Mark Cuban – owner of the Dallas Mavericks – claims that the 2009-10 Mavericks are better than the 2005-06 team that managed to reach the NBA Finals.  Are they really this good?  And are they better than the 2006-07 team that

a. lead the NBA in victories, and

b. fail to exit the first round of the playoffs.

The 2006-07 Mavericks — which was a bit better than the 2005-06 team in the regular season — scored 1.081 points per possession while surrendering 1.003.  The team’s efficiency differential – offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency – was 7.8, a mark that actually ranked second in the NBA (the Spurs – the team that won the 2007 NBA title – posted a mark of 9.1).  If the Mavericks had managed to repeat what happened in 2006-07 (i.e. post a 7.8 differential) last season, Dallas would have only ranked 4^th in the NBA (behind Cleveland, Boston, and the Lakers).

Of course, the Mavericks weren’t close to the top teams in the league in 2008-09.  The team’s differential of 2.1 ranked 10^th in the league, and only an injury to Manu Ginobili allowed this team to advance to the second round (hence besting the playoff performance of the 2007 Mavericks). 

When we turn to how the players on the Mavericks performed last year, we can see why this team struggled.

Table One: The Dallas Mavericks in 2008-09

The Mavericks were led in Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] by Jason Kidd.  After Kidd, though, the team only produced 26.4 wins. Consequently, the Mavericks suffered through the worst season in the Mark Cuban era.

How to Rebuild Dallas

If we examine the depth chart at ESPN.com, we see that Dallas added Shawn Marion and Drew Gooden.  Dallas also tried to add Marcin Gortat (and failed).  When we consider the 1-year and 2-year adjusted plus-minus numbers (from BasketbalValue.com) – the metric that was made famous by Mark Cuban and Wayne Winston – we see the following:

Shawn Marion: -1.85 (1-year), 1.58 (2-year)

Drew Gooden: -7.28 (1-year), -2.35 (2-year)

Marcin Gortat: -8.06 (1-year), -2.46 (2-year)

With the exception of Shawn Marion’s 2-year adjusted plus-minus, these players are all in the negative range with respect to adjusted plus-minus. 

Now let’s look at the same players via Wins Produced:

Shawn Marion: 0.210 WP48 last season, 0.291 WP48 career

Drew Gooden: 0.095 WP48 last season, 0.132 WP48 career

Marcin Gortat: 0.277 WP48 last season (only played 41 minutes before 2008-09)

The career numbers of these three players – with respect to WP48 – are all above average.  Gooden is only slightly above average, but he has moved within season three times.  If we focus on the four seasons where he didn’t move (2003-04 to 2006-07) we see a player who produced 32.0 wins and posted a 0.169 WP48.  In sum, as I noted last July, when it came time to re-build the Mavericks, Dallas apparently abandoned adjusted plus-minus and turned to something that looks very similar to Wins Produced.

Are the Mavericks Better?

That being said, let’s return to the contention that this team is better than it was in 2006-07.  Here is what the team’s depth chart looks like in terms of Wins Produced.

Potential First String

PG: Jason Kidd [19.8 Wins Produced, 0.329 WP48]

SG: Josh Howard [2.0 Wins Produced, 0.057 WP48]

SF: Shawn Marion [10.8 Wins Produced, 0.210 WP48]

PF: Dirk Nowitzki [10.6 Wins Produced, 0.167 WP48]

C: Erick Dampier [7.4 Wins Produced, 0.193 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Jose Barea [2.0 Wins Produced, 0.059 WP48]

SG: Jason Terry [5.8 Wins Produced, 0.111 WP48]

SF: Shawne Williams [-0.5 Wins Produced, -0.013 WP48 for career]

PF: Drew Gooden [2.5 Wins Produced, 0.095 WP48]

C: Nathah Jawai [career 19 minutes played]

Last season these players produced 60.7 wins.  As Table Two reveals – a table originally posted in October of 2007 — the Mavericks of 2006-07 combined to offer 60.2 Wins Produced (again, the 2006 team was a bit worse).  So if the current Mavericks repeat what they did last year, this team will be as good as it was in 2006-07.

Table Two: The Dallas Mavericks in 2005-06 and 2006-07

There is reason to think, though, that the Mavericks could be better.  Marion, Nowitzki, Howard, and Gooden all produced at levels below their respective career averages last season.  So if these players return to form, the Mavericks could indeed be better.  At least, that’s the story told by Wins Produced.

There are two issues to consider, though, as Dallas fans dream about a long run in the playoffs.

1. Jason Kidd is really old.  Yes, he is amazing.  But Kidd will be 37 before the playoffs begin.  And for a basketball player, that’s an age where most players have already retired.  Certainly, we should not be surprised if Kidd slips this season (then again, I would have guessed he would have slipped last season).

2. Although I think the Mavericks are as good as the Lakers, Spurs, and Blazers; I still think this team – like the other teams in the West – are not quite as good as the Celtics, Magic, and Cavaliers.

Of course, in a short series – as fans of Dallas know – anything can happen.  So if Dallas does manage to get out of the West, it’s possible the Mavericks could finally win an NBA title.  Yes the word is “possible”.  Dallas winning it all would not be my first guess (at least, not according to Wins Produced).

- 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 San Antonio Spurs won the NBA title in 2003, 2005, and 2007.  Given this pattern, many expected the Spurs to contend in 2009.  Instead, the team suffered its worst season since 1996-97, or the year before Tim Duncan came to San Antonio.

Reviewing the Spurs

Last season the Spurs scored 1.06 points per possession, a mark that ranks second best in the Duncan era. Unfortunately, their defense allowed 1.02 points per possession.  This was the first time the Spurs – in the Duncan era – managed to surrender more than one point per possession. So the Spurs struggled, at least by San Antonio standards. The team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of 4.1 was actually better than anything ever done by the LA-San Diego Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Charlotte Bobcats, Charlotte Hornets, New Jersey Nets (without Jason Kidd), Washington Wizards (post 1970s), Golden State Warriors (post 1970s), and Denver Nuggets (post 1970s).  Once again, though, the Spurs – in the Duncan era – expect to do better.

Table One: San Antonio Spurs in 2008-09

When we look at the players employed by San Antonio last season – reported in Table One – it quickly becomes clear where the Spurs faltered. The key number is 44, or the number of games played by Manu Ginobili.  Last season Ginobili led the Spurs in WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] with a 0.335 mark.  But that production was unavailable for 38 games, and consequently, the Spurs struggled – by San Antonio standards – in the regular season, and were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.

Contending Again?

In the off-season the Spurs added a number of new faces.  The acquisition of Richard Jefferson is considered the most important, primarily because RJ scores.  As noted last June, though, Jefferson is no longer a very productive NBA player.  And the skill he brings – taking shots – is not something the Spurs really needed.  Again, their offense last year was quite good.

After Jefferson arrived, though, the Spurs did add Antonio McDyess, a player who is quite productive. McDyess produced 11.0 wins last year with a 0.283 WP48.  Average WP48 is 0.100, so McDyess was very good in 2008-09.  In fact, he led the Pistons in Wins Produced.  Unfortunately, he is now 35 years old.  So it’s possible age will start impact his production. 

The addition of Jefferson and McDyess gives the Spurs – according to ESPN.com – the following depth chart (Wins Produced and WP48 from the 2008-09 season):

Potential First String

PG: Tony Parker [8.5 Wins Produced, 0.166 WP48]

SG: Roger Mason [4.1 Wins Produced, 0.079 WP48]

SF: Richard Jefferson [3.9 Wins Produced, 0.064 WP48]

PF: Antonio McDyess [11.0 Wins Produced, 0.283 WP48]

C: Tim Duncan [13.9 Wins Produced, 0.265 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: George Hill [1.0 Wins Produced, 0.039 WP48]

SG: Manu Ginobili [8.2 Wins Produced, 0.335 WP48]

SF: Michael Finley [3.2 Wins Produced, 0.066 WP48]

PF: Matt Bonner [6.3 Wins Produced, 0.158 WP48]

C: Theo Ratliff [0.6 Wins Produced, 0.052 WP48]

Missing on Blair

In addition to these ten players, the Spurs have also added Keith Bogans [3.8 Wins Produced, 0.145 WP48] and DeJuan Blair.  Bogans gives the Spurs another productive backcourt performer.  And Blair gives the Spurs… well, it’s not entirely clear what Blair will give.

Blair was the most productive player selected out of college in the 2009 draft; at least according to Position Adjusted Win Score.  Blair, though, lasted until the second round because people were not sure he was entirely healthy.  In Blair’s first preseason game, though, he grabbed 19 rebounds in 22 minutes.  Yes, it is only one preseason game.  But when a player nearly averages one rebound per-minute, we start to suspect

a. maybe Blair is healthy enough to play in the NBA, and

b. maybe Blair’s college numbers will translate into the NBA.

If both of these points are true, then the Spurs have an extremely productive player on their bench.  It’s possible that will not matter much in 2009-10.  After all, Blair is currently – according to ESPN.com – San Antonio’s third string power forward.  But when we look to the future…

Yes, I know.  It’s only one pre-season game.  In the past, though, it was noted that 80% of Wins Produced in the NBA are produced by only 20% of the league’s players (i.e. the Pareto Principle applies to the NBA).  The reason why so many teams fail to match the worst season in the Duncan era is because these teams fail to acquire many players who populate that 20%.  It appears that Blair is going to be one of these players.  And because doctors argued Blair is not entirely healthy, the Spurs were given such a player in the second round.
It’s possible the doctors are right.  But it must be remembered, most of the players taken before Blair are going to be among the 80% of NBA players who only produce 20% of the wins.  So what should a team look at in the draft…

a player who is healthy but will never produce much?, or

a player who can be extremely productive but may not last very long? 

The answer seems fairly obvious.  For many teams in the NBA, though, unproductive and healthy seems like the way to go.  And this may be one reason why so many teams in the NBA look at the Spurs worst season in the Duncan era with envy.

Let me close by noting that if Ginobili is healthy (and the same is said about the other productive players San Antonio employs), the Spurs can contend for the Western Confernce title.  Again, I think — assuming Andrew Bynum doesn’t return to what we briefly saw in 2007-08 — the Lakers have come back to the pack in the West.  So the Spurs and Blazers will contend with the Lakers for the conference title (and this may not be the entire population of Western contenders).  Once one of these teams reaches the finals, though, I expect the playoff run to end with a loss.  Yes, I still think the NBA champion will come from the East.

- 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.

When we think about favorites for the 2010 NBA title our thoughts often turn to the LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, and the team I think is the favorite, the Cleveland Cavaliers.  But there is one other – somewhat forgotten – contender.

Orlando was Good and Now is Better

The Orlando Magic eliminated both the Celtics and Cavaliers in the 2009 playoffs before losing to the Lakers in NBA Finals. When we look at Table One – which reports the Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] for each player on the Magic last season – we can see that Orlando’s playoffs success was not entirely due to luck.

Table One: The Orlando Magic in 2008-09

The Magic in 2008-09 were led by Dwight Howard. Superman, though, was not a one-man team.  The remaining players on this roster were able to produce 36.3 wins last season.  Leading this supporting cast was Hedo Turkoglu.  In the off-season Turkoglu departed for Portland… no, I mean Toronto.  In addition, Courtney Lee was traded to New Jersey.  The loss of these two players subtracts nearly ten wins from Orlando.

The Lee transaction, though, brought Vince Carter to Orlando.  Carter has already played 11 seasons in the NBA, producing 101.1 wins and posting a 0.165 WP48.  Last season Carter produced 10.0 wins with a 0.162 WP48.  In sum, he’s more productive than both Lee and Turkoglu.  Of course, he’s also old.  Carter will turn 33 in January, so he’s not a long-term solution.  But for the 2009-10 season, Carter should help.

In addition to Carter, the Magic also added Brandon Bass, Ryan Anderson, Matt Barnes, and Jason Williams.  The addition of these players gives the Magic the following depth chart:  

Potential First String

PG: Jameer Nelson [6.5 Wins Produced, 0.237 WP48]

SG: Vince Carter [10.0 Wins Produced, 0.162 WP48]

SF: Matt Barnes [4.0 Wins Produced, 0.091 WP48]

PF: Rashard Lewis [5.9 Wins Produced, 0.099 WP48]

C: Dwight Howard [22.2 Wins Produced, 0.378 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Anthony Johnson [1.6 Wins Produced, 0.052 WP48]

SG: J.J. Redick [1.3 Wins Produced, 0.054 WP48]

SF: Mickael Pietrus [1.4 Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48]

PF: Brandon Bass [0.8 Wins Produced, 0.025 WP48]

C: Marcin Gortat [4.6 Wins Produced, 0.277 WP48]

In addition to these ten players, the Magic also have the following:

PG: Jason Williams [0.084 WP48; for career]

PF: Ryan Anderson [2.2 Wins Produced, 0.082 WP48]

C: Adonal Foyle [0.095 WP48; for career]

An average NBA player has a 0.100 WP48.  Of the players listed on the Magic’s first and second string, only four  – Nelson, Carter, Howard, and Gortat – were above average last season.  To put this in perspective, the potential first and second string of the Lakers also has four above average players. The Celtics, though, currently have six such players, while the Cavaliers have eight above average performers.

So apparently, the Magic – at least when we consider the population of above average performers – are at a disadvantage in the Eastern Conference.  This view, though, changes somewhat if we consider the depth chart at ESPN.com.  According to ESPN, Rashard Lewis is now the Magic’s small forward.  Once upon a time, Lewis was an above average small forward.  In 2006-07 Lewis posted a 0.175 WP48 while mostly playing small forward with the Seattle Supersonics. 

If we shift our focus to Win Score, we see that Lewis has been very consistent across his career.  During his time with Seattle, Lewis posted a 9.8 Win Score per 48 minutes (WS48).  His first season in Orlando – where he primarily played power forward – Lewis posted a 9.6 WS48.  And last year his mark was 9.8.  Such numbers are quite good for a small forward.  But as a power forward, Lewis is about average. 

With the acquisition of Bass and Anderson, the Magic are now in a position to move Lewis back to small forward.  In their first pre-season game, though, the Magic had Lewis starting at power forward.  Now the Magic can still challenge Cleveland, Boston, and the Lakers with Lewis at the four spot.  But keeping Lewis at small forward – and playing Bass and Anderson at power forward –  would appear to make the Magic better (and a more powerful contender).

To summarize… the addition of Carter improves a team that won 59 games last year.  Moving Lewis to small forward makes this improved team even better.  And teams that move far past 60 wins in a season are definitely title contenders.

The Contender Population

If we focus strictly on the Eastern Conference, the population of title contenders has now been reviewed.  Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando are much better than anyone in the East.  One of these teams will likely be in the NBA Finals.  Of course, at least one of these teams will also fail to make it to the Eastern Conference Finals.

If we think about the West the picture is not as clear.  Unless Bynum comes all the way back, the Lakers – with the Artest for Ariza transactions — have probably moved closer to the pack.  Consequently, Portland (who I have reviewed) has a chance.  And the same might be said for San Antonio (who I have not reviewed).  In fact, one could even see a number of other Western Conference teams making noise in the playoffs.

Regardless of how the West shakes out, though, I think Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando are the three best teams in the league.  And that means, I think the eventual NBA champion will come from the East (and I tend to think that team will also come from Ohio).

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

A few months ago I won the 2009 TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown.  And here is my prize:

Henry Abbott did give me some choices. Last year Justin Kubatko was given a Greg Oden jersey.  After some conversation, I decided that I would like a banner in my office that would demonstrate to my students that at one point in my life as an economist, I made some predictions that actually came true.  So I asked Henry for a Pistons banner that he graciously signed.   And now, as you can see, the banner is in my office and I am sure many of my students (some? one or two?) will be very impressed each time they visit in the future. 

- DJ

The LA Lakers won the 2009 NBA title and many consider this team to be a strong candidate to repeat.  My review of Cleveland, though, suggested that LeBron and the Cavaliers should be the favorites in 2010.  The choice of Cleveland was motivated by the following observations:

a. Cleveland was the best team in the regular season last season and the 5^th best team since 1973-74, and

b. The moves Cleveland made this summer should make the Cavaliers even better.

To these two reasons I would add,

c. the Lakers were only the third best team in the NBA during the 2008-09 regular season, and

d. the Lakers may have taken a small step backwards.

Reviewing the Lakers

Last season the Lakers scored 109.4 points per possession while surrendering 101.5.  Given these numbers, the team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) was 7.8.  Such a mark ranked behind both Cleveland and Boston.  The Celtics chances to repeat, though, were significantly reduced when Kevin Garnett was injured.  And Cleveland was upset by the Orlando Magic.  Consequently, the Lakers got to face Orlando in the 2009 NBA Finals.  In sum, although the Lakers won the title last year – and I picked them to do this both before the season started and before the NBA Finals — there is reason to think the Lakers were not the best team in the NBA in 2008-09.

That being said, LA was very good last year.  And Table One reveals the players most responsible for that outcome.

Table One: The LA Lakers in 2008-09

The Lakers won 65 games last season, but the team’s efficiency differential – and consequently Wins Produced – suggests this team should have won about 61 games.  And 54 of these wins can be traced to just five players: Pau Gasol, Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza, and Andrew Bynum.  The Wins Produced of the remaining eleven players on this roster was only 7.1; and of these remaining players only Shannon Brown – who played just 136 minutes for the Lakers – was above average (average WP48 – or Wins Produced per 48 minutes – is 0.100).

Looking Ahead

This past summer the Lakers added Ron Artest in the free agent market and allowed Trevor Ariza to depart.  Consequently, the Lakers depth chart is now as follows:

Potential First String

PG: Derek Fisher [2.6Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48]

SG: Kobe Bryant [15.0 Wins Produced, 0.244 WP48]

SF: Ron Artest [4.6 Wins Produced, 0.089 WP48]

PF: Pau Gasol [15.6 Wins Produced, 0.250 WP48]

C: Andrew Bynum [4.8 Wins Produced, 0.158 WP48]

Potential Second String

PG: Jordan Farmar [-0.9 Wins Produced, -0.035 WP48]

SG: Sasha Vujacic [2.7 Wins Produced, 0.099 WP48]

SF: Luke Walton [2.2 Wins Produced, 0.091 WP48]

PF: Lamar Odom [10.6 Wins Produced, 0.220 WP48]

C: D.J. Mbenga [-1.5 Wins Produced, -0.084 WP48 for career]

In addition to these ten players, the Lakers also have the following:

SG: Shannon Brown [0.6 Wins Produced, 0.060 WP48; for the entire season]

SF: Adam Morrison [-1.6 Wins Produced, -0.106 WP48, for the entire season]

PF: Josh Powell [-0.6 Wins Produced, -0.040 WP48]

As noted last July, Artest has simply never been as productive as Ariza.  And that leads one to the following observations:

a. The Lakers were not the top team in the NBA last season.

b. If everyone the Lakers employ in 2009-10 does what he did in 2008-09, then the Lakers will be somewhat worse.

c. The other top teams in the NBA – and this is especially true of the Cavaliers – appear to have gotten better.

d. Therefore, the Lakers shouldn’t be the favorite to repeat in 2010.

What About Bynum?

All that being said… there is one giant wild card; and that card is Andrew Bynum. Here is what Bynum has done in his career:

2005-06: 46 games played, 340 minutes, -0.086 WP48

2006-07: 82 games played, 1,793 minutes, 0.115 WP48

2007-08: 35 games played, 1,008 minutes, 0.358 WP48

2008-09: 50 games played, 1,446 minutes, 0.158 WP48

Career: 213 games played, 4,587 minutes, 0.167 WP48

If we focus on 2008-09 and 2006-07 we would conclude that Bynum is a good, but not great, center.  But for 1,008 minutes in 2007-08, Bynum was one of the best players in the game.  What if that Bynum were to return?

If that happens, then the Lakers close the gap with Cleveland and another title is very possible.  But there’s no guarantee that the Bynum seen briefly in 2007-08 is coming back.  Certainly the news that he is limiting his work with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not a good sign.  

Mathletics, Kobe, and Odom

Let me close with a brief comment on Mathletics, the new book by Wayne Winston.  When I am finished reviewing every NBA team from last year (and I still have about half of these reviews to write), I will post a longer comment on Wayne’s book.  For now I would like to offer two thoughts:

a. Everyone interested in sports and statistics should go get a copy.  This book offers a large number of interesting stories on baseball, football, and basketball.  I don’t agree with everything that’s said, but it’s all very interested and well worth reading.

b. In addition to the book, Wayne has also set up a blog (waynewinston.com).  This blog provides additional analysis in the spirit of his book.  I did want to comment briefly on something Wayne said this past weekend:

I believe that David Berri and his colleagues (see http://dberri.wordpress.com/) have found the best set of linear weights based on box scores stats. By any box score based metric, Kobe was much better than Odom last season.

Wayne is the creator of the adjusted plus-minus approach and I suspect his calculation of this measure is superior to the imitators.  That being said, he is not entirely correct with respect to what the box score says about Kobe Bryant and Lamar Odom.  If one looks at NBA Efficiency and Player Efficiency Ratings — two approaches Wayne and I are both very critical of — then he is correct; Kobe looks much better than Odom.  But if we focus on Wins Produced, Kobe is only slightly better than Odom this year; and Odom was more productive than Kobe in 2007-08.

Again, I will offer more on Mathletics when these team reviews are finished. In the meantime, go pick up a copy.  Certainly if everyone has a copy the discussion of this book in the future in this forum will be well-informed.

- 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.