The Buffalo Braves came into existence in 1970.  After eight seasons the franchise moved to San Diego and was renamed the Clippers. After six seasons in San Diego the Clippers moved again, this time to Los Angeles.   In each location this franchise has been immensely consistent.  Year after year NBA fans can count on this team to be bad.  Only five times in the history of the franchise has this team scored more points than they surrendered.  And when we turn to efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency), we see that the team’s best marks were as follows:

1974-75 Braves: 1.9 differential (consistent with a 46 win team)

2005-06 Clippers: 1.7 differential (consistent with a 45 win team)

Last year, the Phoenix Suns posted a 2.0 differential and missed the playoffs in the Western Conference. So the Clippers very best season – at least with respect to efficiency differential – would have still landed this team in the lottery.

Only the Worst Performance in the League

Of course, last season was not the Clippers best season.  As I noted a few days ago, the Clippers – again, in terms of efficiency differential – were the worst team in the NBA in 2008-09.  Now this was not the worst team in franchise history.  In 1986-87, 1987-88, 1994-95, 1998-99, and 1999-00 the Clippers posted lower differentials.  Yes, five times the Clippers posted numbers below the dismal numbers seen last year. So although last year was not a disaster by Clipper standards, it was still quite bad by NBA standards.

When we turn to the performance of the individual players this team employed – reported in Table One – we can see why this team had so much trouble.

Table One: The LA Clippers in 2008-09

The Denver Nuggets gave Marcus Camby to the Clippers before the season started.  And when he played he produced.  In addition, the Clippers received above average production from Zach Randolph and DeAndre Jordan.  Unfortunately, everyone else on the roster was below average.  And Ricky Davis and Al Thornton managed to rank in the top ten of least productive players in 2008-09 (with Thornton leading the way).

Now the NBA – like other professional sports leagues in North America – makes an effort to reward failure (and punish success). And the Clippers failure led to Blake Griffin, the big reward in the 2009 NBA draft.  Griffin’s college numbers suggest he will be a very productive NBA player, so it looks like the Clippers will improve in 2009-10.

Of course the Clippers only won 19 games last year.  So even if Griffin is the second-coming of Tim Duncan (19.5 Wins Produced his rookie season in 1996-97), the Clippers still look like a lottery team.  There is some hope, though, if we look elsewhere on the team’s potential depth chart.

Potential First String

PG: Baron Davis [1.5 Wins Produced, 0.032 WP48; 0.177 WP48 in 2007-08]

SG: Eric Gordon [3.8 Wins Produced, 0.067 WP48]

SF: Al Thornton [-2.6 Wins Produced, -0.047 WP48]

PF: Blake Griffin [Rookie]

C: Chris Kaman [0.5 Wins Produced, 0.025 WP48; 0.233 WP48 in 2007-08]

Potential Second String

PG: Sebastian Telfair [-2.2 Wins Produced, -0.049 WP48]

SG: Rasual Butler [4.2 Wins Produced, 0.077 WP48]

SF: Ricky Davis [-2.1 Wins Produced, -0.128 WP48; 0.034 WP48 in 2007-08]

PF: Craig Smith [1.8 Wins Produced, 0.060 WP48]

C: Marcus Camby [12.4 Wins Produced, 0.308 WP48]

In 2007-08, Baron Davis produced 11.8 wins while Chris Kaman’s Wins Produced stood at 10.1.  B. Davis never really produced for the Clippers.  But after 481 minutes in 2008-09, Kaman’s WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] stood at 0.200.  Kaman, though, was soon hurt and his production plummeted. If Kaman is healthy in 2008-09, and B. Davis returns from whatever caused his production to drop-off last season, the Clippers could have four players – Camby, Griffin, B. Davis, and Kaman – capable of producing more than ten wins. Yes, the team still has Thornton, R. Davis, and the newly added Sebastian Telfair (and yes, I have a problem with the Telfair adjusted plus-minus story that I am saving for another day) holding the team back.  But….

• if the Clippers could somehow get the negative players to be a bit less negative,
• if B. Davis and Kaman to return to form.
• if age doesn’t keep Camby off the floor or substantially reduce his production, and,
• if Griffin can produce as his college numbers suggest,

then the Clippers might post an efficiency differential in excess of 2.0.  And that means, the 2009-10 Clippers might be the best team in the history of this franchise.

Yes, those are a lot of ifs.  But if you are a Clipper fan, there is a chance this season could be truly memorable.  No, it doesn’t seem likely the Clippers can rank among the league elite (usually the minimum requirement for a memorable season).  And the playoffs might not happen (it looks like they will have to beat out the Suns).  But in terms of efficiency differential, this season could be it.  The franchise record – set by the Buffalo Braves 35 years ago – might finally be broken. 

- 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.

Once upon a time, the Phoenix Suns were the best team in the Western Conference.  The phrase “once upon a time” often refers to a time period in the distance past.  But in this instance, “once upon a time” actually refers to 20 months ago (as noted in a table posted in February of 2008).

Although Phoenix was on top of the West, it was clear in February of 2008 that the reign of the Suns was going to soon end.  The Lakers had just traded for Pau Gasol, and this move was likely going to send the Lakers to the top of the conference.  In response to this move, the Suns sent Shawn Marion to the Miami Heat for Shaquille O’Neal.

Two arguments were advanced at the time of this move:

1. The Suns – as they were constructed on February 1 of 2008 – were not going to win a title in 2008. And since there was a good chance Marion was going to leave Phoenix anyway, something had to be done.

2. The trade for Shaq was not going to bring a title to Phoenix.  In fact, this move would make Phoenix worse.

Now that 20 months have passed – and Shaq has moved on to Cleveland — we can now completely review the Shaq era in Phoenix.  This review consists of one sentence: A title didn’t come to Phoenix and the Suns did indeed decline.

Once Upon a Time Last Season

In 2008-09, the Suns not only failed to contend, the team failed to make the playoffs.  And when we look at Table One we can see part of the reason for this failure.

Table One: The Phoenix Suns in 2008-09

Last season the Suns were led in Wins Produced by Steve Nash.  Although Nash produced 11 wins, his 0.213 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes], this was his lowest mark since arriving in Phoenix in 2004.  Nash is now 35 years of age, so one suspects age is the primary reason why he declined.

Unfortunately for the Suns, age also impacted the productivity of Shaq.  O’Neal’s WP48 of 0.167 was actually his best mark since 2005-06.   But it was a far cry from the 0.332 mark that Shaq averaged before he passed 30 years of age. 

Next on the list is Grant Hill.   Like Shaq, Hill was above average.  But his WP48 of 0.149 was far below the 0.274 average mark he posted in Detroit (from 1994-95 to 1999-00).

If we move further down the list we see Amare Stoudemire.  In 2004-05, 2006-07, and 2007-08 (Stoudemire missed virtually all of the 2005-06 season), Stoudemire posted a WP48 mark in excess of 0.200.   Last year – primarily due to injury, his mark was only 0.106.

So we see, except for the effect of age and injury, Phoenix might have had an incredible team last year.  Just imagine a team with Nash, Shaq, Hill, and Stoudemire both healthy and in their prime.  These four players alone could produce more than 70 wins in a season.  At least, once upon a time they could. Unfortunately, age will eventually lead to less production and injuries will happen. 

Are Better Times Coming?

As a consequence, Phoenix struggled last years and now this team has to do quite a bit to get back to the top of the Western Conference.  In the summer of 2009, though, the first steps back didn’t look very impressive.  In the draft the Suns selected Earl Clark, a player who was below average in college last year (even if we think of him as a small forward).

After drafting Clark, the Suns then signed Channing Frye.  According to ESPN.com (and Yahoo.com), Frye is currently expected to start for the Suns in 2009-10.  Just to review, Frye

• was a lottery pick of the New York Knicks (and Isiah Thomas) in 2005.
• was traded to Portland after two seasons in New York.
• started 94 of 274 games with the New York Knicks and the Portland Trail Blazers.
• has produced -1.4 wins and posted a -0.012 WP48 in his career.

If we follow the permutations of the starting line-up in Phoenix, we now see that Phoenix has gone from Shawn Marion, to an old Shaquille O’Neal, and now to Channing Frye.   One doesn’t need Wins Produced to see that this isn’t progress.

When we look over the current depth chart in Phoenix, it’s not immediately apparent how Phoenix is going to match the team’s win total from last year (a record, once again, that wasn’t even good enough to make the playoffs).

Potential First String

PG: Steve Nash [11.0 Wins Produced, 0.213 WP48]

SG: Jason Richardson [7.6 Wins Produced, 0.152 WP48]

SF: Grant Hill [7.6 Wins Produced, 0.149 WP48]

PF: Amare Stoudemire [4.3 Wins Produced, 0.106 WP48]

C: Channing Frye [-2.3 Wins Produced, -0.146 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Goran Dragic [0.1 Wins Produced, 0.006 WP48]

SG: Leandro Barbosa [4.6 Wins Produced, 0.130 WP48]

SF: Jared Dudley [1.6 Wins Produced, 0.065 WP48]

PF: Louis Amundson [1.5 Wins Produced, 0.067 WP48]

C: Robin Lopez [-1.5 Wins Produced, -0.114 WP48]

The Wins Produced of these players only sum to 34.5, suggesting Phoenix is going to have problems in 2009-10.

Despite these numbers, fans of the Suns will emphasize the injury to Stoudemire.  Had Amare been healthy last year the Suns probably would have made the playoffs.  And if Stoudemire is healthy this next season – and as productive as he was two years ago – then Phoenix should win more than half their games. 

Contention in the West, though, is going to require more than this.  It appears that the following teams will contend for the conference title (listed in alphabetical order): Dallas Mavericks, LA Lakers, Portland Trail Blazers, and San Antonio Spurs. And we expect the Denver Nuggets, New Orleans Hornets, and the Utah Jazz will make the playoffs.   Phoenix does appear to be the leading candidate to complete the playoff picture out West.  But it seems unlikely that this team will contend for a title.

So where will Phoenix go from here?  Nash and Hill are not getting any younger.  After these two talents, though, the only above average performers on the roster are Stoudemire, Richardson, and Barbosa.  In other words, given the age of Nash and Hill, Phoenix is going to have to add some talent if it hopes to contend again in the future.  Until that happens, Phoenix fans are simply going to have think about “Once upon a time, Phoenix was the best team in the Western Conference….”

- 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 was the worst team in 2008-09?  If we think about wins and losses, the obvious answer is the Sacramento Kings.  Last season the Kings only won 17 games. Sacramento’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency), though, was actually better than the LA Clippers.  The Clippers posted a -9.2 differential last season (the 27^th worst mark since 1973-74) while the Kings differential was -8.9 (the 30^th worst mark since 1973-74).

In the draft, though, the Clippers added Blake Griffin.  So the Clippers will probably not be the worst team in 2009-10.  The Kings, though, seem destined to be crowned the NBA’s worst team this next season.

To see this point, let’s first review what the Kings did last year.  From Table One we see that the Kings employed 11 players who played at least 500 minutes last year. 

Table One: The Sacramento Kings in 2008-09

Of these 11, only two – Kevin Martin and Brad Miller – managed to exceed the mark of an average player (an average player post a 0.100 Wins Produced per 48 minutes). And neither player managed to surpass the 0.115 mark (and Miller was elsewhere before the season ended).  In sum, the Kings failed to employ anyone who was truly outstanding last year, and furthermore, managed to employ many, many below average players.  Consequently, no one should be surprised Sacramento struggled.

As noted, the Clippers were able to add Griffin with in the draft.  Meanwhile the Kings –with the 4^th pick – selected Tyreke Evans.  Relative to players who are drafted out of college, Evans was a below average college performer last season. So although it’s possible Evans will be an outstanding performer in 2009-10, the data that exists suggests otherwise.

After Evans the Kings added Desmond Mason [-0.014 W48], Sean May [-0.093 WP48], and Sergio Rodriguez [0.087 WP48].  If all we consider is last year’s performance, Rodriguez – despite being a below average performer – is currently the second most productive player on the Kings.  And according to both Yahoo.com and ESPN.com, Rodriguez may not even be part Sacramento’s first and second string.

Potential First String

PG: Tyreke Evans [rookie]

SG: Kevin Martin [4.7 Wins Produced, 0.115 WP48]

SF: Andres Nocioni [-0.4 Wins Produced, -0.009 WP48]

PF: Jason Thompson [3.0 Wins Produced, 0.063 WP48]

C: Spencer Hawes [-1.0 Wins Produced, -0.021 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Beno Udrih [1.6 Wins Produced, 0.034 WP48]

SG: Desmond Mason [-0.3 Wins Produced, -0.014 WP48]

SF: Francisco Garcia [1.8 Wins Produced, 0.044 WP48]

PF: Sean May [-0.6 Wins Produced, -0.093 WP48]

C: John Brockman [rookie]

In addition to these ten players, the Kings also have Rodriguez [2.2 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48] and Donte Green [-2.4 Wins Produced, -0.161 WP48]. 

If add together the Wins Produced of each veteran player, all you get is 8.9.  That’s it.  The veterans the Kings will employ in 2009-10 collectively produced fewer than nine wins last season.  So even if Tyreke Evans is as productive as Kobe Bryant (15.0 Wins Produced in 2008-09), the Kings – if these veterans hold form – are going to struggle.

Now there is some hope some of these veterans will not hold form.   Kevin Martin in 2007-08 posted a 0.192 WP48 and produced 8.8 wins.  In 2006-07, he produced 11.7 wins with a 0.199 WP48.  So Martin, if healthy, can produce more than 4.7 wins. Sean May is also capable of doing much better.  In 2007-08, May posted a 0.192 WP48.  May’s teammate in the Kings second string frontcourt, John Brockman, was also above average in college last season.  So the Kings do have two big men on the bench who might help (unfortunately, the Kings have one big man –Spencer Hawes – who has yet to produce as an NBA player). 

Because Martin will likely be more productive in 2009-10, we can safely predict that the Kings will reach double digits in wins.  But clearly this team is far from contention.

What’s interesting is how little this team did in the off-season.  The Kings were a very bad team last year.  But the Kings didn’t make much effort to rebuild in the off-season. At least, it seems unlikely that anyone believes Desmond Mason and Sergio Rodriguez are the players this team needs to return to the playoffs.

Why did the Kings do so little?  One suspects that this is related to the Kings desire to either a) improve its arena in Sacramento or b) depart Sacramento.  If it’s the latter, the Kings argument to the NBA would be strengthened if the Kings continue to have problems drawing fans (think the movie Major League).  Last year the Kings finished in last place in average attendance.  But back in 2005-06 – the last time the Kings had a winning record – the Kings finished 14^th in average attendance.  So Sacramento – like fans everywhere – will show up to support a winner. 

It appears the attendance problems in Sacramento are really not about the quality of the local market.  No, it appears the problem is with the product the Kings are putting on the floor.  And that product has been predictably bad, a trend will continue in 2009-10.  One hopes that if the Kings become good again, the fans of Sacramento will still get to see this team.

- 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.

Last week Henry Abbott – of TrueHoop – noted the conflicting stories told about Kevin Durant.  

Durant was voted Rookie of the Year by the media and to the All-Rookie First Team by the coaches.  John Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating – which Abbott argued was “the most respected single number to express a player’s total contributions”— says that Durant was above average his rookie season and ranked him as the 20th best player last season.

And then there is the adjusted plus-minus story.  As Wayne Winston notes at his blog – see HERE and HERE — from the perspective of this measure Durant is clearly below average. 

So which story is correct? 

Three Perspectives on Durant

The answer to this question begins with the observation that PER is probably not “the most respected” measure of performance in the NBA.  One only has to read Wayne Winston’s Mathletics to see the problems with Hollinger’s performance measure (or one can read what was said in this forum three years ago).  The reason Durant has such a lofty PER is because the takes a large number of shots.  A player only has to exceed very low levels of shooting efficiency for his PER to rise with more field goal attempts.  Hence, top scorers tend to look good according to PER, even if – as Durant was his rookie season – the player can’t shoot very well.

Okay, PER has problems.  So does adjusted plus-minus paint a better picture?  Adjusted plus-minus ignores the box score statistics and simply looks at how a team does when a player is on the court.  The “adjusted” part involves attempts to control for the impact of the player’s teammates and the team’s opponent.  Theoretically, everything a player does – and that includes on-the-ball defense – should be incorporated in his adjusted plus-minus number.  Hence, this measure should tell us more than what we see in the box score. 

As every proponent of this measure notes, though, adjusted plus-minus is a very “noisy” measure.  What does this mean? Typically there is a large standard error associated with the number assigned to any player.  Hence, it is difficult to be sure whether many players have a positive or negative impact on outcomes.  Furthermore, there’s very little consistency – at least relative to the box score numbers – in a player’s adjusted plus-minus numbers across time.  As we very briefly discuss in our next book (due out next March), a player’s adjusted plus-minus value in this season is not highly correlated with what he did last year. 

JC Bradbury notes that a performance metric should be both correlated with outcomes (i.e. typically wins in sports) and consistent over time. The former is important because we wish to know if a player is having a positive or negative impact on outcomes.  The latter is important because inconsistent measure suggests you are not accurately capturing a player’s impact.  PER fails the first test (it’s not highly correlated with team wins).  And adjusted plus-minus has a problem on the second count.

And that brings us to Wins Produced.  This measure is both connected to team wins and relatively consistent across time.  Durant’s Wins Produced for his rookie season confirms the adjusted plus-minus story.  In 2007-08, Durant produced 0.7 Wins Produced and posted a 0.012 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. Because Durant could score, though, his PER was above average and he was named Rookie of the Year.  Wins Produced, though, indicated that Durant was not the best rookie.   In fact, he wasn’t even one of the better players on a bad Thunder team.

In 2008-09, though, the Wins Produced story changed. As is often the case, young players get better.  And Durant went from being below average to being the most productive player on the Thunder (yes, Wins Produced is relatively consistent across time, but young players – as noted – can get better). 

Table One: Oklahoma City Thunder in 2008-09

Once again, the box score does not capture an individual player’s on-the-ball defense.  If a player is a better defender than his teammates, his Wins Produced will understate his value.  And if he is a worse defender, then Wins Produced will overstate his value. 

With respect to Durant, adjusted plus-minus insists that he is a poor player.  So it’s possible that Durant is just a really bad defensive player. Of course, it’s possible that the noise in the model is also producing this result (although Winston says that in this case, that doesn’t seem likely).

So is it defense or noise?  Should we believe Wins Produced or adjusted plus-minus?  Well, Winston and I definitely agree we shouldn’t believe PER.  But on the “true” value of Durant, I think Winston and I disagree (somewhat).  At least, I am not convinced Durant’s supposed problems on defense trump his box score numbers.

Reviewing the Thunder

Let me close this post by noting that there is more to the Thunder than Durant.  Here is the team’s potential depth chart (Wins Produced and WP48 numbers from 2008-09, unless noted otherwise):  

Potential First String

PG: Russell Westbrook [3.7 Wins Produced, 0.066 WP48]

SG: James Harden [rookie]

SF: Kevin Durant [10.5 Wins Produced, 0.175 WP48]

PF: Jeff Green [1.8 Wins Produced, 0.031 WP48]

C: Nenad Krstic [-1.0 Wins Produced, -0.042 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Shaun Livingston [0.5 Wins Produced, 0.107 WP48; 0.111 WP48 in 2006-07]

SG: Kyle Weaver [2.4 Wins Produced, 0.097 WP48]

SF: Thabo Sefolosha [4.3 Wins Produced, 0.144 WP48]

PF: Nick Collison [5.8 Wins Produced, 0.151 WP48]

C: Etan Thomas [17.3 Wins Produced, 0.125 WP48 for career]

Again, the Wins Produced numbers say Durant is the team’s most productive player.  And he is the only above average performer on the first string.  Off the bench, though, Oklahoma City has four players who have been above average and one player that is quite close (average WP48 is 0.100).  This suggests the Thunder’s rotation is backwards and wins are going to be left on the bench in 2009-10.

One should note, though, that however this team did its rotation, in the Western Conference the Thunder will probably miss the playoffs.  But if the bench players saw the court more often, it’s possible the Thunder could come closer to the post-season.  At least, that’s the Wins Produced story.

- 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.

One of the very first columns posted in this forum was “The Tragedy of Kevin Garnett.”  For years KG was the most productive player in the NBA.  And for years, the Minnesota Timberwolves surrounded KG with relatively poor players.  Consequently, Garnett could never experience the playoff success enjoyed by players like Kobe Bryant; a fact that led some to conclude Kobe is actually more productive than Garnett (yes, I know, kind of silly). 

Now a similar story is taking place in New Orleans.  For each of the past two seasons Chris Paul has led the NBA in Wins Produced.  In 2007-08, Paul produced 25.4 wins while his teammates produced 29.7.  Such a combination was sufficient to win 55 games, although had Paul been merely average (average WP48 is 0.100), then the Hornets would have only won 36 games (and missed the playoffs). 

Last season – as Table One reveals – Paul was even better.  His 28.2 Wins Produced led the league. And as I noted a few weeks ago, when you consider standard deviations above average, Paul’s 2008-09 performance was the best the NBA has seen since the days of Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. 

Table One: New Orleans Hornets in 2008-09

Unfortunately, Paul’s teammates were very bad.  Everyone not named CP3 only produced 16.7 wins for the Hornets in 2008-09.   So if one replaced Paul with an average player, the Hornets ranked among the very worst teams in the league. 

This past summer changes were made to the Hornets roster.  The big move was trading Tyson Chandler for Emeka Okafor.  Here is what I said when this trade was announced:

…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 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] 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.

Let me also note that if we focus solely on 2008-09, Okafor did offer more.  In other words, it’s likely that Okafor in 2009-10 will do more than Chandler did last season.  The Hornets, though, didn’t stop with this move.  They also added Darius Songaila [-0.8 Wins Produced, -0.024 WP48] and Bobby Brown [-2.6 Wins Produced, -0.136 WP48].  Both Songaila and B. Brown were among the least productive players in 2008-09.  So these moves are probably not going to help.  The addition of these players gives the Hornets the following depth chart:

Potential First String

PG: Chris Paul [28.2 Wins Produced, 0.451 WP48]

SG: James Posey [5.0 Wins Produced, 0.111 WP48]

SF: Julian Wright [0.9 Wins Produced, 0.054 WP48]

PF: David West [6.5 Wins Produced, 0.105 WP48]

C: Emeka Okafor [11.0 Wins Produced, 0.196 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Darren Collison [rookie] or Bobby Brown [-2.6 Wins Produced, -0.136 WP48]

SG: Devin Brown [-0.3 Wins Produced, -0.015 WP48]

SF: Peja Stojakovic [1.9 Wins Produced, 0.044 WP48]

PF: Darius Songaila [-0.8 Wins Produced, -0.024 WP48]

C: Hilton Armstrong [-2.6 Wins Produced, -0.115 WP48]

Chris Paul note the following about this team:“This might be the deepest team we’ve had since I’ve been here.”

When we consider Wins Produced, though, we see a different story.  The Hornets currently have one amazing player in Paul, one very good player in Okafor, two players who are close to average (Posey and West), and then a collection of players that are well below average.  In sum, I think this team is better than what we saw last season.  But I don’t think this team is as good as it was in 2007-08.  Yes, it is possible Julian Wright can play better (or just play the entire season).  And Posey, Stojakovic, and D. Brown have played better before 2008-09.  Still, when we compare the Hornets to the other top teams in the West (i.e. Lakers, Blazers, Spurs, Mavericks, Jazz, and Nuggets), I think New Orleans – despite having the very best player in the league – come up short.

One wonders how long this will continue.  Paul is only 24 years old and signed through the 2011-12 season.  So New Orleans does have some time to truly build “a deep team” around Paul.  It’s possible, though, that we are seeing a replay of the KG story.  After 12 seasons of struggling in Minnesota, Garnett was finally traded to Boston where he won his first title.  For KG, this happened when he was 31 years old.  Will Paul have to wait this long?

- 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.