According to Don Seeholzer of the Pioneer Press, Kevin Love is angry. (HT TrueHoop)

“That rookie-sophomore (bull),” Love said. “I’m sorry to say, but that’s what it was. I was pretty upset today about it, but I’m not going to let that drag into the future at all. There’s always next year. Pardon my French, but that was just (bull).”

Wolves coach Kevin McHale had a similar reaction before the game.

“I just heard (that). What a travesty that is,” he said. “That’s utterly ridiculous. Who picks that team?”

Although McHale suspected it was the media, NBA assistant coaches are actually responsible for choosing the players who participate in the NBA’s Rookie Challenge.  And these assistant coaches found nine rookies who were more deserving than Kevin Love.

Giving Love to Love

Here is what Henry Abbott – of TrueHoop – had to say about Love just a few days ago:

…if you take:

Every rookie who has ever played in the NBA since 1946 …

Weed out everyone who played less than twenty minutes per game …

And sort them by who gets the highest percentage of total rebounds while on the court …

You’ll find that two current rookies are in the top ten all time. Which is really something.

One of them is Greg Oden, who is ninth at the moment. He’s ahead of people like Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson. Not bad. Not bad at all.

Another 2008-2009 rookie, however, is currently third all time. By this measure he’s ahead of Shaquille O’Neal, Charles Oakley, Buck Williams, and Bill Walton (trailing only Clifford Ray and Larry Smith, who were three years older in their rookie years than the boy I’m talking about).

This rookie is also better known for doing something besides rebounding.

But TrueHoop reader Larry has pointed out, and Basketball-Reference.com confirms, this player is certainly showing that he’s a special rebounder.

So … who is he? 

Kevin Love of the Minnesota Timberwolves. Here’s the evidence.

His total rebounding percentage is greater than his age, which just about never happens. He’s only 20, but he grabs 21.3 percent of the rebounds while he’s on the court.

The top rookies and sophomores

Although Love dominates on the boards, he’s not much of a scorer.  As one can see HERE, Love currently ranks 13^th among all rookies in points scored per game.  Of the top nine rookies, eight were named to the roster of the Rookie Challenge.  The lone exception was D.J. Augustin, whose spot was taken by Greg Oden (the number one choice in the 2007 draft).

A similar story is told for the sophomores.  Each of the top eight sophomores in points scored per game – as seen HERE — was named to the sophomore team (the lone exception was Aaron Brooks).  In sum, just as we often see when we look at other decisions in basketball, scoring dominates the assistant coaches’ choices for the Rookie Challenge.

If we move past scoring, though, we see why Love and McHale were a bit miffed.

Table One: The Top Rookies at the Midpoint of the 2008-09 NBA Season

Table Two: The Top Sophomores at the Midpoint of the 2008-09 NBA Season

Tables One and Two report the top rookies and sophomores as the midpoint (after 41 games) of the 2008-09 season.  As one can see, whether one looks at rookies or sophomores, Kevin Love’s production of wins leads the way.  This is true when you look at Wins Produced or WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].

Obviously much of Love’s production is derived from his ability to get rebounds.  Relative to scoring, rebounds tend to be undervalued by many basketball observers. Certainly scoring is what we tend to focus on in watching a game.   There is also a sense that rebounds are really not about the player who grabs the ball.  This argument tends to note either the issue of diminishing returns (i.e. one player’s rebounds are taken from a teammate) and/or the importance of defense in creating rebounding opportunities.  It certainly is the case that we see diminishing returns in the rebound numbers.  But as I noted a few days ago (and will be discussed briefly in our next book), the effect is quite small.   In addition, rebounds per minute are quite consistent across time.  This suggests that a player’s rebounding numbers are really about the player (not so much the defenders around the player).  And this means that what the T-Wolves are getting from Love today should continue tomorrow (because he really is good at getting rebounds).

Unfortunately for Love, what he’s offering doesn’t get much…. okay, love (had to see that coming).  And this is the problem for all these assistants who someday hope to lead a team.  On the one hand, coaches are often telling players to understand their role and not focus solely on scoring (see HERE and HERE). On the other hand – as Love has learned – scorers tend to capture more than their fair share of attention and love (okay, I’ll stop).  This conflicting message must make coaching in the NBA harder than it has to be.  And it could be solved if coaches simply understood the Wisdom of Red Auerbach. 

Looking at the Game

Okay, enough on Love’s justified anger.  Let’s talk about the Rookie Challenge. Continue reading →

On Monday night the New Orleans Hornets were the last team to reach 41 games played.  With every team at 41 games, I can now begin my analysis of the NBA at the mid-point of the 2008-09 season.  Before I get to that, though, here are some brief comments on the Hornets (I will start the midpoint review on Thursday night).

The 2005 Draft Again

In 2004-05, the Hornets suffered their worst season – in terms of wins and losses – in their history.  The reward for this season was the fourth selection in the 2005 draft.  Obviously before the Hornets could make their choice, three other teams would get to pick first. Here is how those picks have worked out:

• The Milwaukee Bucks had the first pick and selected Andrew Bogut. Bogut has managed to post above average numbers, producing 19.7 wins after his first three seasons.
• The second choice was made by the Atlanta Hawks. Despite a need for a point guard, the Hawks selected Marvin Williams. Williams posted below average numbers in each of his first three seasons, producing only 8.9 wins. Although he has become slightly above average in 2008-09, his numbers still lag behind what one might expect of the second player chosen in a draft.
• Deron Williams was taken by the Utah Jazz with the third pick. D. Williams was named to the All-NBA Second Team in 2008, and his wins production confirms his status as a star. In 2007-08 he posted a 0.222 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. An average mark is 0.100, so D. Williams was more than twice as productive as an average NBA player last season. If we look across his first three seasons we see that D. Williams has produced 24.1 wins. In other words, he has offered more than Bogut or M.Williams.

With these players off the board the Hornets turn finally came. And with the fourth selection in the 2005 draft, New Orleans selected Chris Paul.  If you look back at the numbers of the first three selections you will see that the trio of Bogut, M.Williams, and D. Williams has combined to produce 52.7 wins in their first three seasons.  In Paul’s first three seasons he produced 55.0 wins.  Yes, the fourth selection in 2005 has done more than the first three choices have managed as a group.

One of the All-Time Greats

And this season, Paul is even better.  To see how much better we turn to Table One. 

Table One: The New Orleans Hornets in 2008-09 after 41 games

From Table One we see that Paul – after 41 games in 2008-08 – has already produced 15.9 wins.  In 2007-08, only ten players produced more wins for the entire season (and one of these was Paul).  If Paul continues at this pace in 2008-09 he will finish with 31.8 Wins Produced.  And if he eclipses the 30 win mark he will be first player to do this since Kevin Garnett (30.7 wins) did this in 2002-03.

Here is some more perspective on the greatness that is Chris Paul.  Continue reading →

Just prior to the last game of the 2008 NFL regular season, Brian Burke – of Advanced NFL Stats (one of the best statistical sites on the web) – posted the following comment:

Dave Berri from Wages of Wins posted his weekly QB and RB rankings based on econometric models like my own. Note who the top QB is–Pennington. Dave may have an updated ranking by the time you read this. He also adds his thoughts on an ongoing discussion between amateur/internet sabermetricians and academic researchers.

I read this comment just as I was getting ready to put together my rankings for Week 16.  And then I had a thought.  Why not wait until the last game is played and then just post the Final Rankings for the 2008 season?

With that thought in mind I went and did something else.  And that was followed by a few more weeks of me doing “something else.”  Now the Super Bowl is just a week away and I think it is time I finally get around to posting those Final Rankings:

Table One: Final Quarterback Rankings for 2008

Table Two: Final Running Back Rankings for 2008

Brief Ranking Thoughts

Here are some thoughts on these rankings (and be warned, there are quite a few thoughts): Continue reading →

Last night I was watching the Orlando Magic play the Boston Celtics on TNT.  At halftime a heated argument (at least it looked heated) took place between Kenny Smith and Chris Webber.  Essentially, Smith argued that how your team performs should impact whether or not you are placed on the All-Star team.  C-Webb vehemently disagreed (with support from Gary Payton).  The exchange led me to send the following e-mail to Henry Abbott (of TrueHoop):

Not sure you are watching TNT’s basketball coverage tonight, but Chris Webber just said something I think is very interesting. They were discussing who should be an All-Star and Kenny Smith argued that the record of the team should be a factor. C-Webb then disagreed, noting that he played for good teams and bad teams. On both teams his work-out routine was the same and his effort was the same. Unfortunately, outcomes were different because other people (GM, Owner, etc…) put together teams that were either good or bad. Since C-Webb didn’t get to pick his teammates he didn’t think he should be penalized for this outcome.

What is interesting about this statement is that C-Webb is arguing that his performance was essentially independent of his teammates. Gary Payton then chimed in and essentially agreed.

This is interesting because it contradicts a piece of conventional wisdom in the NBA. People believe that teammates play a large role in the performance of the individual. C-Webb and Payton are arguing that this is not the case. And I think the empirical evidence supports their position.

Today, at TrueHoop, Henry responded to my observation.  Before I repost what he had to say, let me note that this resulted in a series of e-mails between Henry and I.  After I post what Henry originally said I will also share our further thoughts (with Henry’s permission):

Henry Responds (see Leaders, Wins, Teammates, and All-Stars at TrueHoop)

Whoa, holy cow is this a complicated issue.

To me, to think about it, it helps to remove the conversation from basketball for a moment. (This is one of those “bear with me” moments. Hang in there, I’ll make it make sense, I promise.)

You go to work. There is a leak in the roof. Water is dripping onto your desk. You can not do your job.

Now … what happens next?

Probably the first thing you’re thinking is: Fixing the roof is not my job. My job has a definition, and this ain’t it. Somebody needs to get on this, and pronto, because I need to do less mopping up my desk, and more of the stuff that’s in my job description.

So then you go and talk to … who? Your landlord? Your boss? Your maintenance guy?

Somebody whose job this is.

The person you talk to about it, they aren’t loving this either. This might be something they can handle, but it is still unexpected and unpleasant. Fixing that leak was on nobody’s to do list for this day.

If you have good leadership where you work, though, I put it to you that the people you talk to about it will embrace the challenge. and take responsibility for getting it done, even if they are not able to fix it themselves. They might ask you to take a role. (“Could you move your desk for a couple of days?” kind of thing.) But somebody needs to make clear that getting this fixed is their deal.

Nothing like being self-employed, or running a start-up, to teach you this. Whatever walks through the door is your job in that setting. (If there is no boss to turn to, then guess what: You’re the boss. Not as fun as you’d thought it be, huh?)

(So, now, here we go, trying to connect this to Chris Webber, and reality.)

The reality is that, as nice and normal as it is to want a finite set of obligations … that’s not how the world is.  Your little list of duties could never be long enough to address everything that might come up. Lightning strikes, life, the weather, happenstance, coincidence, the economy, the Spanish Inquisition, … crazy things happen all the time. 

And if you are insulated from all that, if you have a nice, tidy list of responsibilities, then that means you are living under the protective umbrella of somebody else. Some leader or protector is taking those lumps for you. Which is as it should be. Not everyone is equipped to deal with everything.

So, I don’t know if Chris Webber is right or wrong about how you can be just the same player on a good team or a bad team. But I do know this, any good team — in business, in basketball, in anything — has at least one if not several people who are equipped to take responsibility for whatever comes up. On many teams this may be a GM, coach, trainer, etc.

But it is often a player. In an environment where top players have more power, money, and longevity than coaches, a star like LeBron James or Kobe Bryant is in the best position of anyone in the franchise to lead in almost everything the franchise does, from charity work to boosting morale.

Some players, some of the very best players, obsess about how to make their team winners. Other players, also some of the very best players, obsess about how to be the best players they can be. 

Those are slightly different things. And for the first kind of player, there really is no tidy definition of what their job might be. I sincerely respect the people who embrace this challenge.

Even just little things on the court: Let’s say you’re a big man, and know the point guard is supposed to close out on that open shooter on the perimeter. You’re supposed to stay with the big man on the low block.  But that shooter is wide open, and makes 44% of his shots from there. Are you going to just do your job and stay with your guy (everyone will know whose fault it was) or are you going to take responsibility for the team’s success, and close out the shooter? Or even more importantly, are you going to think of a way to help the point guard handle it better next time?

Just being a good player … That’s huge. But it’s not to be confused with taking responsibility for the team.

And I think that on some level people know that. And I think that on some level, maybe it’s even subconscious, that’s why coaches tend to vote together an All-Star team made mostly of winners. You can’t really know, from afar, which top players have fully taken on responsibility for the team, and are playing a role in seeing to it that the roof doesn’t leak. But you can know that if everything on the team is not working, there’s not much of a chance that the leadership is stellar. And if the team is humming along, well then the star of that team tends to get the benefit of the doubt. 

If you’re a great player on a losing team? Consider yourself warned that becoming an All-Star is not just about working out and being talented, as Chris Webber suggests. The riddle you have to solve is also about figuring out that whole team thing, which is kind of messy. But it’s a team game.

Too many of the things that go into being a team leader are hard to quantify, and undercelebrated. You don’t get to be in the evening’s highlights for boosting the morale of a teammate, hitting the open man, or rotating crisply on defense. But you do get to win some games for that, I believe, and you do get the inside track on being an All-Star because of that. It’s a system with some bias in favor of winners, and I’m OK with that.

My Response

Here is an e-mail I sent to Henry after I read his post:

My sense is that for teams to work they have to buy into the idea that they are all in it together.  So the Cavaliers have to see themselves as a “team”.  But clearly, LeBron is the key to the team.  Take him away, and the team has real problems.  Take away Pavlovic and the Cavs still keep winning.

I think this is the point Webber and Payton were making.  At one point Payton argued that if he played for the Clippers he would still be a great player.  His team wouldn’t win much, but he would still be great.  I think that is true.  At least, I think moving a player like LeBron to the Sacramento Kings isn’t going to transform the Kings into a championship contender.

I think what this ultimately boils down to is a conflict between a necessary myth (everyone on a team is it in it together) and the fact that there are substantial differences in the productivity of individuals.  And these differences do  not depend on the teammates.  Webber and Payton were great players, regardless of who they played with.  It should be the case that we can still say that, even when their teammates were not that good.

And Henry Responds Again

Yes. Big range in talents and productivity among players.

But I think that maybe 90% of players perform well short of their best-case-scenario potential.

Title teams tend to have very productive role players, compared to other role players.

I think stars on the leading edge do things to inspire those role players, and to get more productivity out of them over the long haul.

And then I respond again

It is true that title teams have very good role players.  I think the evidence suggests, though, that these players were also good role players before they got to the title team.

I would add, the one issue you see when you look at the performance of players on a team is diminishing returns.  The more productive a player, the less productive his teammates.  This is not a large effect, but it is there in the data.  It also suggests the opposite of what people argue.  Productive star players diminish the productivity of their teammates.  After all, there is only one ball.  If one player takes a large number of shots or gets a large number of rebounds, there is less for others to do.  Again, it is not a large effect.  But it is there.

Summary

All in all, this was an excellent exchange.  The Kenny Smith view (supported by Henry) argues that teams win and lose together.  The view of Chris Webber and Gary Payton (which I support) is that a star player should not be penalized by the poor play of his teammates. Continue reading →

Today’s guest post is another excellent offering from Erich Doerr .  Erich first contacted me prior to the 2006 NBA Draft with a statistical preview in hand.  Each subsequent year has seen improvement in the depth and breadth of his analysis. Outside of his basketball writing, Erich does consulting work for major software products by day and has started a fledgling sports-themed Open Source software initiative by night. 

While the NBA season is reaching a midpoint, the NCAA has already started steamrolling towards the best tourney on earth.  Using the same techniques applied in analyzing last year’s NCAA brackets, I have built a NCAA Monte Carlo simulator to analyze the remainder of this season.  The table that follows reports each team’s expected conference wins and the likelihood of a regular season conference title.

Table One: 2008-09 Conference Preview

To summarize, while North Carolina was blessed with the returns of Hansbrough and Lawson, Duke is statistically more likely to win the ACC given UNC’s rough start.  The Big East remains up for grabs with current leader Marquette due for a tough schedule, giving them a ~5% shot to win the conference.  Finally, even though the Sun Devils currently sit in fourth place, Arizona State comes in as the most likely team to win the Pac 10 regular season title.

Freshman & Draft Dreamin’

Recently, BasketballProspectus’s John Gasaway reviewed his top 25 freshmen.  Riffing on that article, the following table shows Gasaway’s top 25 and their PAWS stats (I’ve also included some top PAWS prospects that missed Gasaway’s list). 

Table Two: The Top Freshman in 2008-09

 Right off the top you’ll notice some Win Score skepticism for Greg Monroe, mostly due to his subpar rebounding to this point.  While the Win Score approach hesitates to endorse Greg Monroe, the scouting staff at DraftExpress.com does not, placing him as the third best talent in their 2009 Mock Draft.  Last year, DraftExpress kindly published my draft recap which included an early review of their 2009 mock draft.  Since then, more data is available and I have been able to update my analysis of next summer’s prospects with their current Win Score marks (see Table Three below).

Table Three: 2009 NBA Draft Prospects

Comparing DX’s post-draft mock made in July to their latest release, Blake Griffin has inherited their premier prospect crown (as Rubio seems to be pushing back his NBA arrival).  Griffin made a wise move to stay at Oklahoma, where he’s taken large strides in improving his rebounding and FG%. The stats match the scouting assessment, as his NCAA PAWS puts him in the top three.

Two Win Score SG favorites are also rising on the DX boards. James Harden and Stephen Curry have jumped from borderline lottery to top eight mock draft picks.  The top NCAA PAWS player currently is #1 Pittsburgh’s DeJuan Blair, who now projects as a mid first rounder.  Blair’s rebounding prowess is unquestionable, though his 6’7″ frame can be seen as a knock against his NBA potential.  Continue reading →