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
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.
Bill Simmons agrees with you here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/091023&sportCat=nba
“On paper, the Rockets look like a lottery team. Their best player (Yao) is gone for the year. Their second-best player is probably never going to be the same. Everyone else is a role player or an overachiever. But they do certain things really well: shoot threes, defend the hell out of perimeter guys, play unselfishly, pound the glass, stuff like that. It’s one of those “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” teams. I am picking them to win 44 games and make the playoffs. Which brings me to my point: the ’09 Rockets took the Lakers to a seventh game operating with half a salary cap (because Yao and T-Mac were out). The ’10 Rockets start out with 80 percent of a cap because Yao is gone; that number might shrink if T-Mac can’t successfully come back. And yet, I am still picking a hodgepodge group of non-All-Stars to win 44.”
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/overpaid-basketball-players-business-sports-nba.html
Forbes take on most overpaid players, I disagree with almost every selection. I have no idea how Jermaine ONeal wasn’t included.
Thanks for giving the Rockets another look, Dr. Berri. I wasn’t sure if you were going to do anything else on them, ince you had already done the previous article. No matter how you slice it, Houston has an awesome second string (especially the forwards!). Unfortunately, even though Morey has done a masterful job, the Rockets are in a tough position. They have a number of cheap above-average players, but are also tied down with two huge contracts for players that are not able to play. I think it would be fair to say that with Yao and McGrady healthy and performing at pre-injury levels the Rockets could pretty much be a championship-caliber team (although someone might correct me on that). With so much money tied up in those two, though, the Rockets will be unable to reach the level of a championship team, since they won’t be able to count on their star players being healthy and they won’t be able to sign a top-notch free agent.
I wouldn’t care if Simmons agrees or not.
I think Rockets’09/10 are a great test of WP theory. Kevin Pelton has written a very good summary of two extreme models in today’s NBA. One implemented by Houston (a lot of low usage high efficiency players), the other in Memphis (a lot of high usage low efficiency players). Comparing preseason prognoses of these teams with their results after the season will tell us a very interesting story.
Too bad Houston wasn’t able to sign Gortat – this would be a WP48 All Star team, that nobody else likes.
TRAD,
I think a 3rd model is better than the other tw0.
That is, high usage high efficiency players. ;-)
re: Forbes’s list – they don’t really know who Andrei Kirilenko. It’s a picture of Biedrins (G-State) they put on.
I like Houston, so much that I actually wish the Wins Produced model ‘fail’ this year. Just like San Antonio sucked in the year of the Admiral’s injury, got the 1st overall pick and landed Tim Dundan. That’s how they can make up for the salary cap situation – a cheap but productive rookie!
I’m with TRad, this is going to be a fun team to watch this year. They’ll be a litmus test for WOW and they tie in with the recent topic of character/intangibles.
I believe Ariza will be starting at the 2. He and Scola should see their usage go up quite a bit. Chase Budinger will probably see minutes ahead of Taylor. He’s been shooting well, but he brings little else.
Andersen’s rebound rate was very similar to Scola’s in Euroball. He’s also a great 3 point shooter. He’s a terrible shot blocker, but occasionally grabs a steal. Assuming he hits his 3s in the NBA, he’s like Troy Murphy lite (75% the rebounder Murph is), though in the preseason he hasn’t hit his shots. So it looks like 6’5 Chuck Hayes will be guarding centers.
Dorsey doesn’t get minutes for some reason, though he’s produced everywhere he’s been. He’s waiting back there for some unknown reason. Morey chose to buy Andersen, rather than go with Dorsey.
David,
Based on Basketball Acumen,
re: “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.”
this observation, on your part, is right on the money.
Whether or not the Rockets actually make it to the playoffs this season, they should have the goods to be in contention for the entire year.
A “Moneyball” in the NBA will NOT ever win the league title … but, it sure can keep/help to make a team competitive, relative to its peers, and it position it to make a bottom-line profit.
Dr. Berri,
Trevor Ariza had a bad preseason (by his standards):
* 87 points on 80 shots and 23 free throws for a TS% of 48%
It doesn’t look good for Ariza’s scoring efficiency now that he’s one of the main weapons on his new team. Something to watch as the season progresses.
“Ariza’s rebounding numbers were low too (5 per 36 versus 7 per 36 for his career) … watch that also … see if his intent on proving his scoring prowess effects the effort he puts in on the boards.” (http://nbaroundtable.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/some-preseason-stats/)
If both of those trends continue, that could spell bad things for the Rockets (and make LA’s signing of Artest look a lot better than it really was), correct?
What happens if we plug in minutes for this 8 man rotation? Last year, Houston’s 8 most active players totaled about 16000 minutes. If we work from that number (allowing the remaining 3000-4000 minutes may go to Taylor, Anderson, and other bench occupants), the low post positions may account for 6400 of those minutes, 6400 may go to the wing, and 3200 to the point.
In the post, Scola may play 2500 minutes, Landry 2200 minutes, and Hayes 1500 minutes (significant increases for the latter two). At the point, Brooks may get 2500 minutes, with Lowry picking up the other 700. At the wing, Battier and Ariza may play 2500 each, with McGrady picking up 1100 (based on injury) and Lowry 300 (as a combo guard).
Here are the predicted win totals for each player: Scola 9.84 wins; Landry 8.02 w; Hayes 4.34 w; Brooks (0.63) w; Lowry 2.88 w; Battier 7.66 w; Ariza 10.0 w; and McGrady 3.74 w. 45.85 wins, total.
If the other 3700 minutes are distributed to the kind of talent that normally fills spots 9-12 on the bench, that may only be 1-2 more wins. Not sure that there are enough wins to make the postseason, as competitive as the top half of the West is. And, if they fail to make the playoffs, I am not sure the Rockets succeed as any type of statistical litmus test, particularly when most pundits are predicting they’ll be the 9th/10th best team in the West.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that the Rockets will be the “litmus test” for WoW. I was wondering whatt everyone means by that, though. Seems like many (such as Tball) feel that the Rockets will need to make the playoffs to lend WoW validity. Might I propose, though, that even the Rockets will not be the perfect test case (at least not if we are looking for a team to make the playoffs). A team of “WoW all-stars” that made the playoffs woul of course have to be in a good conference to make the playoffs in, and the western conference in 2010 in shaping up to be brutal. If the Rockets win 42-49 games and don’t make the playoffs with their roster, couldn’t we still concede that they made a major point in favor of Dr. Berri’s method? Also, the perfect test team would have some true superstars (according to WP but not public perception, players like Andris Biedrins or David Lee). The Rockets’ two most productive players (potentially) are perpetually injured, and one of them will be out for this entire season, so it’s still a little problematic to judge the construction of their roster on the basis of one season where the toll taken by injury is already significant. Finally, the Rockets will be coached by people other than Dr. Berri, and so their rotation will undoubtedly include the allotment of upwards of 2,000 minutes to Aaron Brooks, a player who was below .000 last year. In order to be a true test of the WoW method, the Rockets would have to reverse the minutes alloted to Brooks and Lowry.
If any of these conditions were met (i.e., ordinary conference strength, presence of a major superstar, allotment of minutes according to WP), then the Rockets could be an almost perfect test case (and, in my opinion, would probably make the playoffs)
There is a composite prognosis on Painted Arena. The site owner has published predictions of three analytics: Hollinger, Pelton and Dwyer. _All_ _three_ have given Rockets 37 wins.
I think we could agree that if Rockets win35-40 games, then (barring major injuries) WoW model looks a little silly. If, on other hand, Rockets win 45-50 games (which is well above quoted predicitons) without significant trade, then we will get a strong argument. BTW Vegas is giving Rockets 35,5.
TRad,
The difference between 40 wins and 45 wins is rather small. So I am not sure what that would tell us. I wonder how my comments about the Rockets influenced these projections. If you go back to my original post (published earler in the summer) I was linking to people who were saying the Rockets were going to be a shell of the team they were last year. Now, at the end of the summer, people are saying the Rockets can make the playoffs. There seems to be a disconnect between what was said during the summer and what was said before the season starts.
On a related topic… for those who have read this forum for awhile: How many WoW litmus tests have their been? It seems like everytime I make a forecast someone declares that “this is the litmus test for WoW”.
It seems like everytime I make a forecast someone declares that “this is the litmus test for WoW”.
I haven’t been reading for more than one year, but after I read your book ( and subsequently read the blog extensively), I realized that the 04 Piston champions were the only litmus test I needed to convinced of WoW’s value.
I think people are focusing on the Rockets because they are currently comprised of relatively low-usage players who are rated highly by WoW. Public perception tends to undervalue those types of players, assuming that they won’t continue to win games if they lose their “superstar.” Without Yao, we can look to the Rockets as a test — can relatively low-usage payers who are rated highly by WoW maintain their productivity when they are asked to be higher usage players?
This is a small sample, yes, but it will be very interesting to watch nonetheless. As I commented above, Ariza struggled this preseason; if that trend continues, no doubt people will postulate that low-usage/high efficiency players struggle when their roles are expanded.
On a related topic… for those who have read this forum for awhile: How many WoW litmus tests have their been? It seems like everytime I make a forecast someone declares that “this is the litmus test for WoW”.
It already happened in Philly, but memories are short. AI leaves, Philly improves.
Dave
AI story is a strong argument for WoW.
Last season Celtics playoffs – I think there was a lot speaking of hearts of the champion etc, while WoW analysis was showing that without Garnett Boston is in trouble.
Also last season – Spurs without Ginobili.
There is a lot more what I don’t remember.
Hey, your system is perceived as heterodox – it will be _always_ tested. “Yeah, last year WoW went OK, but its predictions were soooo obvious, let’s see this season”. Yes, from methodological POV it’s BS, but basketball journalism/bloggism hasn’t much common with methodology, don’t you think?
TRad,
I agree. The testing will never end. My sense is I will have to keep explaining (and defending) Wins Produced for a long time to come. This fact is consistent with what behavioral economics teaches (people are slow to adopt new ideas), but it still is a bit of a drag. There is more to life than discussing how one measures the performance of a basketball player.
By the way, if my last comment sounded like whining, that’s because it is. Reading it over… it’s a bit like a sit-com actor in a successful show complaining about type casting.
This fact is consistent with what behavioral economics teaches (people are slow to adopt new ideas), but it still is a bit of a drag.
I can see how it’s a drag from your perspective, but from the perspective of a fan who loves debating other fans (me!!), it’s always fun to argue from the WoW perspective … I’ve had so many interesting convos since reading your book.
There is more to life than discussing how one measures the performance of a basketball player.
What?
=============
Btw, are you tuning in to watch our new studs tomorrow night? CV and Ben Gordon?
For what it’s worth, I’m willing to toss the Lakers out as an example of the validity of WOW. They won a title with a handful of 100 and 200 guys and no 300′s.
Pingback: Are you Buying into the Rocket Program? « General « Basketball Free For All
Pingback: The Rockets Surprise « The Wages of Wins Journal
Pingback: Aaron Brooks is Not the MIP in 2009-10 « The Wages of Wins Journal