This past week we have seen Cleveland acquire Shaq and Orlando acquire Vince Carter.  We have heard that Amare Stoudemire might be going to Golden State and Yao Ming might be done for awhile (if not forever).  And on top of all this we had the NBA draft.

All of this news gives me plenty of topics to discuss.  But despite this abundance I want to choose an item off the menu.  About a week ago, Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo! Sports reported that the Celtics were shopping Rajon Rondo.  And the potential trading partner was the Detroit Pistons.  Here was the specific proposal:

The Celtics send Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen to the Detroit Pistons for Tayshaun Prince, Richard Hamilton, and Rodney Stuckey. 

Let’s look at this proposal in term of each player’s Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] from last season:

Rajon Rondo: 18.3 Wins Produced, 0.332 WP48

Ray Allen: 9.8 Wins Produced, 0.163 WP48

Tayshaun Prince: 7.3 Wins Produced, 0.114 WP48

Rodney Stuckey: 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.077 WP48

Richard Hamilton: 1.9 Wins Produced, 0.040 WP48

So the Celtics were offering two players who produced 28.1 wins for three players who combined for 13. 2 Wins Produced. Of course Ray Allen – who turns 34 in July – is ancient by NBA standards.  But Stuckey is only two months younger than Rondo. So Rondo is not only the most productive player in this proposed trade, he is nearly the youngest. 

Despite what we can see about productivity and age, though, it was the Pistons – according to Wojnarowski – who rejected this proposal.  Here is what Wojnarowski said a week ago:

For the Pistons, this deal makes little sense, unless they wanted to let Allen’s expiring deal gain even more salary cap space for the free-agent class of 2010. The idea of trading his three best returners for an expiring contract and one good young player wasn’t worth considering for Dumars, sources said.

So Wojnarowski argues – and apparently the Pistons agree – that this deal makes little sense for Detroit. In fact, it wasn’t worth considering. Let’s try and understand this reasoning by focusing on points scored per 48 minutes

Rajon Rondo: 17.3

Ray Allen: 23.9

Tayshaun Prince: 18.3

Rodney Stuckey: 20.2

Richard Hamilton: 25.8

When we focus on scoring, the worst player in this transaction is Rondo. Given this lack of scoring, it’s hard for some to see Rondo as anything more than just a “good” player who might have some maturity issues.  In fact, such was the recent argument of Tony Massarotti of the Boston Globe.  Massarotti argued that Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are the key players on the Celtics and Boston could win another title without Rondo. 

To be fair to Massarotti, if the Celtics find someone as productive as Rondo, what he says is true.  But here is the list of point guards who produced more wins than Rondo last year:

Chris Paul: 29.4 Wins Produced, 0.471 WP48

Jason Kidd: 21.0 Wins Produced, 0.349 WP48

Yes, that’s the list.  And Kidd is now 68 years old.  After Rondo we see the following five names on the Wins Produced ranking of point guards in 2008-09:

Jose Calderon: 12. 4 Wins Produced, 0.255 WP48

Andre Miller: 12.2 Wins Produced, 0.197 WP48

Steve Nash: 12.0 Wins Produced, 0.232 WP48

Deron Williams: 11.9 Win Produced, 0.228 WP48

Chauncey Billups: 11.2 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48

As one can see, after Rondo there is quite a drop-off.  And despite this drop-off, the Celtics appear to be casually throwing his name out there in the trade market.

Of course, players are not evaluated in terms of Wins Produced in the NBA.  When we look at player evaluations (from the draft, voting for the All-Rookie team, free agent market, and assignment of minutes played), scoring dominates the story.  And Rondo is not a scorer. 

Unfortunately for Boston fans (but apparently not fortunately for fans of Detroit), the over-valuation of scoring by talent evaluators in the NBA might end up costing the Celtics their most productive player from last season.  And despite the arguments of Massaroti, if Rondo is allowed to depart Boston can probably look forward to a longer wait for their next NBA title.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

For the past few weeks (or longer) people have wondered who would get drafted and in what order.  Last night the wondering ceased and we got to see how NBA decision-makers ranked the players – both international and collegiate — who hope to embark on a career in professional basketball. 

In a few days I hope Erich Doerr can offer some insights into the international players selected (and perhaps more thoughts on the draft overall).  For today I want to put up some quick comments on the college players selected.

These comments begin with Table One, which lists each college player selected and the player’s Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes (PAWS40).

Table One: Ranking the Players Selected from College in the 2009 NBA Draft

In looking at Table One it’s important to remember that college numbers do not predict perfectly what we will see in the NBA.  Still, there is a correlation.  And that should not be surprising.  If a player was not able to excel in college we should suspect he might struggle against the superior talent in the NBA.  So Jonny Flynn, Jordan Hill, and Gerald Henderson (just to name a few) might end up disappointing the fans of the teams that selected these players in the lottery.

At the other end of the spectrum we see DeJuan Blair, Blake Griffin, and Ty Lawson.  Obviously most people consider Griffin the best talent in this draft.  Blair has better numbers, but from what I understand, his knees might be a problem.  Of course, if the knees are not an issue the Spurs might have found an extremely productive player.  Rebounding in college is highly correlated with what we see in the NBA.

Okay, those are my quick thoughts.  Here are some quick thoughts from Erich Doerr:

2008-2009 ROY

After last year’s draft, I claimed “Beasley, Oden, Fernandez, and Love easily grade out as the best projected rookies. For the statistical purists, I’ll provide a 60% confidence interval that one of these four will win rookie of the year and a 70% confidence interval that one of them will actually deserve it.” Apparently, I was overconfident in predicting the trophy winner and under-confident in predicting the biggest Win Producer.  This year, the top selections seem to project better, so I’m left to claim that one of Griffin, Harden, Curry and Thabeet will win the Rookie of the Year award and probably deserve it, given a 75% confidence interval.

2009 Prospects

While Blake Griffin’s freshman numbers didn’t warrant much attention, his improvement and subsequent season certainly did; Griffin became well worthy of #1 overall.  Outside of Griffin, outstanding Win Scores pointed to Harden, Curry, and Hansbrough as underrated by the early mocks and the stats were vindicated by last night’s selections.

Summer school

For the year round fans, keep your summer league eyes on players like Lester Hudson, Ahmad Nivins, Lee Cummard, and Jon Brockman.  DeJuan Blair would make this list, but in my opinion, you’ll likely see plenty of him in the preseason and rotational minutes in 2009-2010.

Once again, Erich and I should have more thoughts on this draft next week.  And I have a few trades to discuss as well. 

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

While NBA fans are intently focused on the NBA draft, the following trades were made.

San Antonio Spurs get Richard Jefferson [0.064 WP48 in 2,929 minutes]

Milwaukee Bucks get Kurt Thomas [0.183 WP48 in 1,404 minutes], Fabricio Oberto [0.033 WP48 in 677 minutes], and Bruce Bowen [-0.013 WP48 in 1,508 minutes]

Minnesota Timberwolves get Darius Songaila [-0.046 WP48 in 1,521 minutes], Etan Thomas [-0.047 WP48 in 306 minutes], Oleksiy Pecherov [0.025 WP48 in  277 minutes], and the 5^th pick in the 2009 draft

Washington Wizards get Randy Foye [0.022 WP48 in 2,494 minutes] and Mike Miller [0.270 WP48 in 2,356 minutes]

Milwaukee Bucks get Amir Johnson [0.106 WP48 in 911 minutes]

Detroit Pistons get Fabricio Oberto, who they reportedly are going to let depart as a free agent.

RJ Helps?

The biggest name in these transactions is Richard Jefferson.   Here is what Jefferson has done across the past three seasons:

2006-07: 0.044 WP48, 1.8 Wins Produced

2007-08: 0.040 WP48, 2.6 Wins Produced

2008-09: 0.064 WP48, 3.9 Wins Produced

So across the past three seasons Jefferson has produced 8.5 wins.  To acquire his services the Spurs had to surrender the ancient Kurt Thomas, who produced 5.3 wins by himself in 2008-09.   Furthermore, this trade apparently puts the Spurs over the luxury tax threshold and takes San Antonio out of the 2010 free agent market.   And yet we are told this trade clearly helps the Spurs.

Once upon a time – as Table One reveals – Jefferson might have helped quite a bit.   

Table One: The Career of Richard Jefferson

But across the past three seasons, Jefferson has generally been below average with respect to everything not associated with scoring.  And when we look at scoring, we see a player that is only slightly above average.

When we compare Jefferson to his new teammates on the Spurs, RJ’s scoring prowess looks even worse.  Jefferson took 14.9 field goals per game last season and posted a 48.7% adjusted field goal percentage.  Here is what some of his teammates did last year with respect to field goal attempts per game and adjusted field goal percentage:

Tony Parker: 17.5, 51.3%

Tim Duncan: 14.8, 50.4%

Manu Ginobili: 11.2, 52.4%

Roger Mason: 10.0, 52.6%

Michael Finley: 8.5, 53.2%
Drew Gooden: 7.6, 49.0%

Matt Bonner: 6.6, 60.6%

As one can see, relative to all of his new teammates not married to Eva Longoria, Jefferson took more shots per game last season.  And his ability to get his shots to go in the basket falls below what many of his new teammates can do.  So the Spurs have acquired someone who likes to take shots but can’t get them to go in as well as San Antonio’s existing options.

Of course, someone might argue that Jefferson won’t need to take as many shots with the Spurs.  After all, as the above list demonstrates, the Spurs already have very good options on offense.  But if Jefferson isn’t going to score, what exactly is he going to do to help his teammates win games?  Once again, with respect to the non-scoring aspects of the game RJ is below average. Jefferson’s only redeeming quality – at this point in his career — is that he is a slightly above average scorer.

When we put the whole picture together, it appears the Spurs might have fallen victim to the Isiah Thomas fallacy, i.e. you can never have too many scorers.  This is a fallacy, because there really is only one ball.  It is not possible for all these players to get their shots.  And if Jefferson is not going to get his shots, then how does he help the Spurs close the gap between San Antonio and the LA Lakers?

The Other Trades

The other two trades are harder to comment on at the moment. The key for the Timberwolves is what they are going to do with the 5^th pick.  For next year it seems unlikely that they will draft someone who is as productive as Mike Miller.  Miller, though, will be 30 next February and that is old for a basketball player.  So it’s possible that T-Wolves will be better off in the long-run with this trade. Then again, I suspect most of the players taken in the top 10 in this year’s draft will be below average NBA players.   But before we draw any conclusions, let’s see who the T-wolves select.

As for the Bucks and Pistons… once upon a time Amir Johnson looked like he would develop into a very productive NBA player.  Last year, though, he was just average.  Although average is… well, average; on the Bucks an average player might help.  Last year the Bucks gave 579 minutes to Malik Allen [-0.137 WP48] and only employed two big men – Andrew Bogut and Austin Croshere – who posted above average numbers.  And Croshere only played 77 minutes. So Amir will probably help Milwaukee.

As for the Pistons, it looks like they are doing everything they can to get under the salary cap this year.  And as a Pistons fan I am looking forward to seeing what they will do with all that cap space.

Let me close by noting that these are not the only potential trades before the draft.  It looks like Jamal Crawford might once again be packing his bags.  But I am going to hold off posting on any more trades until after the draft.  Right now the plan is to have the next post be an evaluation of the NBA draft, and that should appear on Friday morning (with the help of Erich Doerr).

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

We are now less than a week from the 2009 NBA Draft.  In looking over Chad Ford’s latest mock draft at ESPN one is struck by how many point guards are projected to go in the first round.  Nine of the thirty players Ford thinks will go in the first round are classified as a point guard.

Beyond the number of point guards ranked is the ordering of the players.  There appears to be a substantial disconnect between the ranking of these players and how these players performed in college. 

Table One: The “Top” Point Guards in the 2009 Draft

Table One reports what the seven of these lead guards did in college last season (Ricky Rubio and Brandon Jennings didn’t play college basketball).  The players are listed in the order provide by Ford in his mock draft.  In looking over the list the play of Jonny Flynn and Ty Lawson stand out.  Of the guards listed, Flynn was the least productive in college last year.  Yet Flynn is considered a possibility for the Sacramento Kings with the fourth pick and certainly a lock for the lottery. Meanwhile, Lawson was easily the most productive point guard last year and only DeJuan Blair and Blake Griffin posted a higher Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes (PAWS40). Lawson, though, is not considered a possibility for the lottery.   In sum, the consensus appears to be that Flynn is clearly better than Lawson.  But last year in college it wasn’t even close.  Lawson was more productive with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, turnovers, and assists. Flynn only has advantage with respect to personal fouls.

It’s important to emphasize that college numbers are not a perfect predictor of future NBA performance.  So it’s possible the consensus is correct here.  That being said, there is a statistical relationship between what a player does in college and in the NBA.  And Flynn did do far less than Lawson.  That suggests that supporters of Flynn need to offer some explanation for why the differences we saw between Flynn and Lawson last year in college are going to reverse once these players enter the NBA.

By the way, PAWS40 is not the only metric that ranks Lawson ahead of Flynn.  John Hollinger ranks Lawson and Griffin as the two best players in the draft (insider access required).  Hollinger’s PERs model does have problems if you are trying to explain wins.  But it’s a great model if you are looking for a summary statistics that captures perceptions of performance (NBA Efficiency is also a great model if you just want to consider perceptions).

Given this characteristics of PERs, one might wonder if the consensus regarding Lawson will change as we approach the draft.  Ford currently argues that seven point guards will be taken before Lawson. But with PERs ranking Lawson as the top point guard, will Lawson still last until the 23^rd pick?

One last note…Erich Doerr did send me some analysis for the 2009 draft but he doesn’t have time to write a post.  I will do my best to get at least some of Doerr’s analysis posted soon.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.