A few days ago John Hollinger of ESPN.com made the following observations (Insider Access Required):

1. Michael Beasley averaged 22.4 points per 40 minutes with a 17.29 PER.

2. This is the same PER Boozer recorded. 

3. Therefore, “upgrading from Beasley to Boozer has no impact whatsover. None. Zero.”

4. Odom has a 16.60 PER so he is not as good as Beasley.

5. Adding Odom is not an improvement over Beasley.

Hollinger’s analysis obviously depends upon PERs.  If we look at WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] we see a very different story.  Here is what each player did last year at power forward:

Michael Beasley: 0.049 WP48

Carlos Boozer: 0.201 WP48

Lamar Odom: 0.220 WP48

An average player posts a 0.100 WP48.  So Beasley was below average last year while both Boozer and Odom performed at a level that doubled the output of an average power forward.

When we turn to the individual statistics we can see why these differences are so large:

Table One: Comparing Beasley, Boozer, and Odom

Table One reports what each player did with respect to each box score statistic in 2008-09.  Let’s focus first on Beasley.  Relative to an average power forward Beasley was above average with respect to scoring and personal fouls.  With respect to all other statistics Beasley was below average.  So why does PERs rate Beasley so highly?  As I have noted in the past, PERs will reward a player for taking more shots.  Of these three players, Beasley took the most field goals per 48 minutes.  As a consequence, he managed to score 26.8 points per 48 minutes.  But Beasley’s shooting efficiency was only slightly above average.  So his scoring was not a tremendous help to the Heat.  And he cost the team by his inability to do anything else. 

When we look at Odom and Boozer we see two players who are at least as efficient as Beasley with respect to scoring.  Both Odom and Boozer also contribute with respect to rebounds, steals, and assists.  Consequently, Boozer and Odom make larger contributions to team success. 

So would Boozer and Odom help the Heat?  Well, here is what the first and second string (depth chart from ESPN) on the Heat did last year:

First String

PG: Mario Chalmers [5.5 Wins Produced, 0.101 WP48]

SG: Dwyane Wade [22.2 Wins Produce, 0.350 WP48]

SF: James Jones [-0.3 Wins Produced, -0.026 WP48]

PF: Udonis Haslem [5.0 Wins Produced, 0.093 WP48]

C: Jermaine O’Neal [-1.1 Wins Produced, -0.067 WP48]

Second String

PG: Chris Quinn [1.2 Wins Produced, 0.060 WP48]

SG: Daequan Cook [0.4 Wins Produced, 0.009 WP48]

SF: Yakhouba Diawara [-1.5 Wins Produced, -0.083 WP48]

PF: Michael Beasley [2.1 Wins Produced, 0.049 WP48]

C: Jamaal Magloire [0.8 Wins Produced, 0.052 WP48]

These ten players combined to produce 34.2 wins last season.   The team won 43 games, but it has lost Shawn Marion (in the Jermaine O’Neal trade) and Jamario Moon (signed by Cleveland).  Marion and Moon combined to produce 9.4 wins last season.  For the Heat to make the playoffs again this production needs to be replaced.

One option would be to acquire Odom and Boozer.  Odom produced 10.6 wins last year and has posted 0.184 WP48 for his career.   Boozer was hurt much of last season.  For his career, though, he has produced 74.9 wins and posted a 0.256 WP48. 

Now Odom turns 30 this fall and Boozer is prone to injury. So both players come with question marks.  What isn’t a question mark (at least, I don’t think this is a question mark) is the value of what each player has done in the past.  And if we look at more than scoring, it seems clear that Odom and Boozer offered more than Beasley last season.

- 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.

Who is the most “underrated” player in the NBA?  As I noted a few days ago, the answer to such a question requires two perspectives.  The first metric should capture popular perception.  The second should approximate reality.  Of course, to make such an argument you have to argue that your reality differs from popular perception (so the overrated/underrated story requires a bit of an attitude).

Measuring Popular Perception

The discussion of the “overrated” focused on three measures that appear to capture popular perception: NBA Efficiency, Game Score (John Hollinger’s simple measure), and the Player Efficiency Rating (PER or John Hollinger’s more complicated measure). 

When we consider how each of these measures is calculated it appears that we would get a different answer from each.  For example, compare the formulas for NBA Efficiency and Game Score.

NBA Efficiency = Points + Rebounds + Steals + Assists + Blocked Shots – All Missed Shots – Turnovers

Game Score = Points + 0.4*Made Field Goals – 0.7*Field Goal Attempts – 0.4*Free Throws Missed + 0.7*Offensive Rebounds + 0.3*Defensive Rebounds + Steals + 0.7*Assists + 0.7*Blocked Shots – 0.4* Personal Fouls – Turnovers

These metrics look to be different.  But when we look at the population of players from the 2008-09 regular season, we see a 0.99 correlation between a player’s NBA Efficiency and Game Score value.

PER – as the description at Basketball-Reference indicates – is more complicated than both NBA Efficiency and Game Score.  But when we compare Game Score per-minute and PER (a per-minute metric), again we see a 0.99 correlation.

In sum, each of these measures is capturing something very similar. 

And that something is scoring.  As the following posts on each measure indicates, players who score -whether efficiently or not – tend to look good according to each measure.

NBA Efficiency: Do We Overvalue Rebounds? (November 9, 2006).

PER: A Comment on the Player Efficiency Rating (November 17, 2006)

Game Score: Marvin Williams Makes a Hypothetical Deal (December 16, 2007)

Scoring, as The Wages of Wins argues, is the one factor that drives popular perception.  Consequently, metrics that are driven by scoring are also going to be good measures of how players are generally perceived.

The Preferred Measure

With the measures of popular perception once again explained, let me take a slight detour before I get to the underrated.  Let’s imagine that you wanted a measure of popular perception.  Which of these three should you choose?

The answer depends upon how you view complexity.  If you wish people to think you are clever, then complexity is considered a benefit.  In other words, the simple tends not to impress.

But in empirical research, complexity is a cost (in time and effort).  In other words, if all else is equal, a simple approach should always be preferred to a complex approach.  Or to put it another way, complexity is only good if the complexity actually gives you something. 

Given this argument, NBA Efficiency should be preferred over either Game Score or PER.  As outlined above, NBA Efficiency tells essentially the same story and it is the easiest to calculate.  My sense, though, is that PER often tends to be preferred to Game Score.  And Game Score is often preferred to NBA Efficiency. In sum, it looks like some people prefer complexity, even if that complexity isn’t giving them anything.

The Underrated

Okay, enough detours.  Let’s get to the question this post is supposed to be addressing.  Who is the most underrated player in the 2008-09?

The answer to this question will follow the same approach taken in examining the overrated.  Again, we need two reference points.  Given that this is The Wages of Wins Journal, our measure of reality (or what passes for reality in this forum) will be Wins Produced.  The ranking from this metric will be compared to three measures of popular perception: points score per game, NBA Efficiency, and PER.

Let’s start with points scored per game. 

Table One: The Underrated Scorers

Table One reports – via a comparison of points-per-game and Wins Produced – the fifteen most underrated players.  Topping the list is Jason Kidd.  He is followed by Mike Miller, Jamario Moon, Rajon Rondo, and Anderson Varejao.  Each of these players produced a significant quantity of wins, but generally not via scoring. 

Next we turn to the Wins Produced-NBA Efficiency story.

Table Two: The Underrated in NBA Efficiency

Points-per-game has a 0.89 correlation with NBA Efficiency (0.93 correlation with Game Score).  Although this is fairly high, we see some differences in the names reported in Table One and Two.  Specifically Kidd and Rondo– who were ranked towards the top of Table One – do not appear on Table Two.  Although these names disappear, Moon (who tops Table Two), Miller, Varejao, Dominic McGuire, Samuel Dalembert, Shane Battier, and Shawn Marion appear on both lists.

The final table looks at PER.  Because this is a per-minute measure, we have to compare the PER ranking to the ranking we see from WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].

Table Three: The Underrated in PER

Leading this list is McGuire.  He is followed by Miller, Moon, Battier, and Dalembert. Again, we see familiar names.  But the name at the top is again different. 

So who is the most underrated?  If we add together the difference reported from each approach the most underrated player in the NBA for 2008-09 is the latest player added to the best team from the 2008-09 regular season.  Yes, Jamario Moon (the newest player in Cleveland) tops the underrated rankings.  And here is the complete top 20.

1. Jamario Moon
2. Mike Miller
3. Dominic McGuire
4. Anderson Varejao
5. Shane Battier
6. Samuel Dalembert
7. Delonte West
8. Anthony Parker
9. Shawn Marion
10. James Posey
11. Mike Conley
12. Lamar Odom
13. Luc Mbah a Moute
14. Jason Kidd
15. Ramon Sessions
16. Jose Calderon
17. Al Horford
18. Luke Ridnour
19. Rajon Rondo
20. Mario Chalmers

Moon is not the only Cavalier to appear on the list. Varejao – who the team recently resigned – and Delonte West are also listed.  Although people tend to think of the Cavaliers as a team that begins and end with LeBron, it appears that King James did not get some underappreciated help last year.

Let me close by noting that there were some changes in the underrated rankings from 2007-08 to 2008-09.  One player that dropped out was Tyson Chandler, who had a relatively poor season this past year.  Now Chandler has been traded to the Bobcats for Emeka Okafor.  John Hollinger made the following comment on this trade (Insider access required): …Okafor is the better player. Both players consistently have been honorable mentions in my all-defense picks, but Okafor is the superior scorer. That might not be saying much — both players are somewhat limited offensively — but Okafor can score on post-ups occasionally and make short bank shots, while Chandler’s range ends at the charge circle. Over the past three seasons, Okafor has averaged nearly five more points per 40 minutes — that’s big.

If we look at the past three seasons, Chandler has a 0.230 WP48 while Okafor has a 0.222 WP48.  If we focus on just the 2006-07 and 2007-08 seasons, though, Chandler trumps Okafor 0.271 to 0.235.  Again, Chandler – primarily because of injury – had a poor season last year.  If Chandler is now healthy it’s more than possible that the Bobcats come out ahead on this deal.  At least, that appears to be true if we look past scoring.

- 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.

Dictionary.com tells us that the word “overrated” means: to rate or appraise too highly; overestimate

The word “high” is a relative term.  To argue that something is “too high” or “too low” requires a reference point.  Actually, to be precise, you need two points of reference. 

For example, batting average in baseball will overestimate a player’s contribution if that player fails to draw walks and/or can’t hit for power.  If we wish to argue that batting average overestimates a player’s contribution we must note where a player is ranked in terms of batting average and also where he is ranked in terms of a measure that considers plate discipline and power (i.e. OPS).   In sum, we need two metrics to make the “overrated” argument.

Batting average has been calculated in baseball since the 19th century and it remains the most cited measure of a hitter’s effectiveness (one only needs to watch a baseball game on TV to see this point).  When we turn to basketball, the “batting average statistic” (i.e. oldest and most cited) is points scored per game.

As we note in The Wages of Wins (and/or in this forum), this single metric does a remarkably good job of explaining the player evaluations of the coaches, general managers, and the sports media.  And just like batting average, points scored per game is obviously not a perfect measure. 

Focusing just on scoring ignores other factors that contribution to wins (such as rebounds, turnovers, steals, etc…).  Scoring totals can also be inflated with more minutes and/or more shot attempts.  In other words, lofty scoring totals may not coincide with scoring efficiency.   Despite these shortcomings, scoring totals still dominate the discussion of a basketball player’s value.

Three Perspectives on the Overrated

The topic today is “overrated”, and as noted above, we need two reference points to tackle this subject.  And given that this is The Wages of Wins Journal, the second reference point we will consider is Wins Produced.  Specifically – as detailed in Table One — we are going to first look at how players rank in terms of both Wins Produced and points-per-game. 

Table One: The Overrated Scorers

Table One reports the 15 players who are the most overrated by scoring.  At the top of the list is Al Harrington.  Of the 128 players who played at least 2,000 minutes in 2008-09, Harrington ranked 22nd in points per game.  As detailed more than once in this forum (at least, I think more than once), Harrington has never offered much beyond scoring.  Consequently, with respect to Wins Produced he ranks quite low (124 out of 128).

Although points-per-game is frequently cited, there are of course more sophisticated metrics that try and take into account more of what a player does on the court.  One of the oldest (and again, commonly cited) of these metrics is NBA Efficiency.   This measure is calculated as follows:

NBA Efficiency = Points + Rebounds + Steals + Assists + Blocked Shots – All Missed Shots – Turnovers

Table Two looks at the most overrated players according to this measure.

Table Two: The Overrated in NBA Efficiency

Again our second point of reference is Wins Produced.  And again we see Al Harrington topping the list.   Joining Harrington on both lists are Andrea Bargnani, Jeff Green, O.J. Mayo, Richard Jefferson [most overrated in 2007-08], Rudy Gay, and Stephen Jackson. 

The similarities between the two evaluations are not surprising.  The correlation coefficient between these two metrics for the 2008-09 season is 0.89 (NBA Efficiency per game and points scored per game has a 0.93 correlation).

Of course NBA Efficiency is not very sophisticated.   This metric essentially adds together a player’s positive actions and subtracts off the negative.  What happens if we turn to a measure that attempts to weight each player’s actions?

The most popular weighted measure is John Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating (PER).  The simple version (okay, much simpler) of the PER metric – Game Score – indicates the basic weights employed.

Game Score = Points + 0.4*Made Field Goals – 0.7*Field Goal Attempts – 0.4*Free Throws Missed + 0.7*Offensive Rebounds + 0.3*Defensive Rebounds + Steals + 0.7*Assists + 0.7*Blocked Shots – 0.4* Personal Fouls – Turnovers

For 2008-09, Game Score and NBA Efficiency have a 0.99 correlation (this is basically what we find in other years as well).  PER is a per-minute metric, and it has a 0.99 correlation with Game Score per-minute.  Given the high correlation between these measures, we shouldn’t expect much difference in our list of overrated.

Table Three: The Overrated in PER

Before we get to the results, though, we need to note that since PER is a per-minute measure our second reference point has to be WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  Despite this change, we still see some familiar names.  Once again we see Al Harrington, Rudy Gay, Stephen Jackson, Allen Iverson, Danny Granger, David West, Jamal Crawford, Mehmet Okur, and Richard Hamilton.  Harrington, though, doesn’t lead the list of overrated when we compare PER and WP48.  Now Michael Beasley tops the list.  Yes, this is the same Beasley that John Hollinger says is just as productive as Carlos Boozer (I might offer an entire post on that claim). 

The Most Overrated

Although Beasley tops the PER list, he is not the most overrated if we consider all three rankings.  If we add together the differences from each comparison the most overrated player in the NBA for 2008-09 is….. yes, Al Harrington.  Here are the 15 most overrated players if we consider all three perspectives.

1. Al Harrington
2. Rudy Gay
3. Stephen Jackson
4. Andrea Bargnani
5. Danny Granger
6. David West
7. Mehmet Okur
8. Richard Jefferson
9. Jamal Crawford
10. Jermaine O’Neal
11. Charlie Villanueva
12. Jeff Green
13. Richard Hamilton
14. Thaddeus Young
15. Michael Beasley

One should be clear that “overrated” does not necessarily mean “bad.”  Granger and West were above average players [in terms of WP48] this past season.  These players just weren’t as good as the scoring based metrics suggest.

For those who want more on this topic, you can see a discussion of past seasons in Chapter 10 of The Wages of Wins.  For more on NBA Efficiency, PER, and Game Score, please see the following posts:

NBA Efficiency: Do We Overvalue Rebounds? (November 9, 2006).

PER: A Comment on the Player Efficiency Rating (November 17, 2006)

Game Score: Marvin Williams Makes a Hypothetical Deal (December 16, 2007)

Two more notes:

1. For the WP48 numbers offered in this post, player performance was compared to the exact position played (i.e. center, power forward, etc…).  Over the past year or so in this forum I have only been considering three positions (big men, small forward, guards).  But the numbers used for this post came from a spreadsheet where averages from all five positions were used, so some differences will be observed if you compare these results to past postings.

2. I also took most of the text for this post from what I said about the Most Overrated Players in 2007-08.   In other words, much of this post is a re-run. This seems appropriate since there were players (Richard Jefferson, Rudy Gay, Stephen Jackson, Jamal Crawford, and David West) who managed to repeat an appearance on the overrated list.

UPDATE

In case anyone was interested, here are the next five “overrated” players:

16. O.J. Mayo

17. LaMarcus Aldridge

18. Carmelo Anthony

19. Ben Gordon

20. Wilson Chandler

Given that I am a Pistons fan, I thought I would note that the Pistons spent their free agent money on two players ranked in the top 20 on the “overrated” list.  Meanwhile, some very good teams have been shopping from the “underrated” list (which I will post 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.

A few days ago the following story from Lisa Dillman appeared in the L.A. Times: “Adam Morrison rides a hot hand in Las Vegas.”

Reading the reviews might have been the first mistake for the Lakers’ Adam Morrison.

“I had a lot of criticism after my first year,” Morrison said of his rookie season with the Charlotte Bobcats in 2006-07, having been the third overall pick in the NBA draft. “I remember one website saying I was the worst player in the NBA. All that stuff.”

It’s not clear from Dillman’s article if Morrison was referencing this forum, although I did note in May of 2007 that Morrison was the least productive player in 2006-07.  John Hollinger, though, also said at that time that Morrison was “quite possibly the single worst player in the league this year.” (Insider access required).  So the sentiment Morrison notes was not limited to “one website.”  In fact, Neil Paine at Basketball-Reference.com recently noted Morrison’s shortcomings.

Morrison’s comment led to a couple of thoughts.  First of all, I wondered how Morrison’s 2006-07 season ranked in NBA history, at least Wins Produced history.  Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] can be calculated back to 1977-78.  If we look at all players who played at least 1,500 minutes in a season, here are the 15 worst WP48 marks:

1. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf [Denver, 1990-91]: -0.253 WP48, 1505 minutes
2. John Amaechi [Orlando, 2000-01]: -0.195 WP48, 1710 minutes
3. Dennis Awtrey [Phoenix, 1977-78]: -0.161 WP48, 1623 minutes
4. Jeff Turner [Orlando, 1991-92]: -0.159 WP48, 1591 minutes
5. Jason Collins [New Jersey, 2006-07]: -0.159 WP48, 1844 minutes
6. Antoine Carr [Utah, 1995-96]: -0.156 WP48, 1532 minutes
7. Allan Houston [Detroit, 1993-94]: -0.149 WP48, 1519 minutes
8. Jeff Turner [Orlando, 1993-94]: -0.149 WP48, 1536 minutes
9. Clifford Robinson [Portland, 1989-90]: -0.143 WP48, 1565 minutes

10.  Tom McMillen [Washington, 1984-85]: -0.143 WP48, 1547 minutes

11. Adam Morrison [Charlotte, 2006-07]: -0.137 WP48, 2326 minutes

12.  Doug Smith [Dallas, 1992-93]: -0.134 WP48, 1524 minutes

13.  Orlando Woolridge [Philadelphia, 1993-94]: -0.132 WP48, 1955 minutes

14.  Clifford Robinson [Golden State, 2003-04]: -0.130 WP48, 2846 minutes

15. Charlie Scott [Denver, 1979-80]: -0.130 WP48, 1860 minutes

Morrison’s WP48 mark in 2006-07 ranks 11^th in NBA history.  But if we change our threshold to 2,000 minutes played, then Morrison would top the list (or be at the bottom of the list).

If we shift our focus to Wins Produced, though, the bottom five would be as follows:

1. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf [Denver, 1990-91]: -7.9 Wins Produced
2. Clifford Robinson [Golden State, 2003-04]: -7.7 Wins Produced
3. John Amaechi [Orlando, 2000-01]: -6.9 Wins Produced
4. Adam Morrison [Charlotte, 2006-07]: -6.6 Wins Produced
5. Jason Collins [New Jersey, 2006-07]: -6.1 Wins Produced

So Adam Morrison’s performance was not the absolute worse in NBA history.  But it was quite poor.  And you don’t need Wins Produced to see this point.

What’s interesting about this story – and other stories like this — is Morrison’s reaction.  According to the above story it appears Morrison has been somewhat motivated by his evaluation.  And this is where the story can get interesting.  Can all of these evaluations cause Morrison to play better?  Furthermore, as statistical analysis becomes more prevalent, will we see other players change their performance in reaction to the numbers?

My guess is that Morrison – despite these evaluations — will not develop into a very productive NBA player.  Certainly as he gains more experience he can play somewhat better. But given how bad he has played so far, I don’t think experience can dramatically alter what he offers. 

Then again, maybe Morrison can prove me – and the other people looking at NBA stats – wrong.  If so, we can add one more item to the list of factors that alter the performance of an NBA player (a list that includes age, injury, coaching (sometimes), and the productivity of teammates).  Future studies might have to note “player improved because of poor statistical evaluations.”  It will be interesting to see how this item is statistically added to the analysis.   

- 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.

The Cleveland Cavaliers were the best team in the NBA in 2008-09.  At least, that’s what you would conclude if you looked at efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) or Wins Produced during the 2008-09 regular season.   If you look at the smaller sample from the post-season, you would reach a different conclusion.  Of course, given a choice between a larger and smaller sample, we tend to go with former.

Regardless of which sample you like, though, the 2008-09 regular season and post-season are now over.  Since it ended, the Cavaliers have made some moves to get even better.  As we saw with the Pistons, change is not always positive (yes, I can’t let it go).  Cleveland, though, might have made some progress.

To see this, let’s look at the 10 players who led the Cavaliers in minutes played last year.

• LeBron James: 3054 minutes, 0.426 WP48, 27.1 Wins Produced
• Maurice Williams: 2834 minutes, 0.138 WP48, 8.2 Wins Produced
• Anderson Varejao: 2306 minutes, 0.155 WP48, 7.4 Wins Produced
• Delonte West: 2152 minutes, 0.144 WP48, 6.4 Wins Produced
• Daniel Gibson: 1795 minutes, 0.020 WP48, 0.8 Wins Produced
• Zydrunas Ilgauskas: 1765 minutes, 0.133 WP48, 4.9 Wins Produced
• Wally Szczerbiak: 1527 minutes, 0.120 WP48, 3.8 Wins Produced
• Ben Wallace: 1314 minutes, 0.198 WP48, 5.4 Wins Produced
• Sasha Pavlovic: 1053 minutes, 0.019 WP48, 0.4 Wins Produced
• J.J. Hickson: 705 minutes, 0.031 WP48, 0.5 Wins Produced

If we add together the Wins Produced of this group we see 64.9 wins.  The entire team’s Wins Produced was 64.6, while the team actually won 66 games. 

This summer the Cavaliers have acquired Shaquille O’Neal (for Wallace and Pavlovic), signed Anthony Parker, and signed Jamario Moon to an offer sheet.  Here is what these players did last year:

• Shaquille O’Neal: 2252 minutes, 0.207 WP48, 9.7 Wins Produced
• Anthony Parker: 2637 minutes, 0.097 WP48, 5.4 Wins Produced
• Jamario Moon: 2068 minutes, 0.194 WP48, 8.4 Wins Produced

Moon (if he ultimately goes to Cleveland) and Parker take the place of Pavlovic and Szczerbiak, while Shaq takes over for Ben Wallace.  If the new players play the same number of minutes as the departing players, then the Cavaliers Top Ten improve by 4.3 wins. 

Of course, the minutes of the new players (as well as the remaining players) will likely be different (which could help).  Then again, Shaq and Parker are both quite old, so it’s likely each will decline (and that could hurt).  

Although player performance will probably be somewhat different from what we saw last year, it looks like the Cavaliers have improved.  Unfortunately for Cleveland fans, Orlando has also improved (and Boston might be better also).  So even though Cleveland looks like a dominant team, they will have to contend with other dominant teams to reach and prevail in the NBA Finals.

All of this means that Cleveland fans can look forward to many wins in the regular season and a fair amount of painful uncertainty in the playoffs.  All of that beats the alternative we will see in Detroit (i.e. fewer wins in the regular season and certainty if the team even makes the playoffs).  Yes, I can’t let it go.

- 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.