaches (Phil Jackson for instance) are very valuable. The truth is that the population of coaches is very similar. They will coach players in the same fashion and as a result when compared to the population of available they won’t make a huge impact.
A coach can matter in terms of minute allocation. In that regard I actually give a lot of props to Pops in San Antonio and actually question D’Antoni who loves playing his players ragged and has stopped playing Fields enough.
Finally, coaches tend to get fired in the middle of a bad streak. The team usually improves their play immediately getting a new coach but I would posit a lot of the time this is regression towards the mean. I know it’s boring (and the subject of the next post!) but getting good players is the best strategy for winning, good coaching not as much.
ballin
April 1, 2011
Nerd,
Then I’d like you to explain something I’ve noticed upon investigation:
Look at coaches who are known for their defensive acumen or lack thereof and whom have coached various teams. I looked at Phil Jackson, Mike Dantoni, Scott Skiles, and Jeff Van Gundy.
Notice anything? There is VERY little variation in the defensive ratings of their teams over the years, despite switching team, and despite ever-changing personnel. Teams coached by Scott Skiles, Phil Jackson, and Jeff Van Gundy have always been good on defense, while Mike Dantoni’s teams have always been terrible.
The players have not been consistent. All of these coaches have actually even switched teams entirely at least once. Yet their defensive rating varies very little. Much lower than one would expect, if your hypothesis were correct.
I would absolutely love for you to provide a convincing explanation for this. My mind is open, it truly is, but right now I feel as though the evidence lays more heavily on the side which says coaches have a significant impact on defense (though probably not offense).
ballin
April 1, 2011
Also, just to add a point…
If your hypothesis is correct, that coaches don’t have much of an impact due to their similarity, then the consistency of the defensive ratings of the coaches despite their personnel changes HAS to be chalked up as nothing more than a mere coincidence.
Think about that… that is the only logical conclusion consistent with your hypothesis. You must contest that every time one of their teams traded a defensively apt player, he was replaced with a player who was approximately the same on defense. Further, when these coaches switched teams, they switched to teams who were approximately the same on defense as their old teams. All a mere coincidence, because the coaches had nothing to do with it.
That’s an interesting theory, indeed.
Italian Stallion
April 1, 2011
Ballin,
I think part of the reason D’Antoni teams tend to not be as good on defense is that he sacrifices some defense to gain a greater amount of offense.
IMO if Tom Thibodeau became the Knicks defensive coach, he could not make the Knicks a much better defensive team without sacrificing some of the offense.
For example:
If you instruct some players to leak out as soon as a shot goes up, you aren’t going to get as many defensive rebounds as if you instruct everyone to hit the boards. As a result, you will give up more offensive rebounds, possessions, and extra points. However, if the efficiency on the fast breaks that result when you get the rebound is way above average, you may net out to a positive point differential by sacrificing defense.
If you play Amare at the C, you may be making a huge sacrifice in defensive efficiency, but if Amare is running hog wild on the offensive end because the typical C can’t stay with him either, the net could still be a positive.
While I’m not willing to go so far as to say D’Antoni is a good defensive coach, IMO he knowingly makes trade offs on pace and match ups to maximize the offensive efficiency with some cost to the defensive efficiency.
Considering most of the media doesn’t even understand the pace aspect of this, he gets a bum rap about his ability to coach defense.
Adam C. Madison
April 1, 2011
“It requires a fair degree of luck to even win one championship. I say this as a Spurs fan…”
HOLLA! WHAT’S UP!
Are you worried after their 5th loss in a row? I’m indifferent; the second seed is an easier first-round matchup, and I think there’s a serious (38-42%) chance the Thunder can take care of business for us and take out the Lakers in the second round.
Dude, can you believe that’s the first time in the Duncan era that’s ever happened? How is this guy not considered top 5 of all-time?
ballin
April 2, 2011
Italian Stallion,
So by your own admission the coaches can affect the defense, which is all that I’m arguing.
Your entire post is a concession to my point; you mention several instances in which the coach’s instruction can affect the defense such as by telling players to leak out after shots.It just appears that you disagree on the merits of replacing Dantoni because you think sacrificing defense for offense balances out.
Interestingly enough, it would seem that most of the other posters on here as well as Mr. Berri would disagree with your point, since they have taken the hard-line stance that coaches can’t affect the defense, only personnel can.
As far as the merits of replacing Dantoni with a more defensively-oriented coach, I disagree with your conclusion that Dantoni’s offense balances out his defense. As you’ll see, many of the best offensive teams have great defenses, which leads me to the conclusion that many of Dantoni’s defensive “sacrifices” are actually unnecessary.
Philip
April 2, 2011
ballin,
D’antoni’s teams have not always been bad defensively. The Suns were average from 05 to 07; it was their fast pace and therefore inflated opponent points per game average gave some people the mistaken impression that their defense was terrible. The Knicks are terrible defensively, but they were terrible defensively for the four years before D’Antoni coached, including when Brown was coaching. The only great defensive player he’s ever had is Marion.
Jackson’s teams have been mostly great defensively. But in Chicago he had Jordan, Pippen and Grant/Cartwright or Rodman. In LA, he’s had Kobe and a slew of good defensive bigs.
Skiles has had years where his teams have been great defensively. But he’s also had years – 02 in Phoenix, and 08 in Chicago – when his teams were just average.
I’m not saying that coaching doesn’t matter. But personnel matters much, much more.
Adam,
Even though from a gut standpoint it seems like a losing streak at the end of a season is hugely detrimental to a team/indicates that the team will struggle in the post season, have you seen any evidence that a five-game losing streak at the end of the season matters any more than those same five games intermittently throughout the season? I haven’t. I’d be curious if there’s any analysis otherwise.
*Cough ARUTORO cough*
I’m much more worried about health. Duncan and Ginobli’s health are the difference between being a good team and being championship contenders.
It looks like LA might wrest HCA from us, but did anyone, even Spurs fans, expect us to have it beyond the first round? I was skeptical even when we were 29-3; too many of those wins were close wins. We were bound to start losing them. Well, now we are.
None of the top 10 in the west beyond LA are really too different, so I don’t think matchups matter too much (though I’d prefer not to see the Grizz in the first round).