Bill Simmons – the latest issue of ESPN the Magazine – examines the evidence that he is a Kobe-hater.  Simmons provides various definitions of a “Kobe-hater” and explains why none apply to him personally.  Although his list of definitions is quite good, I think he missed the one definition that summarizes the term.  To the legions who are unabashed Kobe-lovers, a “Kobe-hater” is anyone who does not acknowledge that Kobe is the greatest player in the game today, the greatest to have ever played the game, and the greatest who will ever play the game on this planet, in this universe, and in any undiscovered dimensions where basketball can be played.

Anyone who has ever violated this view of Kobe – as I have done in the past – quickly feels the wrath of the Kobe-lovers.  In fact, despite the protests of Simmons, I am sure the argument he makes in his column denying his status as a “Kobe-hater” has elicited such a response.

Simmons on Kobe, LeBron, and the Knicks

In the column Simmons examines the games played recently by Kobe and LeBron James against the Knicks. 

Here are some numbers from the two games:

Kobe Bryant: 61 points, 0 rebounds, 3 assists

LeBron James: 52 points, 9 rebounds, 11 assists,

Simmons looked at these numbers and had the following reaction:

Kobe’s 61-point game represented the best and worst of basketball to me. His shotmaking was transcendent: a steady onslaught of jumpers, spin moves and fallaways made in his typically icy style, as efficient an outburst as you’ll ever see. On the other hand, his teammates stood around and watched him like movie extras. In 37 minutes, Kobe took 31 shots and another 20 free throws. He finished with three assists and no boards. He may as well have been playing by himself on one of those Pop-A-Shot machines.

….Really, it was the defining Kobe game. He elicited every reaction possible from lovers, haters and everyone in between. When LeBron arrived in New York two days later and notched his amazing 52/9/11, he didn’t break Kobe’s new record but definitely cheapened it. LeBron’s 52 came in the flow of the offense. When the Knicks doubled him, he found the open man. When they singled him, he scored. He dominated every facet of the game. It was a complete performance, basketball at its finest, everything we ever wanted from King James. And it happened 48 hours after Kobe’s big game … in the same building. Crazy.

I’ve been comparing those two games ever since. Never has basketball seemed more simple to me: I would rather watch a 52/9/11 than a 61/0/3. I would. It’s really that simple. It’s a matter of preference. So don’t call me a Kobe hater, call me a basketball lover.
And if Kobe ever put up a 52/9/11, yes, I would love him, too.

Here is my first reaction when I read this column: “Here is a column I agree with by Bill Simmons” (see Speeding Up Time for Bill Simmons and I Like Bill Simmons, Really I Do for two examples of disagreements). 

The basic message of The Wages of Wins – at least with respect to the evaluation of NBA players – is that there is more to player performance than scoring.  Following this lesson, one would expect that a well-rounded game that results in 52 points is worth more than 61 points without much else.

Comparing Kobe and LeBron

Of course, another lesson from The Wages of Wins is that expectations don’t always match the numbers.  To see this point, consider the simple Win Score model:

Win Score = PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST - FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF

With this model in hand, let’s look at what Kobe and LeBron did against the Knicks.

Kobe’s Win Score = 61 + 0 + 0 + 0.5 + 1.5 – 31 – 10 – 2 – 0.5 = 19.5

LeBron’s Win Score = 52 + 9 + 0 + 1 + 5.5 – 33 – 9.5 – 3 – 0.5 = 21.5

Okay, it looks like Simmons was right.  LeBron did a bit more than Kobe.  But Kobe-lovers would note (at least they should note), that Kobe only played 37 minutes.  LeBron was on the court for 44 minutes.  When we consider Win Score per 48 minutes, Kobe appears to be the more effective player ( and that’s true before we consider position played).

Kobe’s Win Score per 48 minutes = [19.5 / 37] * 48 = 25.3

LeBron’s Win Score per 48 minutes = [21.5 / 44] * 48 = 23.5

So on a per-minute basis, Kobe’s less diverse game trumps the all-around effort of LeBron.  How is this possible?

It’s thought that the Wages of Wins basketball measures are all about rebounds.  This comparison between Kobe and LeBron, though, suggests otherwise.  The one factor that has the largest impact on Win Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] – the more complex Wages of Wins measure – is shooting efficiency.  And when we look at shooting efficiency, Kobe was amazing against the Knicks.  His adjusted field goal percentage was 66.1%.  So although Kobe was below average with respect to rebounds, steals, and assists, Kobe’s amazing shooting efficiency resulted in an overall game that defied the expectations of Bill Simmons (and myself).

Now before the Kobe-lovers get too excited, I thought I would extend the comparison between Kobe and LeBron beyond one game.  And as Table One indicates, when we look past what these players recently did against the Knicks it becomes fairly clear that LeBron is the more productive player (sorry Kobe-lovers).

Table One: Comparing LeBron and Kobe

Both players are above average with respect to almost every statistic.  King James, though, does more.  In fact, LeBron has done more across the past four seasons than Kobe has done in his four best seasons.  And the difference is even bigger if we look at what each player has done in 2008-09.

Turning to Wins Produced we see the same story.  Across the past four seasons, LeBron has produced 79.8 wins and posted a 0.295 WP48.  As noted, LeBron is even better this season.  At the All-Star break his WP48 stands at 0.406. 

Again, Kobe is quite good.  But even his best seasons don’t come close to LeBron.  In Kobe’s four best seasons he produced 63.7 wins with a 0.250 WP48.  Again, these are excellent marks.  But Kobe has never surpassed the 0.300 mark and he certainly has never been close to what LeBron is doing this year.  And what Kobe did against the Knicks, or the 2009 All-Star game, doesn’t change this story.

Comments on Comments

As noted, when you suggest Kobe is not the greatest player in the game you tend to get a fairly negative reaction (see Kobe Myths for an example).  Such reactions caused me to think about the comments blogs such as these generate. Continue reading →

A quick question:  Should Maurice Williams been named to the All-Star team in 2008?

As I recall, no one thought that was the case when Williams was the second leading scorer for the Milwaukee Bucks last season. But as the second leading scorer in Cleveland – the team with the best efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) in the NBA today – people thought it was a “shamockery” (Ben Wallace’s word) that Williams was passed over in 2009.

Is Mo Williams, though, suddenly a different player?  As always, let’s look at some numbers.

Table One: Evaluating Maurice Williams in 2008-09

As Table One indicates, Williams is virtually the same player in Cleveland that he was in Milwaukee.  His shooting efficiency is somewhat better with the Cavs (although not much better) while his assists are down.  In fact, the drop-off in assists appears to more than offset his improved shooting.  Despite a small overall decline in Win Score, Mo Williams is suddenly an All-Star.

And this leads one to the obvious conclusion.  To be an All-Star you simply need to score for a winning team.  Last year Mo Williams scored some for a loser. And no one thought he was an All-Star. This year he gets to play with LeBron James — and Wallace, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Delonte West, and Anderson Varejao – and suddenly Mo Williams is one of the very best players in the game.

As I have noted before, the purpose of statistics is to separate a player from his teammates.  Mo Williams is essentially the same player he was in Milwaukee (and you don’t need Win Score or Wins Produced to see this).  So if he wasn’t an All-Star last year, why is he going this year?  For fans of the Rajon Rondo, Vince Carter, Andre Miller, Jose Calderon, Mike Bibby, Andre Iguodala, Caron Butler, Rodney Stuckey, and even Delonte West; the Mo Williams selection is truly a “shamockery”. Continue reading →

A few days ago Al Jefferson of the Minnesota Timberwolves tore his ACL and is now lost for the season.  As Table One indicates, Jefferson produced 8.2 wins this season and posted a 0.217 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. The former mark leads the team.  But the WP48 leader on the T-Wolves is Kevin Love.  And it just so happens that Jefferson’s injury puts Love into Minnesota’s starting line-up.  So clearly this injury helps Minnesota.

Table One: The Minnesota Timberwolves after 51 games in 2008-09

Measuring the Loss

Okay, not so fast.  I think it was John Hollinger who noted that the key issue we need to consider in understanding the impact of an injury to a starter is not the relative productivity of the replacement player.  No, the key is the productivity of the player(s) who take the replacement player’s minutes.  And when we take that extra step we can see Minnesota has some problems. Continue reading →

As of Sunday night the top four teams in the NBA – in terms of efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) – were as follows:

1. Cleveland Cavaliers [10.8]

2. Boston Celtics (9.9)

3. Orlando Magic (9.0)

4. LA Lakers [8.8]

And here are the next four teams:

5. Portland Trail Blazers (3.9)

6. San Antonio Spurs (3.4)

7. Denver Nuggets (3.3)

8. Houston Rockets (3.1)

As we have known for some time, the top four teams in the league have clearly separated themselves from the pack.  So it seems a good bet that the eventual NBA champion will reside in Cleveland, Boston, Orlando, or LA.  This means there is a chance – if Cleveland or Orlando finish on top — the Larry O’Brien trophy will move to a city it has never been to before.  And this is something that doesn’t happen often in the NBA.  Of the 29 cities currently hosting an NBA team, fifteen have never hosted an NBA champion.

Of the two upstarts, Cleveland currently has the best chance. In fact, LeBron and the Cavs are the current favorites.

Losing Nelson

That being said, Orlando – the subject of today’s post — does have a chance.  This chance, though, was recently diminished by the injury to Jameer Nelson.  As Table One notes, Nelson has been the second most productive player on the Magic.  The loss of such player – coupled with the strength of the competition in the East – suggests that the Magic will be the team left out of the conference championship in the East. 

Table One: The Orlando Magic in 2008-09 after 50 games

From Table One we see that Nelson posted a 0.256 WP48 this season.  His replacements at the guard spot – Anthony Johnson, Tyronn Lue, and (maybe) J.J. Reddick – all hover around the 0.100 mark (Lue has typically hovered around the average mark).  Given how many minutes Nelson played per game this season, it looks like the Magic need to replace 1,000 minutes the rest of the way.  A bit of simple math reveals that moving from 0.256 to 0.100 across 1,000 minutes will cost the Magic about 3.3 wins.  And this moves the Magic from about 63 wins to about 60. 

Before Nelson was hurt it seemed unlikely Orlando would finish ahead of Boston or Cleveland.  The injury to Nelson appears to seal this fate.  But it doesn’t cost the Magic the third seed.  The current fourth seed in the East – the Atlanta Hawks – boasted a 1.5 efficiency differential on Sunday night.  Such a mark would rank 9^th in the Western Conference (and is well behind the Magic).  So although Orlando has lost its second most productive player, it looks like this injury will not cost the Magic its current playoff position.

Winning in Orlando

Certainly the third seed in the playoffs is quite good.  This is especially the perspective of the teams ranked lower than Orlando.  That being said, Orlando is relatively close to the other top teams in the NBA.  And although the loss of Nelson doesn’t help, there might be some things this team could do right now to close the gap and better contend for a title in 2009.  Here are two possibilities:

1. Trade Rashard Lewis

Yes, Lewis is an All-Star.  And if he was playing small forward, that selection might be justified.  But Orlando plays Lewis at power forward, and at that position he has problems.  So why not send him to Phoenix for the disgruntled Amare Stoudemire (ESPN’s trade machine says this works)?  This would give the Magic a legitimate power forward. And it would give the Suns…well, I am not sure how this helps the Suns.  This post is about the Magic, though, so we will skip that detail.

If the Suns won’t deal, here are two other trades that could also help:

Send Lewis to the Utah Jazz for Carlos Boozer (assuming he gets healthy) and Matt Harpring (this is not a good trade for Utah)

OR

Send Lewis and Brian Cook to the New York Knicks for David Lee and Stephon Marbury (not sure the Magic should play Marbury, though).

2. Finding Help on the Bench

One could play with the Trade Machine all day.  Although that’s fun, it’s quite possible the Magic would not want to do anything to break-up a 60 win team.  So what else can Orlando do to close the gap?

Here is an idea that might be filed under “thinking outside the box.” Continue reading →

The Los Angeles Times has created the following web page: Best of the Web: Los Angeles Lakers.  The page links to various stories about the Lakers found around the web.  The stories seem to change frequently.  What doesn’t seem to change are the following six sites presented at the bottom. 

NBA.com: LA Lakers

OC Register Lakers Blog

Riverside Press-Enterprise NBA Blog

ESPN True Hoops

Inside Hoops

Wages of Wins Journal

Five of these websites have offered a comment on the Lakers trade of Vladimir Radmanovic for Adam Morrison and Shannon Brown.  The one exception is the Wages of Wins Journal.  Hence, in an effort to fit in at the LA Times, here are some thoughts.

The 2006 Draft

This trade was completed in February of 2009.  Had it been completed in June of 2006 it would be as follows:

Lakers exchange Vladimir Radmanovic for the #3 and #25 pick in the 2006 draft.   Obviously those picks turned into Morrison and Brown. 

Here is how Chad Ford of ESPN.com described each pick in 2006:

Adam Morrison: ….Morrison has the star power and addresses the Bobcats’ biggest need: scoring. Morrison has the killer instinct and leadership that the Bobcats crave.

Shannon Brown: I love this pick for the Cavs. They have been keyed on Shannon Brown for a long time and thought there was no way he’d be there. Brown will give them a great penetrator and explosive athlete who can attack the basket or pull up for the 3-pointer. Put him on the floor with LeBron James and defenders are going to cower. Brown has the most potent combination of power and athleticism in the draft. I’m not sure he can play the point, but with Larry Hughes and LeBron James’ ball-handling skills, he’ll be fine.

So if this was 2006, the Lakers would be surrendering an NBA veteran who had come off the bench for most his career for a player with “star power” and “an explosive athlete who can attack the basket.”  In sum, this would be described as a steal by the Lakers.

Of course there are problems with this story.  Specifically, there are two reasons why this trade was not actually possible.  Radmanovic did not sign with the Lakers until a few days after the 2006 draft.  And even if he could have been traded by the Lakers, the two picks were held by two different teams. So unless the Cavs and Bobcats were willing to share Radmanovic, this trade couldn’t have happened. Still, just 32 months ago this move would have been celebrated in LA.

Losing Morrison and Brown

In 2009, though, it’s not clear how this move dramatically changes life for the Lakers.  And that’s because Morrison and Brown have not quite lived up to their draft-day hype.  Brown has only played 783 minutes in his NBA career and has produced -1.8 wins (yes that is a negative sign).  His career WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] currently stands at -0.108.  One is tempted to say this is the worst career mark in NBA history.  But then one turns to Adam Morrison.  Continue reading →