The three most productive players in the Eastern Conference last season were LeBron James, Dwight Howard, and Dwyane “Flash” Wade.  James and Howard met in the Eastern Conference Finals, and there is a chance that will happen again in 2010 (although Boston might have more to say about that this year).  The Miami Heat and Wade, though, were bounced in the first round in 2009.  When we look at the team’s Wins Produced, we can see why the Heat struggled.

Table One: The Miami Heat in 2008-09

From Table One we see that Wade produced 22.2 wins last season.  The other 17 players employed by the Heat in 2008-09 produced 19.9 wins.  In contrast, LeBron’s teammates produced 36.8 wins while the Orlando Magic received 36.3 wins from all players not named Howard. 

Once upon a time, what we observed for James and Howard was also observed in Miami. Here is the productivity of Wade and his teammates since he entered the league in 2003.

2003-04: Wade (5.7 Wins Produced), Teammates (36.6 Wins Produced)

2004-05: Wade (12.7 Wins Produced, Teammates (45.8 Wins Produced)

2005-06: Wade (17.8 Wins Produced), Teammates (33.3 Wins Produced)

2006-07: Wade (11.7 Wins Produced), Teammates (26.9 Wins Produced)

2007-08: Wade (5.5 Wins Produced), Teammates (12.6 Wins Produced)

2008-09: Wade (22.2 Wins Produced), Teammates (19.9 Wins Produced)

Totals: Wade (75.7 Wins Produced), Teammates (175.1 Wins Produced)

Early in Wade’s career his teammates were quite productive.  Across the past three seasons – or since the team took the title in 2006 – Flash’s teammates have been below average.

And when we look at next season, it doesn’t appear this story is going to change.  Here is the projected first and second string in Miami (Wins Produced and WP48 – Wins Produced per 48 minutes – reported for 2008-09):

First String

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

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

SF: James Jones [-1.6 Wins Produced, -0.037 WP48; 0.047 WP48 for career]

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

C: Jermaine O’Neal [-1.6 Wins Produced, -0.037 WP48 for entire season]

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]

In addition to these ten players, the Heat also have…

SG-SF: Quentin Richardson [3.9 Wins Produced, 0.098 WP48]

SF: Dorell Wright [2.9 Wins Produced, 0.128 WP48 in 2007-08]

PF-C: Joel Anthony [-1.1 Wins Produced, -0.050 WP48]

After Wade, Miami currently has only one player – Mario Chalmers – who was above average last year.  And Chalmers 0.101 WP48 is essentially average [average WP48 is 0.100]. 

Last year it was a slightly different story.  In 2008-09, the Heat employed Shawn Marion, who was traded for Jamario Moon.  Both Marion and Moon were above average, and now both are gone.  Consequently, Miami looks to be worse.

Fans of the Heat might be tempted to tell a different story.  Beasley, Chalmers, and Cook are all young players; and young players can get better.  Although this is true, Miami’s competition in the East seems to have an easier path to the playoffs.  The Cavaliers, Celtics, Magic, Hawks, Wizards, Bucks, Bulls, and Bobcats can all win more than 40 games next year with players simply producing at levels we have observed in the past.  For the Heat to win 40 games, someone is going to have to surpass their past performance level. 

As a consequence, I think Miami is one playoff team (not the only one, though) from 2009 that will struggle to appear in the post-season in 2010.  Yes, Flash and Miami can make it to the post-season.  But the road for Miami seems relatively more difficult.

And that means Wade might seriously consider finding a new home in 2010. 

- 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 following is from Stacey Brook (co-author of The Wages of Wins) and was originally posted at Hawkonomics:

You don’t hear a lot about it but the NCAA is currently being sued by former college football and basketball players over caps on scholarship amounts. The immediate concern is over possible antitrust damages to athletes in many NCAA sports since 2002. But the second concern is that, in the future, some teams would not be able to compete with higher scholarship costs. “It really comes down to competitive balance,” Matt Mitten, who heads Marquette’s National Sports Law Institute, told USA Today.

Plenty of research has been done on competitive balance in the NCAA (see, for example, Malcolm Gladwell’s summary of Jim Peach’s research). So, how competitively balanced is NCAA basketball? Here are the Noll-Scully measures of competitive balance from 1999 to 2007.

1999 2.021
2000 2.082
2001 2.006
2002 2.040
2003 2.007
2004 2.059
2005 2.003
2006 2.017
2007 2.055

These numbers show two things: first that NCAA basketball is quite unbalanced (a score of 1.0 would reflect perfect competitive balance); and second, that this lack of competitive balance isn’t getting any better. So, when the Collegiate Athletes Coalition maintains that the NCAA’s scholarship cap is “simply a cost containment mechanism that enables the NCAA and its member institutions to preserve more of the benefits of their enterprise for themselves,” the group would appear to have a point. If the NCAA were really so serious about competitive balance, shouldn’t it have done something about the problem over the last nine years? More likely, the NCAA’s rules on scholarships are designed to protect revenues, not competitive balance.

So don’t let the analysts (or lawyers) fool you. Capping scholarship awards or restricting compensation are simply mechanisms for the NCAA to extract rents from college athletes, college students, boosters, and ultimately taxpayers.

One could argue that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player ever.  So it was not a surprise when he was elected to the Hall-of-Fame.   His speech, though, was somewhat surprising to Adrian Wojnarowski; who emphasized the tone Jordan adopted in his acceptance speech.  Jordan’s speech revealed that he’s primarily motivated by every person who has ever slighted him.  In essence, MJ is motivated by spite.

Jordan defended his approach by noting his competitive spirit.  This spirit drove Jordan to succeed in basketball or any other sport or game he played.  Since his playing days ended, though, this drive has been hard to find.  As an executive with the Washington Wizards and Charlotte Bobcats, wins have been scarce.  And if you listened hard to Jordan’s speech you would have heard him reveal that he tried to play any game that would get him out of the classroom.  Yes, Jordan’s competitive desire didn’t extend to his school work either.

In essence, Jordan doesn’t appear to be much different from many people.  When Jordan thinks the chance of success is high, he’s quite competitive. In areas where excelling might be more difficult, he doesn’t seem to try very hard. Consequently, success as an NBA executive has been fleeting.

In 2009-10, though, Jordan’s record as an executive might begin to change.  Last season the Bobcats finished with 35 wins.  This mark was actually the best in franchise history.  And that tells us what we need to know about the short five-year history of the Bobcats.

The 2008-09 Story

If we delve a bit deeper into the numbers, though, Charlotte fans should begin to see some hope. Charlotte’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) suggests this team should have won 37.8 games.  Miami’s efficiency differential, the 5^th seed in the Eastern Conference last year, is consistent with a team that won 42.1 games.  So the Bobcats were not far from a playoff spot in 2008-09.

When we look at the individual players via Wins Produced, we can see who is responsible for this team’s success.

Table One: The Charlotte Bobcats in 2008-09

The names at the top of the list – Gerald Wallace and Emeka Okafor – are hardly a surprise.  This is what I said about this duo last December: For those who know Bobcat history, the story of the 2008-09 season is hardly new.  From 2004-05 to 2007-08, the Okafor-Wallace duo have combined to produce 69.4 wins (35.2 by Okafor, 34.2 by Wallace). The remainder of the roster only produced 46.5 victories across these four seasons (or less than 12 wins per year).  Of the players who played at least 2,000 minutes in a season, only Brevin Knight in 2005-06 and Jason Richardson in 2007-08 were above average players.  In sum, Charlotte has been Okafor, Wallace, and not much else since this franchise was created.

Although Okafor and Wallace once again led the Bobcats, help for this duo has appeared.  Raymond Felton, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, and D.J. Augustin combined to produce 15.6 wins last year.  And had Diaw and Bell been available the entire season this number would have been higher.  In sum, the combination of Okafor, Wallace, Felton, Diaw, Bell, and Augustin was productive enough to win more than 40 games last year.  

Playoff Contention in 2009-10?

Unfortunately, players like Adam Morrison, Nazr Mohammed, Alexis Ajinca, and eight others, combined to produce -6.6 wins.  The good news is that many of these players will not play for Charlotte in 2009-10.  The bad news is that Okafor will also be elsewhere.

Replacing Okafor is Tyson Chandler.  Last year Chandler only produced 2.3 wins – with a 0.078 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] – for the New Orleans Hornets.  Just comparing the 2008-09 versions of Okafor and Chandler suggests the Bobcats have lost about nine wins.

If we look as the past history of Tyson Chandler, though, prospects for the Bobcats look much better.  Here is what Chandler did from 2004-05 to 2007-08.

2004-05 (w/Chicago Bulls): 15.2 Wins Produced, 0.333 WP48

2005-06 (w/Chicago Bulls): 10.3 Wins Produced, 0.234 WP48

2006-07 (w/Hornets): 15.8 Wins Produced, 0.301 WP48

2007-08 (w/Hornets): 14.1 Wins Produced, 0.244 WP48

Across these four seasons, Chandler produced 55.5 wins and posted a 0.277 WP48.  In contrast, Okafor – across these same seasons – only produced 33.8 wins and posted a 0.190 WP48.  So if Chandler can return to form, then the Bobcats are better off after this trade (contrary to what John Hollinger argued – as I noted in July — when the trade was made).

If the Bobcats ultimately re-sign Felton, Charlotte’s first and second string (according to ESPN.com) will be as follows (2008-09 WP48 numbers reported):

First String

PG: Raymond Felton [0.092 WP48]

SG: Raja Bell [0.063 WP48, for entire season]

SF: Gerald Wallace [0.283 WP48]

PF: Boris Diaw [0.065 WP48, for entire season]

C: Tyson Chandler [0.078 WP48, 0.277 WP48 previous four seasons]

Second String

PG: D.J. Augustin [0.075 WP48]

SG: Gerald Henderson (rookie)

SF: Vladimir Radmanovic [0.031 WP48]

PF: Derrick Brown (rookie)

C: DeSagana Diop [0.013 WP48, 0.137 WP48 previous three seasons]

Keeping with Bobcat tradition, this roster only has two above average players.  But the below average veterans, though, don’t wander into the negative range.  And Diop can offer much more. From 2005-06 to 2007-08, Diop’s WP48 ranged from 0.134 to 0.140 (in other words, he was very consistent). This suggests he is capable of being an above average center.

Putting it all together, if Chandler is healthy and Felton is signed, this team can win more than 40 games.  This means the Bobcats might make the playoffs for the first time in franchise history.

Let me close by noting that the list of playoff contenders in the East seems to expand with each Eastern Conference team examined.  The Cavaliers, Magic, and Celtics are clearly the best teams in the East.   Last year the fourth seed was the Atlanta Hawks.  At this point, it doesn’t look like the Hawks are moving up.  It does appear, though, that the Wizards, Bucks, Bulls, and Bobcats are capable of challenging Atlanta.  And I haven’t offered a complete examination of Toronto, Indiana, and Miami.  In sum, forecasting the playoffs in the East – after the top three seeds – looks difficult this year.

It does appear at this point, though, that the Bobcats – if Chandler is healthy and Felton re-signed — have to be on the list of playoff contenders.  And returning to the observation offered at the onset, this means that MJ’s reputation as an executive might be on the upswing.

- 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.

Yes, much of this post is a re-run. 

But I am posting this story again because last week, 53 ESPN.com experts were asked to pick the top team in the Western Conference.  The overwhelming favorite – with 41 votes – was the LA Lakers.  Ten votes went to San Antonio Spurs while the Mavericks and Nuggets each received one vote.  And the Portland Trail Blazers – the team that finished second in the Western Conference last year in efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) – did not receive a single vote.  Yes, even Henry Abbott – a long-time fan of the Trail Blazers – did not give his beloved Blazers a vote.

Matthew Yglesias – who is better known for his political insights than for his sports coverage – argued a few days ago that Portland is the “only team that could beat the Lakers in the Western Conference.”  Although I am not sure that’s true, I do concur – as I noted a month ago — with the sentiment that the Blazers can challenge the Lakers. 

This argument begins with what happened last year.  The Blazers finished last year with a 5.9 efficiency differential.  This was the second best mark in the Western Conference, eclipsing what was seen from the Spurs (4.1 differential) and the Nuggets (3.5 differential).

Wins Produced allows us to connect efficiency differential to the individual players.  Table One reports the Wins Produced for each player the Blazers employed last year.

Table One: The Portland Trail Blazers in 2008-09

Topping the list is Brandon Roy.  Last year Roy produced 15.3 wins with a 0.253 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] mark.  To put that mark in perspective, Kobe Bryant produced 15.0 wins with a 0.244 WP48 in 2008-09.  Yes, Roy is just as productive as Kobe.  So if you think Kobe is what separates the Lakers from everyone else, well…the Blazers have a shooting guard like that (at least in terms of overall production).

Unfortunately, Roy’s teammates only produced 39.9 wins last year; while Kobe’s teammates produced 46.1 wins.  Because Kobe’s teammates were better, the Lakers won more games than the Blazers.

In the off-season – as I noted last month – the gap between these teams got much smaller. And to make this easier, let me just repeat what I said (yes, as noted, I am going into re-runs).

Portland Misses?

Portland’s objective this summer was to close the gap between them and the Lakers.  It appears, though, that this gap has actually gotten bigger. The Lakers were essentially able to exchange a Trevor Ariza (a former second round pick of the Knicks) for All-Star Ron Artest (yes, he did make an appearance in this game in 2004).  Meanwhile, the Blazers made every effort to sign Hedo Turkoglu, only to have Turkoglu sign with Toronto at the last moment.  Then the Blazers turned to Paul Millsap, only to see the Utah Jazz match Portland’s offer.  Finally, in an apparent act of desperation, the Blazers finally got Andre Miller to accept their money.  This sequence of events had led Ken Berger of CBS Sportline to list the Blazers as one of the NBA’s losers in the 2009 off-season. 

But did the Blazers really fail this summer? 

To answer this question, let’s start with where the Lakers and Blazers finished the 2008-09 regular season. 

The Lakers in 2008-09

Here are the top 10 players – in minutes played – for the Lakers last season (WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes):

Pau Gasol: 2,999 min., 15.6 Wins Produced, 0.250 WP48

Kobe Bryant: 2,960 min., 15.0 Wins Produced, 0.244 WP48

Derek Fisher: 2,441 min., 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48

Lamar Odom: 2,316 min., 10.6 Wins Produced, 0.220 WP48

Trevor Ariza: 1,998 min., 8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48

Andrew Bynum: 1,446 min., 4.8 Wins Produced, 0.158 WP48

Sasha Vujacic: 1,293 min., 2.7 Wins Produced, 0.099 WP48

Jordan Farmer: 1,192 min., -0.9 Wins Produced, -0.035 WP48

Luke Walton: 1,166 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.091 WP48

Vladimir Radmanovic: 771 min., 1.5 Wins Produced, 0.094 WP48

Totals for Top 10: 18,582 min., 62.2 Wins Produced, 0.161 WP48

The Lakers won 65 games.  But their efficiency differential of 7.8 (and correspondingly, the team’s Wins Produced) was consistent with a team that won 61 games (wins that can essentially be connected to the ten players listed above).  So the Lakers were not quite as good as their won-loss record indicated.

The Blazers in 2008-09

LaMarcus Aldridge: 3,004 min., 6.7 Wins Produced, 0.107 WP48

Brandon Roy: 2,903 min., 15.3 Wins Produced, 0.253 WP48

Travis Outlaw: 2,246 min., 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.055 WP48

Steve Blake: 2,188 min., 5.3 Wins Produced, 0.117 WP48

Rudy Fernandez: 1,993 min., 6.9 Wins Produced, 0.167 WP48

Joel Przybilla: 1,952 min., 11.7 Wins Produced, 0.288 WP48

Nicolas Batum: 1,454 min., 3.7 Wins Produced, 0.123 WP48

Greg Oden: 1,314 min., 4.2 Wins Produced, 0.154 WP48

Sergio Rodriguez: 1,225 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48

Channing Frye: 746 min., -2.3 Wins Produced, -0.146 WP48

Totals for Top 10: 19,025 min., 56.4 Wins Produced, 0.142 WP48

Again, Portland’s Wins Produced for the entire team was 55.1; so the Blazers were about six wins off the pace set by the Lakers.

Evaluating the Changes

Now let’s consider the changes made to each team’s top 10. 

First the Lakers:

The Lakers lose…

Trevor Ariza: 1,998 min., 8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48

Vladimir Radmanovic: 771 min., 1.5 Wins Produced, 0.094 WP48

Total Loss: 2,769 min., 9.5 Wins Produced, 0.162 WP48

The Lakers add to their top 10…

Ron Artest: 2,452 min., 4.6 Wins Produced, 0.089 WP48

Josh Powell: 703 min., -0.6 Wins Produced, -0.040 WP48 or

Didier Ilunga-Mbenga: 181 min., -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.066 WP48

Total Gain: 3,155 min., 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.060 WP48 (with Artest and Powell)

Overall Direction: The Lakers appear to be worse.  Artest is simply not as productive as Ariza.  And whether Powell or Mbenga takes the 10^th slot, the team is really not helped.

Now the Blazers:

The Blazers lose:

Sergio Rodriguez: 1,225 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48

Channing Frye: 746 min., -2.3 Wins Produced, -0.146 WP48

Total Loss: 1,971 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.001 WP48

The Blazers gain:

Andre Miller: 2,976 min., 11.1 Wins Produced, 0.178 WP48

Jerryd Bayless: 655 min., -1.4 Wins Produced, -0.104 WP48

Total Gain: 3,631 min., 9.6 Wins Produced, 0.127 WP48

Overall Direction: The Blazers appear to be better. Miller is clearly an upgrade over Sergio Rodriguez at point guard.  It also helps that Channing Frye went away.

Once again…when we compare each team’s efficiency differential (and Wins Produced), it appeared the Lakers were only about six wins better than the Blazers in 2008-09.  With the moves each team has made, this gap appears to be closed.  In sum, if all we look at is what the veteran players on each team did last year, the Blazers are at least as good as the Lakers.

On the other hand…

Of course, all good economists have “the other hand” to look at.

It’s important to note that the Lakers did not have services of Andrew Bynum for much of the 2008-09 season.  If Bynum is healthy, he could substantially improve the Lakers. 

On the other hand… the same story could be told about Greg Oden. 

Then again, on the other hand… Phil Jackson does appear to be one of those coaches who can change a player’s productivity. Maybe he can make Ron Artest better.

Then again, on the other hand…. Artest will be 30 years of age in November, so his production is probably going to slip. 

Then again, on the other hand… Andre Miller is already 33 years of age. So how many more years can he be productive? 

Then again, on the other hand… we are completely ignoring the changes made by the Mavericks, Spurs, and Nuggets. These teams, like the Blazers, might also be better.

Wow, that’s quite a few hands.  Let me try and summarize.  Contrary to what Berger argued, I think the moves the Lakers and Blazers have made have actually closed the gap between the two teams.  The Lakers were clearly the best team in the West last year.  It doesn’t appear to me, though, that the Lakers are clearly the best in 2009-10.  So although I can’t guarantee the Blazers will make it to the NBA Finals in 2010 (remember what we found on the other hands), I think Portland fans shouldn’t think their team ranked among the losers this summer.  As for fans of the Lakers… well, Phil Jackson really is a good coach so maybe it will still work out.

- 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 Chicago Bulls finished the 2008-09 season by taking the Boston Celtics – the defending NBA champions — to seven games in the first round of the playoffs.  Such a performance likely gave fans of the Bulls hope for the future.

Since the Chicago-Boston series ended, though, little has happened.  In the draft Chicago added James Johnson and Taj Gibson. Both Johnson and Gibson appear to play power forward, or the same position as Tyrus Thomas (and perhaps Joakim Noah).  So it’s unclear how much either rookie will play (or if they are an upgrade over what the Bulls currently have).

Gordon vs. Pargo

The only other move the Bulls made was the signing of Jannero Pargo, a move made at the same time Ben Gordon signed with the Detroit Pistons.  Both Gordon and Pargo are undersized shooting guards who like to launch shots from beyond the arc.  There are, though, substantial differences.   On the positive side, Pargo is far cheaper.  Unfortunately, the Bulls are getting what they pay for.  In terms of on-court productivity, Pargo is very much a downgrade.

As has been noted in the past in this forum (and also in The Wages of Wins), Gordon – relative to an average shooting guard – is not very good.  In fact, Gordon has never posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] mark that was above average.  WP48, though, compares a player to the average at his position.  If Gordon could be compared to Pargo, he would be a superstar.

Table One reports the productivity of each player the Chicago Bulls employed last season.  As one can see, Gordon’s WP48 was 0.097 last season.  Pargo didn’t play in the NBA last season, but his career WP48 is -0.018.  So Gordon was 0.115 better than Pargo’s career average; or if Pargo was an average player [WP48 of 0.100], Gordon would have a 0.215 WP48 [i.e. Gordon would be a star]. 

Table One: The Chicago Bulls in 2008-09

To put these numbers in perspective, Gordon produced 6.1 wins for the Bulls last year.  Pargo’s career mark indicates he would have produced -1.1 wins in Gordon’s minutes.  So replacing Gordon with Pargo would have cost the Bulls 7.2 wins and their opening round match-up with the Celtics.

Looking for Hope

The comparison between Gordon and Pargo suggests the Bulls are going to decline in 2009-10.  When we consider the team’s current depth chart (taken from ESPN.com), though, there is reason for optimism (2008-09 WP48 reported)

First String

PG: Derrick Rose, 0.084 WP48

SG: John Salmons, 0.098 WP48 (for entire 2008-09 season)

SF: Luol Deng, 0.121 WP48

PF: Joakim Noah, 0.208 WP48

C: Brad Miller, 0.122 WP48 (for entire 2008-09 season)

Second String

PG: Kirk Hinrich, 0.104 WP48

SG: Jannero Pargo, –0.043 WP48 in 2007-08

PF: Tyrus Thomas, 0.120 WP48

Looking at these numbers we see that five players who will be part of the rotation next year were above average in 2008-09.  And Salmons and Rose were very close to average.  So Pargo is the only weak link on the team.  It appears, though, that Salmons is the primary replacement for Gordon; so Pargo’s negative impact will be mitigated.

Looking at just these numbers – and assuming the remaining roster is not a detriment to the team (the team will employ more than the eight players listed above) – this team is capable of winning at least half their games.  It’s possible, though, for the Bulls to do better.

For example, Luol Deng posted the following numbers prior to this season.

2004-05: 5.0 Wins Produced, 0.148 WP48

2005-06: 10.7 Wins Produced, 0.198 WP48

2006-07: 14.7 Wins Produced, 0.230 WP48

2007-08: 5.9 Wins Produced, 0.133 WP48

The first three years of Deng’s career we see the standard pattern in young players.  Each year Deng got better.  In 2006-07, though, Deng missed 2o games and his per-minute performance declined.  Deng also missed games last year.   If Deng could be healthy and productive, though, the Bulls could expect about five additional wins.

And then there is the case of Derrick Rose.  The media and coaches stated that Rose was the top rookie last season.  The Wins Produced story, though, suggests Rose was only average.   If Rose continues as an average player (and Deng doesn’t return to form), the Bulls will probably be close to an average team.  But what if Rose follows the career path of LeBron James and Kevin Durant?  Both LeBron and Durant struggled their first year and then developed into above average performers.  If Rose follows the same path, then the prospects of the Bulls improve dramatically. 

To illustrate, Rose produced about five wins last season as an essentially average point guard and the team won 41 games.  Here is what happens if Rose plays better:

WP48 = 0.150, Wins Produced are about 9.0, Bulls win about 45 games

WP48 = 0.200, Wins Produced are about 12.0, Bulls win about 48 games

WP48 = 0.250, Wins Produced are about 15.0, Bulls win about 51 games

WP48 = 0.300, Wins Produced are about 18.0, Bulls win about 54 games

In sum, if Rose becomes the player people think he was last year, the Bulls can be above average.  If Deng returns to form, the team is even better.  And if the Bulls sign Dwyane Wade in 2010 (a rumor I have seen), the Chicago Bulls could be a title contender in 2011.

Of course, all these “ifs” might not happen.  But contrary to what I said last March, it’s possible (not a guarantee, just a possibility) that Barack Obama can legitimately invite the Bulls to the White House before his first term ends.  And the signing of Pargo is not enough to derail this hope.

- 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.