Thoughts this week have turned to the NCAA tournament.   At least – thanks to Erich Doerr – that has been the case in this forum.

For most people – including President Barack Obama – the tournament is watched with one eye on the TV and one eye on their brackets.  While the teams battle for a title, everyone else is battling for the all-important bragging rights (and hopefully Erich’s analysis has helped on that quest).

For many NBA fans, though, the focus is a bit different.  The NCAA tournament provides an opportunity to see a wide variety of players — who might someday contribute in the NBA – compete against top college talent.  So for NBA fans one eye is on the game, one eye is on the brackets, and one eye is dreaming about how such and such talent will impact their NBA team’s fortunes for years to come (did I just give NBA fans three eyes?).

As all of our eyes watch these future prospects, I wanted to take a look back on a time when at least some prospects were evaluated without the benefit of watching the player. 

Drafting Russell

This story was originally told in “Let Me Tell You a Story: A Lifetime in the Game” by John Feinstein and Red Auerbach (a great book that I highly recommend). 

Auerbach became the head coach of the Celtics in 1950.  Actually Red was not just the head coach, he was also – as his book describes – “general manager, chief scout, and marketing guru”.  For the first six years with Auerbach calling the shots the Celtics were consistently good, but never able to advance past the Eastern Division Finals.

Then in 1956 Auerbach got a call from his Bill Reinhart, his old college coach. Reinhart had just visited the West Coast and seen a player from the University of San Francisco named Bill Russell.  When Reinhart returned from California he called Auerbach and said: “I’ve seen this guy who can make you into a championship team. You have to get this guy.”  Reinhart went on to discuss the defensive skills of Russell.  He also added that Russell didn’t have much of an offensive game.  But Auerbach – as his book notes – needed a center who could rebound.  Yes, rebounding is kind of important and the Wisdom of Red Auerbach – as detailed previously — minimized the importance of scoring.

Feinstein and Auerbach noted that teams in the 1950s didn’t have a scouting department.  Often Auerbach simply relied on his friends for advice.  And consequently, without ever seeing Russell play, Auerbach did the following to acquire the center from the University of San Francisco.

• The Celtics had the 7^th pick in the draft. This pick was sent to the St. Louis Hawks, along with Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan, for the 2^nd pick.
• The Rochester Royals had the first pick. Auerbach had the owner of the Celtics (Walter Brown) call the owner of the Royals (Les Harrison) with the following deal: Brown — as president of the Ice Capades — would send the show to Rochester for one week if the Royals didn’t take Russell. Harrison agreed and the rest is history.

Any fan of the NBA draft today can’t help but be amused by the story Feinstein and Auerbach tell about the acquisition of Russell.  It’s unlikely that any team can acquire Blake Griffin (not that Griffin is going to be as good as Russell) for a draft pick, two players, and one week of the Ice-Capades.  And one would also expect that any team drafting Griffin would have at least seen him play before the draft.  The world was obviously a bit different in 1956.

Auerbach and the 1977 Draft

It would be great to look back at those drafts from the 1950s and see how well Auerbach chose relative to his peers.  Unfortunately we don’t have complete NBA data back to 1956.  The data needed to calculate Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] was not available until the 1977-78 season.  Consequently, the first draft we can look at via Wins Produced is the draft that took place in 1977. Continue reading →

Erich Doerr’s Instant Analysis of the 2009 NCAA Tournament has proven to be quite popular.  It has been so popular that Erich has had trouble accommodating the page views.  Consequently Erich has asked that I host the tables.  So for those who had trouble accessing Erich’s tables, please see the following:

NCAA Tables

Table One: NCAA Tournament based on Pomeroy Numbers

Table Two: NCAA Tournament based on Sagarin Numbers

Table Three: NCAA Teams Probabilities and HERE

Erich also has provided analysis of the NIT.  From what I understand, San Diego State was one of the last teams rejected.  Although an NIT championship cannot replace an NCAA appearance, Aztec fans — according to Erich’s analysis – can expect to celebrate an NIT title in 2009.

NIT Tables

Table Four: NIT Tournament based on Pomeroy Numbers

Table Five: NIT Tournament based on Sagarin Numbers

Table Six: NIT Teams Probabilities and HERE

Once again I want to thank Erich for providing this analysis.  Hopefully everyone agrees that this only makes March Madness all the more enjoyable.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Today’s guest post – and instant analysis of the 2009 NCAA Tournament (posted within minutes of the brackets being announced) — is yet 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. 

Back by popular demand, I have run the numbers on Selection Sunday and am here to offer WoW readers a bracket breakdown with a statistical bent.

Table One: NCAA Tournament based on Pomeroy Numbers

Table Two: NCAA Tournament based on Sagarin Numbers

Last year I employed the Monte Carlo method to generate probabilities. This year I have upgraded to calculate conditional probabilities.  Essentially, conditional probabilities produce the odds of a Monte Carlo simulation as the number of simulations increase toward infinity.

Just like in 2008, I am relying on the two strongest public NCAA metrics:  Sagarin Ratings and Ken Pomeroy‘s Pythagorean Ratings.  Statistics used by the Wages of Wins parallel Pomeroy’s approach, as both build off of offensive and defensive efficiency. 

Table Three: Teams Probability

Since top seeds represent the best teams in the land, this approach will appear to heavily favor those teams due to their quality and favorable draw.  The final results here attempt to predict the statistically most probable brackets, which are not necessarily the picks most likely to win an office pool.

By the numbers, who has the right to gripe?  Well, the best Pomeroy teams to miss the tournament include San Diego State, New Mexico, and Florida.  As for the teams that made it, an average #1 seed would make it through Louisville’s bracket 36% of the time while the same average #1 seed would only make 21% of potential final fours given Connecticut’s draw.  This discrepancy is by design as Louisville’s #1 overall seed should come with an easier path, though some may say a 15% disparity gives Connecticut a reason to complain.  Last, and probably least, Pittsburgh’s first round draw against East Tennessee State generates that elusive 16-over-1 upset 6 times out of 100, about twice as often as the other 1 vs 16 matchups.

Stepping back, both the Sagarin & Pomeroy brackets come out with the same predictions in 63 out of 64 matchups.  The lone difference comes from each rating’s national champion.  Pomeroy’s ratings prefer the Memphis Tigers over Sagarin’s favored Tar Heels.  This year’s statistically-not-a-surprise upsets appear to be #12 Wisconsin over Florida State and the #6 WVU Mountaineers run to reach the Elite 8. 

The tables linked above also provide odds by conference, seed, and region.  The vaunted Big East takes home the title a third of the time, while the combined effort of the 7 Big Ten entrants comes up short of a 5% probability to win it all.  Looking for all the number 1 seeds to reach the Final Four?  That number checks in around 24%.  See the tables above and comment on your own favorite observation. Continue reading →

One of my favorite sit-coms from the 1970s is the Bob Newhart show.  Last night my wife and I put in the DVD from the fourth season of this show and watched an episode titled: The Duke of Dunk.

Here is how this episode was described at allmovie.com: It seems that even before Dennis Rodman, the Chicago basketball world was plagued with showboaters who thought that they were the center of the universe. In this episode of The Bob Newhart Show, Anthony Costello is cast as Dwayne Granger, aka “The Duke of Dunk,” a star basketball player. Upset that Dwayne’s monumental ego has resulted in a drop in morale and a long losing streak, the team’s coach goes to Bob for help. Written by Douglas Arango and Phil Doran, “Duke of Dunk” originally aired on January 31, 1976.

The synopsis at allmovie.com chose to compare the character of Dwayne Granger to Dennis Rodman.  A more apt comparison, though, is any scorer who dominates the ball.  To this point, let me offer a bit more information on this episode.

The Duke of Dunk in Therapy

The story begins with Bob and his friend Jerry going to a basketball game and walking away amazed by the exploits of the “Duke of Dunk”.  In discussing Granger’s exploits the next day at the office, Carol – Bob and Jerry’s receptionist – observes that despite Granger’s scoring the team still lost.  Bob and Jerry insist Carol doesn’t know basketball.  But Carol argues Granger is nothing more than a “hot dog”.  Furthermore, the great Celtic teams of the 1950s and 1960s were not about just one player.  Carol then proceeded to name all the players who helped Bill Russell win all those championships (yes, Carol understood the Wisdom of Red Auerbach).

Although Bob and Jerry scoff at Carol, we later learn that Granger’s coach essentially reaches the same conclusion.  Soon Granger is lying down on Bob’s couch, as Bob tries and figures out why Granger isn’t much of a team player.  In the course of their conversations we learn that Granger is clearly motivated by his own scoring totals.  He is also so focused on himself and his stats (i.e. scoring) that he doesn’t know the names of his teammates.  

Obviously this story – told more than 30 years ago – has a Wages of Wins theme.  The Duke of Dunk is obsessed with his own scoring numbers.  It’s these numbers that have made him into a “millionaire athlete” and he sees no reason why he should change his ways.  After all, scoring got him fame, attention, and money.  So why should he care about wins and his teammates?

Granger Today

As I watched this episode – which I obviously enjoyed (although my wife – who is not a big basketball fan –did not) – I thought about linking this to players today.  Although there are some players who come closer to the character played by the late Anthony Costello, I decided to just go with today’s Granger.  No, I don’t think Danny Granger of the Indiana Pacers is quite the “hot dog” we see in the Duke of Dunk.  But he does share the same last name as this character. And Danny Granger has also earned many of the benefits of being a scorer without making a comparable impact on his team’s ability to win.

Granger is averaging 25.0 points per game this season, a mark that leads the Pacers and ranks 6^th in the NBA.  Not only does Granger lead the Pacers in scoring, he was the lone representative of Indiana at the mid-season all-star game.  In addition, he just signed a contract extension last November that will pay him $60 million over the next five seasons.  This will make him one of the highest paid players on the Pacers.

So Granger is clearly Indiana’s star.  But he’s not the primary producer of wins on this team.  This season Granger has missed 14 games.  In those games the Pacers have posted a 9-5 record.  With him the team is 19-33.  Although there are problems with looking a team’s performance with and without a player (we are not holding things constant so we are not sure what we are seeing is truly due to the player), in this case the Pacers’ performance without Granger is consistent with the story told by Wins Produced.

Table One: The Indiana Pacers after 66 Games in 2008-09

The Pacers have won 28 games this season — and as Table One indicates — the team’s Wins Produced sums to 29.4.  Looking at Table One we can see that the play of Troy Murphy is a big part of this team’s success.  After Murphy the team’s roster of above average players – WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] above 0.100 – consists of Jeff Foster and Travis Diener.  T.J. Ford and Danny Granger – the two leading scorers — are close to average, so each helps.  But most of the teams wins do not come from their top scorers.

Granger is primarily a small forward, and at this position – despite being a below average rebounder – his overall production is above average.  But Granger also plays power forward, where his inability to rebound hurts his team.  And when we put the whole picture together his overall production is below par.

King and Granger

Yesterday Daniel Fitzpatrick – a WoW Journal reader and fan of the Knicks – asked if I could look at Bernard King.  Although I had forgotten this when I read Fitzpatrick’s comment, it turns out I had looked at Bernard King last fall in a post on the very much underrated Clark Kellogg.  That post revealed that Kellogg, a small forward for the Indiana Pacers in the early 1980s, was a far more productive player than King.  King, though, was a much bigger scorer playing in a much bigger market.  Consequently, King is still remembered as an All-Star while Kellogg is known as a commentator on college basketball.

Like Kellogg, Granger is also a small forward with the Indiana Pacers.  But unlike Kellogg, Granger’s level of productivity is quite comparable to King.

Table Two: Comparing Bernard King and Danny Granger

Table Two reports what the average small forward did from 1977-78 to 1990-91, as well as the small forward averages from 1991-92 to 2007-08.  As one can see, small forwards from the earlier time period posted somewhat bigger numbers.  But the stories with respect to King and Granger are quite similar. Continue reading →

Michael Heisley – owner of the Memphis Grizzlies – told a select group of Memphis fans that the Grizzlies are in the midst of a three-year plan.  Yes, in three years (or does this year count so it’s only two years?), Memphis will be a competitive team.

Looking for Wins in Memphis

When we look at today’s Grizzlies, it’s clear this team is not competitive.  And when we look at each player’s Wins Produced – noted in Table One — we can see why this team is struggling.

Table One: The Memphis Grizzlies after 62 games in 2008-09

The “stars” of Memphis – assuming a 16-42 team can have “stars” – are O.J. Mayo and Rudy Gay.  These two players average more than 18 points per game.  Since no other player is surpassing twelve points per contest, it’s clear – if we focus on scoring – that Mayo and Gay are this team’s best players. 

When we look at Wins Produced, though, both Mayo and Gay are below average (average WP48 is 0.100). And when we look at the individual stats it’s easy to see why.  Although both Mayo and Gay are very good at taking shots, that’s essentially the limit of their skills.  There is no other aspect of the game where either player has been able to excel. And since they are below average with respect to some stats, the overall level of productivity is below par.  Consequently these two players are only on pace to produce 3.8 wins this season.

The team, though, is on pace to win more than twenty.  So where are these wins coming from?  Again, we look back at Table One.  Memphis has employed three above average players this season.  One of these, Kyle Lowry, is now playing for Houston.  But Marc Gasol and Mike Conley are still in Memphis, and these two players are on pace to produce 14.9 wins this season.  Unfortunately, with Lowry gone, the rest of the roster isn’t much help.

Memphis History

So the picture currently looks quite bleak.  But it doesn’t look as bad as it did in 2001-02.  And the story of how this team rose from the ashes of that campaign gives us insight into the team’s current three year plan. Continue reading →