Yes, it has only been two games (so this is a very small sample).  And yes, Brandon Jennings and Ricky Rubio have to play in an NBA game.  But look at what Ty Lawson has done (reported in Table One) across his first two games.

Table One: Ty Lawson after Two Games

These numbers weren’t generated against the Memphis Grizzlies (sorry, Chip).  Lawson’s first two games were at home against the Utah Jazz and on the road against Portland.  As one can see, against these two opponents, Lawson was well above average with respect to every statistic except assists and blocked shots.

Again, it’s early.  But do you think decision-makers in Minnesota, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia – the three teams that took a different point guard than Lawson last summer – are regretting their decision?  If I understand human behavior, I would say no.  And even if Lawson continues to produce, the answer will still be no (people have amazing powers of rationalization when it comes to their own choices).  But I think the fans of these teams – who might have questioned this choice last summer — should start feeling the pangs of regret.  And if not yet, I suspect those pangs will begin 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.

In general, if you tell fans of a team that there is little hope before the season even starts, those fans are going to become unhappy.  At least this has been true when I have discussed the fortunes of the less-fortunate teams in the NBA. 

Often when I state that a particular NBA team is not very good (or a particular player is not very productive), fans of that team will declare that I “hate” their favorite team (or favorite player).  To prove that this is not the case I am going to return to the subject of the Detroit Pistons.

As the following picture illustrates, I am a fan of the Pistons. 

When Henry Abbott asked me what I wanted for winning the TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown, I asked for an autographed banner of the Detroit Pistons.  And for better or worse – and as we will see, last year, and probably this next year, are part of the “worse” – this banner is staying on my office wall.

The Pistons Decline

How did last year become part of the “worse”?  In 2007-08, the Pistons won 59 games. And the team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of 8.17 ranked second in the NBA (behind Boston). 

At the onset of the 2008-09 season, the team that won 59 games was still essentially the same.  But after winning the first two games of the 2008-09 season, general manager Joe Dumars made a bold move.  Chauncey Billups – the team’s leader in Wins Produced in 2007-08 – was sent to the Denver Nuggets for Allen Iverson.  Given the past performance of Billups and Iverson, one suspected this move would remove Detroit from the list of title contenders in 2009.  Looking at Table One, we can see that’s indeed what happened. 

Table One: The Detroit Pistons in 2008-09

Iverson ended up playing nearly 2,000 minutes in Detroit, producing only 1.4 wins.  His WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.034 was below Iverson’s career average; but even if Iverson had performed at the level seen across his career the Pistons would have struggled.   Iverson’s career WP48 entering the 2008-09 season was 0.083.  Had Iverson played at this level the Pistons would have only won two more games last year [in contrast, Billups produced 16.0 wins for the Pistons in 2007-08].

Although I doubt that Dumars looks at Wins Produced in making decisions, I suspect he knew that going from Billups to Iverson was a step back.  But the Pistons — with Billups — were not likely to win a title in 2009.  Given the age of Billups, it was time to start building another title contender.  And with Iverson’s expiring contract, Dumars had the ability to start building during the summer of 2009.

So in the short-run the Billups-Iverson trade looked bad. But in the long-run, this could be thought of as a stroke of genius.  Unfortunately, the word is “could”.  When we look at the moves Dumars made with this cap space, we (and I mean “fans of the Pistons”) are left disappointed.

Faltering on the First Steps to the Next Title

Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva – two players who have never been above average in their careers – were signed to relatively large contracts.  And Antonio McDyess – the player who led the Pistons in Wins Produced in 2008-09 – was allowed to depart for San Antonio.  Such moves leave the Pistons with the following depth chart.

Potential First String

PG: Rodney Stuckey [4.1 Wins Produced, 0.079 WP48]

SG: Richard Hamilton [2.5 Wins produced, 0.052 WP48]

SF: Tayshaun Prince [7.8 Wins Produced, 0.122 WP48]

PF: Charlie Villanueva [3.8 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48]

C: Ben Wallace [4.3 Wins Produced, 0.159 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Will Bynum [0.9 Wins Produced, 0.052 WP48]

SG: Ben Gordon [6.1 Wins Produced, 0.097 WP48]

SF: Austin Daye [rookie]

PF: Jason Maxiell [2.6 Wins Produced, 0.090 WP48]

C: Kwame Brown [1.6 Wins Produced, 0.078 WP48]

As noted this past summer, the Pistons 2009-10 depth chart fails to inspire confidence.  Ben Wallace and Tayshaun Prince were the only veterans who were above average last year.  And the Wins Produced of the nine veterans listed above only sums to 33.7.  This is hardly enough to contend for a title.  Yes, maybe Big Ben to can return to what he was the last time he played for the Pistons.  Any maybe the younger players will get much better.  And maybe…. I am spending too much time looking at my Pistons banner (and drinking the Kool-Aid).

The numbers seem to suggest that if the Pistons get to play teams like the Memphis Grizzlies every night, then Detroit will look amazing.  But against the better NBA teams the Pistons will probably have problems.

The silver lining in all this is that Joe Dumars is more than willing to make different decisions when things don’t work out as he originally thought.  Past mistakes – see Rodney White, Darko Milicic, and yes, Allen Iverson – were soon allowed to go elsewhere.  So when the Pistons don’t contend in 2009-10, we can expect changes to be made.  Such changes could –and we must emphasize the word “could” – bring in some players who are truly above average.  And if that happens, my banner will look so much better in my office.

- 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.

To the extent that competitive balance matters (and its importance tends to be overstated), the NBA has a competitive balance problem.  As we detail in The Wages of Wins, relative to MLB, NFL, and the NHL; winning percentage (once one controls for schedule length) has a wider dispersion in the Association. And while competitive balance has improved in baseball, football, and hockey over time; the NBA’s level of balance has remained relatively poor (by the way, yesterday this issue was discussed at Slate.com — the NBA discussion starts around the 15 minute mark)

Again, the impact competitive balance has on league revenue has been overstated in the past.  Still, if you think this is important, the 2009-10 season is going to disappoint.  Having examined each team in the NBA, I think the 2009-10 season is going to be remembered as “The Year of the Super Teams” (or some such title).

If we go back to 1973-74, in only three seasons did the NBA have more than two teams win 60 or more games.

2008-09: Cleveland (66), Lakers (65), Celtics (62)

1997-98: Chicago (62), Utah (62), Lakers (61), Seattle (61)

1996-97: Chicago (69), Utah (64), Miami (61)

And if we consider teams that have won 75% of their games (62 wins or more), there never has been a year where more than three teams surpassed this mark.

This could all change in 2009-10.  When we look at how the best teams in the NBA improved this past summer, it seems likely that more than three teams will surpass the 75% mark in 2009-10.

The identity of these teams will be noted in the following preview.  Before we get to the preview, though, let’s quickly review the assumptions and qualifiers (mostly borrowed from a past forecast of an NBA season).

Assumptions and Qualifiers

If you know WP48 (Wins Produced per 48 minutes) and how many minutes a player plays, then you know Wins Produced. And as noted many times here, Wins Produced and actual wins are quite closely related (which is not surprising, since Wins Produced is based on the link between wins and offensive and defensive efficiency).

In looking at the past it’s easy to see a player’s Wins Produced (well, easy in the sense that it can be done). When we look towards the future, though, calculating Wins Produced becomes a challenge. First of all, we don’t know future productivity.  Yes, there is a strong link between past and future per-minute performance (for veterans, the link is weaker for rookies).  But it’s not a perfect link. In other words, players can get better (or worse).

Then there is minutes played.  I have not modeled minutes played, so for these I have to make an educated guess (with the emphasis on “guess” not “educated”).

All that being said, I did go through each team’s roster and made an effort to forecast the next season.  This forecast looks at past performance, but also considers factors like injury, improvement due to age, declines due to age, coaching, etc… (i.e. things that can alter performance). 

The following is an estimation of where each team will finish (given the team’s roster at the start of the season.  Teams are listed in four groups: Lottery Team, Playoff Team—Likely First Round Exit, Playoff Team – Possible Second Round Exit, and Title Contender.  A Lottery Team is expected to win less than 30 games.  Those expected to exit in the First Round are expected to win between 30 and 45 games.  Second Round teams should win between 45 and 55 games. And Title Contenders should exceed 55 wins.  These are obviously rough approximations, but should give an idea of where each team is likely to finish (given their current roster).

The Eastern Conference

Here is how I see the Eastern Conference unfolding:

Lottery Teams: The New Jersey Nets and the New York Knicks are the two teams in the Eastern Conference that I don’t think have a very good chance of making the playoffs.  So fans of these teams might want to pay attention to college basketball (and what happen internationally) and start thinking about the 2010 draft (and the 2010 free agent market).  Update: As noted by Daniel, only the Nets need to look forward to the draft.  Utah has the Knicks’ 2010 first round pick.

Possible Playoff Team — Likely First Round Exit: For the following teams I can come up with a scenario where they make the playoffs (some of these scenarios are more plausible than others), but I don’t think they are good enough to secure the fourth or fifth seed in the playoffs (seeds six through eight play Cleveland, Orlando, and Boston in the first round and therefore get to go home after the first round).  Charlotte, Detroit, Miami, Indiana, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Toronto each have a team that could win between 30 and 40 games (and some might push over 40 while others will fall a bit short of 30).  From this list of seven teams, I expect three will fill in the lower seeds in the Eastern Conference playoffs (and again, lose in the first round).  The identity of these three teams is difficult to ascertain, and mostly depends upon how specific players recover from injuries. 

Possible Playoff Team — Possible Second Round Exit: The winner of the playoff series between the fourth and fifth seed gets to advance to the second round, where that team will likely lose to Cleveland, Orlando, or Boston.  There are three teams that I think are the most likely contenders for those two playoff spots: Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington each have a team that seems likely to win between 40 and 50 games.  This is probably good enough to surpass the previous listing of teams, but nowhere near good enough to catch the elite in the conference.

NBA Title Contender: Cleveland has added Shaquille O’Neal, Jamario Moon, Anthony Parker (and maybe Leon Powe); Orlando has added Vince Carter (and enough frontcourt talent to play Rashard Lewis at small forward some of the time); and Boston might get Kevin Garnett for the entire season (and might have lost Glen Davis for awhile – which is probably a positive).   Each of these teams dominated the Eastern Conference last year, and each is probably better in 2009-10.  If each of these teams surpasses 62 wins — and one team from the Western Conference does teh same — then 2009-10 (as noted above) is a special year. Given the dominance of these teams it seems unlikely that any will fail to reach the second round.  Unfortunately, for at least one of these teams, the second round is as far as they will get.  Yes, 2009-10 is a season where we KNOW before the season starts that a truly dominant team – and I think Cleveland, Orlando, and Boston in 2009-10 could rank among the all-time great teams – will fail to reach the conference finals.   This is bad news for one of these teams, but very good news for fans of the NBA.

Western Conference

This is how I see the Western Conference unfolding:

Lottery Teams: If you are a fan of Memphis, Minnesota, Oklahoma City, and Sacramento, you probably already know that the next big event in your team’s history is likely to be the 2010 NBA draft lottery. 

Possible Playoff Team — Likely First Round Exit: The most productive player in the NBA is Chris Paul. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have most productive teammates.  Consequently, although I think New Orleans will make the playoffs, I don’t think they should expect to go beyond the first round.  I do expect, though, that the Hornets will be at least the seventh seed (and maybe the sixth seed).  Who will be the eighth seed? Golden State – at least before Brandan Wright was injured – has a shot (Corey Maggette is again listed on the Yahoo.com depth chart at power forward).  The LA Clippers also have a shot (at least, if Blake Griffin comes back soon).  And Phoenix also has a chance.  But I think the favorite for this slot is Houston (which means that Bill Simmons and I agree on something).

Possible Playoff Team — Possible Second Round Exit: For Denver and Utah, it seems more likely that each will exit in the first round.  But it’s possible that each team could pull off a first round upset and advance to the second round.  To go further, though, seems less likely (at least to me).

Western Conference Title Contenders:  Note the label change.  I think the NBA championship will be won by Cleveland, Boston, or Orlando.   But only one of the Eastern Conference titans will appear in the Finals.  Who will this team play?   The Western Conference Champion will probably be Dallas, the LA Lakers, Portland, or San Antonio.   Dallas and San Antonio have to continue to get production from relatively ancient players.  The Lakers need Andrew Bynum to produce.  And Portland’s efforts are going to be hampered by the injury to Nicolas Batum. 

Obviously I think these four teams will comprise the entire population of the second round in the West.  And just as obviously, at least two of these teams will not leave the second round.  But one of these teams should reach the NBA Finals (where again, I think they will probably lose). 

Closing Notes

It does seem quite possible that at least one of the four best teams in the West will win at least 62 games.  And so it’s possible at least four teams (Cleveland, Orlando, Boston, and at least one Western team) will win more than 75% of their games; making the 2009-10 the year of the Super Teams.  So the NBA will continue to be competitively imbalanced.  But I expect interest in the Association to remain strong.  At least, given my interest in writing about this sport, I certainly hope that is the case.

One last note in closing… there certainly will be surprises in 2009-10 (remember, players in the NBA are generally consistent, but performance can change).  So some teams will do better or worse than forecasted.   But unlike baseball and football, one can really know quite a bit about outcomes in the NBA before the season even starts.  This means teams identified as “lottery teams” should not expect to morph into this year’s New Orleans Saints or Colorado Rockies.  And the title contenders –barring major injury – will not become this year’s Tennessee Titans or New York Mets.  In sum, the NBA – relative to baseball and football – is much more predictable (just not perfectly predictable).   

- 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.

Note: The following repeats much of what I said about the Atlanta Hawks in August.  Missing from that post was a table reporting what happened in 2008-09 and a listing of this team’s depth chart.  These items have been constructed and the original post has now been re-written.  With this post, Detroit is the only team that needs to be completely reviewed.  The Detroit post will be up later today or tomorrow.

Back in 2004-05, the Atlanta Hawks won 13 games with a -10.2 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).  Looking at the ten players who led this team in minutes played, we can see why Atlanta failed so miserably (WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes).

Al Harrington: 2,550 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.003 WP48

Josh Childress: 2,376 min., 10.8 Wins Produced, 0.218 WP48

Antoine Walker: 2,128 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.002 WP48

Josh Smith: 2,050 min., 8.1 Wins Produced, 0.189 WP48

Tyronn Lue: 1,528 min., 2.4 Wins Produced, 0.076 WP48

Pedrag Drobnjak: 1,435 min., -2.7 Wins Produced, -0.091 WP48

Tony Delk: 1,340 min., 0.3 Wins Produced, 0.012 WP48

Boris Diaw: 1,201 min., 1.1 Wins Produced, 0.044 WP48

Jason Collier: 942 min., -3.1 Wins Produced, -0.158 WP48

Royal Ivey: 809 min., -0.7 Wins Produced, -0.039 WP48

The Wins Produced of this collection sums to 16.0, telling us that this team failed because the players it employed were generally (although not always) unproductive. 

Over the next three seasons the Hawks improved, winning 26, 30, and then 37 games.  Last season the Hawks took another step forward and won 47 games, advancing to the second round of the NBA playoffs.  

Reviewing 2008-09

Table One reports how the players Atlanta employed last season performed.

Table One: The Atlanta Hawks in 2008-09

Table One ranks players by Wins Produced.  We can also repeat the exercise performed above and look at the players who led the Hawks in minutes played.

Joe Johnson: 3,124 min., 8.6 Wins Produced, 0.131 WP48

Mike Bibby: 2,740 min., 7.8 Wins Produced, 0.136 WP48

Josh Smith: 2,421 min., 5.9 Wins Produced, 0.116 WP48

Al Horford: 2,242 min., 9.4 Wins Produced, 0.201 WP48

Marvin Williams: 2,093 min., 6.5 Wins Produced, 0.149 WP48

Ronald Murray: 1,975 min., 1.4 Wins Produced, 0.035 WP48

Maurice Evans: 1,840 min., 2.1 Wins Produced, 0.055 WP48

Zaza Pachulia: 1,473 min., 2.7 Wins Produced, 0.088 WP48

Solomon Jones: 675 min., -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.012 WP48

Acie Law: 560 min., 0.5 Wins Produced, 0.040 WP48

If we look over these two lists we note that only Josh Smith appears both times.  This suggests that the Hawks improved because different players got to call themselves Hawks.

Now the Hawks wish to take the next step.  Steve Aschburner of Sports Illustrated, though, tells us — in Can Hawks evolve into contender? — the plan is now changing.

The Hawks, for the most part, have had a “stay-cation” summer. With Rick Sund passing his one-year anniversary as GM this offseason, Atlanta diligently has kept intact the nucleus assembled by predecessor Billy Knight. …”Yeah, I like our club,” Sund told the AJC. “The only reason I say that is there’s still growth from within.”

Looking at 2009-10

The Hawks have not entirely stood pat.  The team traded Acie Law and Speedy Claxton to the Golden State Warriors for Jamal Crawford.  On draft night the Hawks chose point guard Jeff Teague. And the Hawks also signed Joe Smith.

Judging by what he did last year in college, Teague is not expected to be a major producer of wins next season.  And when we look at the potential depth chart for Atlanta – taken from Yahoo.com  and ESPN.com – we see that Crawford and Joe Smith are also not expected to significant producers of wins.

Potential First String

PG: Mike Bibby [7.8 Wins Produced, 0.136 WP48]

SG: Joe Johnson [8.6 Wins Produced, 0.131 WP48]

SF: Marvin Williams [6.5 Wins Produced, 0.149 WP48]

PF: Josh Smith [5.9 Wins Produced, 0.116 WP48]

C: Al Horford [9.4 Wins Produced, 0.201 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Jeff Teague [rookie]

SG: Jamal Crawford [1.2 Wins Produced, 0.023 WP48]

SF: Maurice Evans [2.1 Wins Produced, 0.055 WP48]

PF: Joe Smith [1.2 Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48]

C: Zaza Pachulia [2.7 Wins Produced, 0.088 WP48]

A review of this depth chart reveals that every player in the Hawks potential starting line-up is above average.  But the team has very little off the bench.  And except for Horford, no player that is very far above average.  Consequently, this team lags behind the top teams in the East.

Once again, though, the plan is that these players will get better. And this is possible.  Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Al Horford are still in their early twenties.  Improvement at that age does happen. 

But we should be realistic about how much improvement is likely.  Basketball players – relative to what we see in baseball and football – are very consistent over time.  So although there is a standard age profile in basketball (players first improve and then decline), the slopes up and down are gradual.  Consequently, a dramatic change in player productivity is not something one should count upon.

Let’s imagine, though, that a dramatic change did happen.  Specifically, what if Williams, Smith, and Horford all boosted their WP48 by 50% (a fantastic percentage I just made up)?  These three players produced 21.7 wins last year.  Therefore, a 50% jump would result in 10.9 additional wins.  Such a leap moves the Hawks from a 45 win team (that is what their efficiency differential said they should have won in 2008-09) to a 56 win team.  Had this happened last season, the Hawks would have moved from the 4^th seed in the Eastern Conference all the way to…. okay, the 4^th seed.  Yes, the Cavaliers, Celtics, and Magic all won more than 56 games last year.  And these teams have all made moves this summer that will likely increase their win totals in 2009-10.  

So a 50% improvement in the three young players the Hawks are counting on to evolve (as Aschburner put it) would not be enough to overtake the top teams in the East. And even if that improvement happened, the Hawks are still likely to lose production from players like Mike Bibby, who are on the wrong side of the age profile. 

If we put it all together, the Hawks plan to contend in the East appears flawed.  Improvement from within is probably not going to close the gap between Atlanta and the top teams in the East.  This team might as well hope the Cavaliers, Magic, and Celtics suffer major injuries.  Certainly if such a hope was realized, the Hawks could also rise to the top.

As the saying goes, though, hope is not a plan.  And at this point, it doesn’t look like Atlanta really has much of a plan.  This is a team that has risen from the ashes because it acquired more productive players. To move on, more roster changes are needed. 

It’s possible fans of this team might disagree.  Two years ago Boston Celtics needed seven games to eliminate the Hawks in the playoffs.  This year, injuries to the Hawks appeared to derail their post-season run.  Despite such evidence, we must remember that the 82 game regular season is the better measure of a team’s quality.  In 2009-10 the Hawks finished with a win total in the mid 40s.  To seriously contend in the East, the team needs at least 15 more wins.  Improvement from existing players should simply not be expected to close this gap.  Yes, one can hope.  But again, that’s not really a plan.

- 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.

Note: The following repeats much of what I said about the Houston Rockets in August.  Missing from that post was a table reporting what happened in 2008-09 and a complete discussion of this team’s depth chart.  These items have been constructed and the original post has now been re-written.  With this post, only Atlanta and Detroit remain to be completely reviewed.  Those posts will be up before the season starts (I hope).

The teams considered playoff contenders in the Western Conference include Portland, the LA Lakers, San Antonio, Dallas (these four are the favorites for the title), Denver, New Orleans, Utah, and maybe Phoenix (and maybe Golden State and maybe the LA Clippers).  With the exception of Phoenix (and Golden State and the Clippers), all these teams made the playoffs in 2009.  Only one Western Conference playoff team – the Houston Rockets – are generally omitted from the list of 2009-10 contenders.

The Rockets were dropped from the list when it was learned Yao Ming would miss the next season.  Coupled with the injury to Tracy McGrady, the Rockets now face the prospect of entering the next season without a “star” player.  Here is how Chris Mannix describes the team in Sports Illustrated: Houston is now a pale imitation of the team that took the Lakers to seven games in the Western Conference semifinals.

Mannix goes on offer the following quite from Daryl Morey: “When the previews come out, we’ll probably be in the back of the magazines, under the cologne ads.”

In John Hollinger’s preview at ESPN.com (insider access required), ten teams are listed ahead of the Rockets. 

The Above Average Rockets

Perhaps, though, Houston doesn’t have that big of a problem.  Here is what the Rockets did in 2008-09.

Table One: The Houston Rockets in 2008-09

Yes the Rockets did receive 15.2 wins from Ming and McGrady.  But the Rockets also received above average performances [average Wins Produced per 48 minutes – WP48 – is 0.100] from Luis Scola, Shane Battier, Carl Landry, Chuck Hayes, and Kyle Lowry.  And in the off-season, the Rockets essentially swapped a slightly below average Ron Artest for a consistently above average Trevor Ariza.   Consequently the Rockets enter 2009-10 with the following depth chart (taken from Yahoo.com and ESPN.com):

Potential First String

PG: Aaron Brooks [-0.5 Wins Produced, -0.012 WP48]

SG: Tracy McGrady [4.0 Wins produced, 0.163 WP48]

SF: Trevor Ariza [8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48]

PF: Chuck Hayes [2.5 Wins Produced, 0.139 WP48]

C: Luis Scola [9.8 Wins Produced, 0.189 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Kyle Lowry [4.8 Wins Produced, 0.138 WP48]

SG: Jermaine Taylor [rookie]

SF: Shane Battier [6.2 Wins Produced, 0.147 WP48]

PF: Carl Landry [5.4 Wins Produced, 0.175 WP48]

C: David Andersen [rookie]

If McGrady takes the court this year, then the Rockets will have seven above average players in their rotation.  And these seven players produced 40.7 wins last year in less than 12,000 minutes. 

As I noted in August – when I originally commented on the Rockets–an NBA team that avoids overtime will play 19,680 minutes in a season.  Consequently, it seems likely some (if not all) of these players will play more minutes in 2009-10.  And if per-minute performance doesn’t change, increasing the minutes of these players (except for Aaron Brooks), will lead the Rockets to more than 40 wins. 

The eighth seed in the West last year won 48 games.  So if the West is the same in 2009-10, the Rockets will have to come closer to 50 wins to make the playoffs.  This may be difficult.  But I am suggesting – contrary to the perceptions of this team – that it’s possible the Rockets can make the playoffs without McGrady or Ming.

A Collection of Non-Scorers

Once again, perceptions say this is not possible.  When we look at the scoring of the above seven veteran players not named McGrady (and Ming), we can see why expectations are so low.

Luis Scola: 12.7 Points per game, 20.1 Points per 48 minutes

Shane Battier: 7.3 Points per game, 10.3 Points per 48 minutes

Trevor Ariza: 8.9 Points per game, 17.5 Points per 48 minutes

Aaron Brooks: 11.2 Points per game, 21.5 Points per 48 minutes

Carl Landry: 9.2 Points per game, 20.9 Points per 48 minutes

Chuck Hayes: 1.3 Points per game, 5.1 Points per 48 minutes

Kyle Lowry: 7.6 Points per game, 16.9 Points per 48 minutes

Scola leads this group with 12.7 points per game.  When we turn to scoring per 48 minutes we see only three players who exceed the league average of 19.8.  Scoring drives perceptions in the NBA, and the lack of scoring numbers from this group suggests the Rockets are doomed.

But wins are about more than scoring.  And when we measure these players contributions to wins (via Wins Produced), we see that Houston has fewer problems than people believe.  Consequently, I think it’s possible that Morey’s considerable reputation is about to become further enhanced. 

If the Rockets do make the playoffs without McGrady and Ming, the following will also occur:

Morey is going to be considered for Executive of the Year

Rick Adelman will be considered for Coach of the Year

Aaron Brooks – who may lead this team in scoring – will be considered one of the best point guards in the game.

All of this is possible because this collection of non-scorers is also a collection of above average performers.  Unfortunately, it seems likely that none of the non-scorers will get much credit if this team exceeds expectations.

Performance History

Let me close by noting that the six above average performers listed above have a history of productive play.  For example, consider the recent history of these players.

Luis Scola:

2007-08: 4.8 Wins Produced, 0.113 WP48

Shane Battier:

2007-08: 6.5 Wins Produced, 0.107 WP48

2006-07: 6.4 Wins Produced, 0.103 WP48

Trevor Ariza:

2007-08: 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.225 WP48

2006-07: 5.8 Wins Produced, 0.217 WP48

Aaron Brooks

2007-08: 0.3 Wins Produced, 0.020 WP48

Carl Landry

2007-08: 4.3 Wins Produced, 0.292 WP48

Chuck Hayes:

2007-08: 6.7 Wins Produced, 0.206 WP48

2006-07: 7.8 Wins Produced, 0.217 WP48

Kyle Lowry

2007-08: 4.3 Wins Produced, 0.101 WP48

With the exception of Aaron Brooks, these players were above average before 2008-09.  This suggests that these players will be above average in 2009-10.  If that happens, the Rockets have a good chance of being an above average team.  And this team – again, contrary to popular perception — might avoid the lottery 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.