Each time someone links to the Wages of Wins Journal I am notified by Word Press. A few days ago I noticed a link to the following entry at Ted’s Take:

A Really Great NBA Blog

Check this one out.

That was the entire entry. 

Ted Leonsis and the Wizards

The Ted of Ted’s Take is Ted Leonsis.  Here is just a part of his lengthy bio (which one can read in its entirety at Ted’s Take).

Ted is also the founder, chairman and majority owner of Lincoln Holdings LLC, a sports and entertainment company that holds ownership rights in several Washington, DC entities including 100% of the NHL’s Washington Capitals and the WNBA’s Washington Mystics. Lincoln Holdings also owns approximately 44% of Washington Sports and Entertainment Limited Partnership (WSELP), which owns the NBA’s Washington Wizards, DC’s Verizon Center and the Baltimore-Washington Ticketmaster franchise.

So Ted Leonsis is owner of the Washington Capitals and a part-owner of the Washington Wizards.  Of these two, the Capitals are probably making Leonsis quite a bit happier these days.  And if he read what I said about the Wizards last summer, he is probably even more disappointed with the Wizards today.

Explaining the Disappointment

Last season the Washington Wizards were the worst team in the Eastern Conference.  This season the Wizards are 10-20 – and with a -3.6 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) – Washington is on pace to win about 32 games in 2009-10.  Despite this projected 13 game improvement, though, fans of this team are probably unhappy.

Again, such unhappiness stems from last summer’s evaluation of this team.  Last August, Chris Mannix of SportsIllustrated.cnn.com argued that the Washington Wizards were the 8^th best team in the NBA.  And I argued that this team could win between 45 and 50 games.  Clearly Mannix and I don’t look to be correct.  The Wizards don’t look like a top 10 team and a winning record in 2009-10 seems unlikely.

In evaluating this team’s problems, some might focus on the play of Gilbert Arenas.  Agent Zero is simply not the same player we saw in 2006-07 (the last season he was fully healthy).   A quick glance at his stats from Basketball-Reference (which reports his stats per-36 minutes) reveals that Arenas today – relative to what we saw in 2006-07 – has improved with respect to assists and is essentially the same with respect to shooting efficiency from the field, shot attempts from the field, rebounds, blocked shots, and personal fouls.   He has declined, though, with respect to steals, turnovers, free throw attempts, and free throw percentage. 

When we convert these numbers into Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] we see that Arenas is posting a 0.069 mark this season.  Had his performance returned to what we saw in 2006-07, though, his WP48 would be 0.148.  Translating this into Wins Produced – and projecting across the entire 82 game season (as reported in Table One) – we see the decline in Arenas’  performance is costing the Wizards about five wins in 2009-10.

Table One: The Washington Wizards after 30 games in 2009-10

In other words,  even if Arenas was performing as well as he did before his recent health problems, the Wizards would still be below average.  So the declines in the performance of Agent Zero can’t explain the difference between where the Wizards are today and my evaluation of this team this past summer.

To see this difference we need to look at the second column in Table Two, or how many minutes each player has played.   Of the players listed, the top player in WP48 in 2008-09 was Mike Miller.  Thus far this season, though, Miller has only played nine games.  Had he been played the entire season – and maintained what he did last year in Minnesota – Miller would currently be on pace to produce 12.2 wins this season.  Such production would increase the Wizards season projection by 8.6 wins.  And coupled with Arenas returning to form, transforms the Wizards into a 45 win team.

The Wizards are currently 2.5 games out of the playoffs, and again, fans of this team might be a bit disappointed.  If Arenas and Miller were playing and producing, though, this team would currently be the 6^th seed in the Eastern Conference.  And this means fans of this team could expect to make the playoffs….where they would probably be eliminated in the first round.

Repeating What Was Said Three Years Ago

Okay, even if the players for the Wizards were healthy and performing as expected, this is still not a title contender.  A “good” team, yes.  But a championship parade is not to be expected.

To understand the bigger problem in Washington one has to return to what I said about this team in October of 2006.  Three years ago I argued that the Wizards had assembled a collection of above average talents.  But because the team lacked a superstar – defined as a player who produced well beyond the 0.200 WP48 mark (i.e. approaches the 0.300 level) – the Wizards ceiling was limited.

What I said back in 2006 appears to apply today.  The team still has a collection of above average players.  But again, really no superstar. Yes, Miller can post a mark above 0.200. But his career mark entering this season was only 0.163 and he has had trouble staying on the court in 2009-10.  So Miller can help, but by himself he is not going to transform this team into a title contender.

Again, what the Wizards need is a player – or better yet players — who can stay on the court and post a WP48 mark that approaches 0.300.  Until such players are acquired, one suspects fans of the Wizards — and their owner — will continue to be a bit disappointed. 

Let me close by note that looking back on what I said about the Wizards in 2006 led me to think about the history of this forum.  This blog began in April of 2006.  Across the past three years (actually, we are getting close to four), more than 1,000 entries have been posted (we hit the 1,000 mark with the post on the Phoenix Suns from December 14).  Each post tends to be about 1,000 words, so this means 1,000,000 words have probably been offered in this forum.  To put that in perspective, the Wages of Wins was about 120,000 words (and our next book is a bit shorter). This means about eight books have been posted in this forum (and that mark doesn’t even consider the more than 15,500 comments that have been offered). 

As the year and decade ends I want to once again thank everyone (and that includes both new readers like Ted Leonsis and others who have been coming here since 2006) who makes this forum a part of their day.  And although the thought of writing eight books makes me tired, as long as people keep stopping by it looks like this forum is going to be continuing into the next year and decade.   

- 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.

Patrick Hayes at MLive.com (my favorites site for Detroit sports) points our attention to a trade suggestion from Bill Simmons:

I know that ESPN’s Bill Simmons columns are meant for entertainment and that his trade suggestions have no real basis in reality. ….His latest effort looks at teams that, because of the economy, need to make trades and shed salary. While he doesn’t include the Pistons in the “desperate to shed payroll” group, he does believe they need to make a move:

Tayshaun and DaJuan Summers (cap throw-in) to Boston for the Tony Allen/Brian Scalabrine/J.R. Giddens expirings plus Big Baby and $3 million. Imagine the Celts tossing out a defensive quintet of Pierce, Rondo, Prince (if healthy), KG and Perkins? Now that’s a championship quintet! Worth the risk, I say.

Hayes was not impressed by this suggestion.  Simmons, though, is a fan of the Celtics. And from Boston’s perspective, this is a pretty good deal. Unfortunately, I think Simmons is channeling his inner Costanza.

Defining the “Costanza Trade” 

For those who are not fans of Seinfeld (all two of you)… in 1996 Seinfeld had an episode where George Costanza is considered a candidate for the job of assistant general manager with the New York Yankees.  Such a job would give George input into possible trades (rather like the job Simmons imagines he should have in his columns). As George thinks about this job he imagines some trade scenarios.  Here is an example of George’s thinking:

I think I got it. How ’bout this? How ’bout this? We trade Jim Leyritz and Bernie Williams, for Barry Bonds, huh? Whadda ya think? That way you have Griffey and Bonds, in the same outfield! Now you got a team! Ha ha ha.

Essentially, George – as a Yankee employee and fan – supports trades where the Yankees clearly get the better end of the deal.  Certainly one can imagine the Yankees easily acquiring Bonds and Ken Griffey today. But in 1996, it’s hard to see how the trades Costanza envisions happening (and that’s why this is funny).

This is essentially the same approach offered by Simmons. The players in this proposed trade really haven’t played much this year (none of these players has played 200 minutes this year).  But here is what these players did last year [WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes]:

Glen Davis: -2.5 Wins Produced, -0.074 WP48

Tony Allen: 1.6 Wins Produced, 0.088 WP48

Brian Scalabrine: -1.1 Wins Produced, -0.108 WP48

Tayshaun Prince: 7.8 Wins Produced, 0.122 WP48

An average NBA player posts a 0.100 WP48.  Of these four players (Summers is a rookie this year and Giddens only played eight minutes last year), only Prince is above par.  And Davis and Scalabrine are in the negative range. Again, what Simmons proposes is a “Costanza trade.” One can just hear Simmons as he writes his proposal: “I think the Celtics can acquire Tayshaun Prince and not really give up much at all.  Imagine the Celtics with Prince. Now you got a team. Ha ha ha.”

The Odd Moves of Joe Dumars

Clearly if such a trade were offered, Joe Dumars (the Pistons GM) should say no.  Then again, Dumars has said “yes” to some very suspicious moves lately.  In the draft the Pistons selected Austin Daye and Jonas Jerebko.  Both players are above average as rookies, so one can’t argue much with either selection. Sandwiched between these two picks, though, Joe Dumars selected a player named DaJuan.  When I heard “DaJuan” on draft day I fully expected to hear the word “Blair” next.  But much to my disappointment, the next word was “Summers”.  As the following table reveals, DaJuan Summers was the least productive player selected out of college in 2009.  And DeJuan Blair – selected two slots later by the San Antonio Spurs – was the most productive.

Table One: Ranking the Players Selected from College in the 2009 NBA Draft

Thus far this season the college numbers seem quite prophetic.  Summers has posted a -0.141 WP48.  Meanwhile, Blair is posting a 0.296 WP48 and has now moved into the starting line-up for the San Antonio Spurs. Yes, I know.  Blair had some injury concerns. But Blair has already produced 2.8 wins in his career.  Given what we saw from Summers in college and briefly in the NBA, there’s a real possibility that Summers will never produce 2.8 wins in his entire NBA career.

After missing on the NBA draft, Dumars then turned to the free agent market.  Blessed with an abundance of cap space, Dumars made a quick splash by signing both Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva.  As I noted when these signings were announced, the words “above average” are not often mentioned when it comes to these two players. Certainly both player sport career marks that are below par.  And as Table Two notes, neither player has been above average after 30 games in Detroit.

Table Two: The Detroit Pistons after 30 games in 2009-10

Gordon and Villanueva are not the only members of the “below average” club in Detroit.  Currently, only two players – Ben Wallace and Jerebko – are above average.  Consequently, we shouldn’t be surprised that this team is on pace to win only 30 games this year.

The poor performance of the Pistons in 2009-10 could also have been expected given what these players did last year.  As Table Two indicates, if the Pistons’ players maintained what they did in 2008-09 this season, Detroit would only be on pace to win 35 games. Yes, Detroit has suffered some injuries.  And if everyone was healthy this team would be better than a 30 win team. But even if Tayshaun Prince, Rip Hamilton, and Ben Gordon had been available the entire season the Pistons would still not be a serious contender in the Eastern Conference.

In sum, Detroit – the team I follow – is simply not very good.  And it’s not very good because Joe Dumars has recently been choosing below average players.

Given such behavior, maybe Dumars would agree to the Simmons proposal.  Again, Dumars didn’t know that the word “Blair” comes after “DeJuan.” So maybe he would agree to a classic “Costanza trade.” And Pistons fans could then start crying about Big Baby.

- 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.

Ed Carson of Investors. com reported the following trend a few weeks ago (HT Freakonomics):

The best kept secret of the past 20 years has been this: When the Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA championship, the market would almost always fall that year. When the Lakers lost, the market would usually rise. The Laker Indicator only steered investors wrong in three years during the entire span, and not once from 1995-2007.

An investor who put down $1,000 into the Nasdaq at the start of 1987 and stayed fully invested through 2007 would have ended up with $7,604. But an investor who bought the Nasdaq in years the Lakers lost and stayed in cash when the Lakers won would have finished with $21,189. This strategy would have kept you in the market during the 1990s bull market, avoided the 2000-2002 bear and then got back in as the market uptrend resumed.

Such numbers speak for themselves. In fact, I can’t imagine anyone looking at Carson’s numbers and coming to another conclusion.

Okay, if you read a little further in the column you see that Carson disagrees with Carson’s numbers.  Here is Carson again: Correlation does not always mean causation. Psychological ‘secondary’ gauges may appear to work for a time, then suddenly stop. And it’s easy to look for excuses, a la the Lakers in 2008, for why your special indicator really still works.

Focusing on Jamal Crawford

The Carson story about the Lakers came to mind as I watch a bit of basketball on Christmas day.  While watching I heard (and I didn’t write this down so this may not be exact) Hubie Brown briefly discuss the contenders in the East. After noting Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando, Brown noted that people shouldn’t ignore the Atlanta Hawks.

So far I agreed with Brown.  The Hawks currently rank second in the NBA in efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).  So any discussion of NBA contenders has to include Atlanta.

But after noting that Atlanta is a contender, Brown decided to offer an explanation for Atlanta’s surge.  And that explanation focused on Jamal Crawford.  Essentially Brown argued that the off-season addition of Crawford is the reason why Atlanta has improved. 

I should note that I am probably being unfair to Brown. Yes, I did hear him say this. But in the course of a game – where the talking heads have a job to do (i.e. keep talking) – one is bound to find something said that doesn’t make complete sense or that the person talking wouldn’t take back (or at least explain better).  That being said, though, I want to proceed as if Brown really meant what he said (i.e. Jamal Crawford is the reason why the Hawks have gotten better).  And I want to proceed in this fashion because Brown’s focus on Crawford illustrates a larger point about correlation and causation.

Explaining Atlanta’s Surge

Let me start by offering a defense for Brown’s comment.  It’s easy to see why someone might focus on Crawford.  Of the eight players who have logged at least 400 minutes for the Hawks this season, Crawford is the only one who was not with Atlanta last year.  Last season the Hawks won 47 games without Crawford.  This year the team’s efficiency differential suggests Atlanta will win more than 60 games.  Such evidence seems fairly self explanatory.  Atlanta only has one new player getting any minutes, so that one new player must be the reason why the team is much better.

Once again, though, correlation doesn’t prove causation.  Just because Atlanta has done better since it acquired Crawford, it doesn’t mean Crawford is the reason why the team has improved. 

Back in November I offered an explanation for why the Hawks have gotten better.  That explanation centered on the play of Josh Smith.  Now that Atlanta has played 29 games it seems like a good idea to re-check the numbers.

We can find Josh Smith’s box score numbers at Basketball-Reference.com.  A check of these numbers reveals – just as we saw in November – that Smith has improved with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, assists, steals, and turnovers.  His per game scoring is down, but with respect to the statistics that drive wins (both theoretically and empirically), Smith has improved tremendously.

We can see this improvement when we turn to Wins Produced.

Table One: The Atlanta Hawks after 29 games in 2009-10

Table One reports the Wins Produced for each player Atlanta has employed this year.  And it reports what we could have expected had each player maintained his performance from last season.  The numbers from last season indicate the Hawks should be on pace to win 46 games in 2009-10.  Again, that’s about what this team did in 2008-09.  So given the team’s roster moves – and what the players on this roster did last year — Atlanta shouldn’t be any better.

But Atlanta clearly is better.  When we look at how performance has changed, we see that the primary reason for this improvement is the play of Josh Smith.  Had Smith maintained his 2008-09 productivity level this season, he would be on pace to produce 6.2 wins. Instead, his improved box score numbers translate into more than ten additional wins.  In sum, both the empirical evidence found in the box score numbers – and how these numbers theoretically and empirically are linked to wins – indicates it’s not the addition of Crawford that has transformed the Hawks (Crawford – as I noted last April – has generally been a below average shooting guard in his career and he is once again below par in 2009-10).  The key is really the improved play of Josh Smith (Al Horford and Joe Johnson have also helped some).

Correlation Stories

Let’s say, though, you really wanted to stick with the Crawford story.  One could argue that somehow Crawford’s presence has led Smith to hit more shots, grab more rebounds and steals, and commit fewer turnovers. Such a story is tempting, especially if you begin your analysis with a correlation.

And this is a great example for why we tend not to begin our analysis with a data-mining search for correlations.  Once you find a correlation it’s too easy to start inventing theories.  A better approach – and the approach we teach our students – is that good empirical analysis begins with some sort of theoretical model, and then moves on to the data.  It’s only through theory that we can actually argue any causation at all. Or in other words, without a theory all we have is a correlation. 

The Lakers-stock market story and the Crawford-Hawks stories are good examples of correlations in search of a theory. Other examples in basketball can be seen whenever you see people argue that when player X is added to team Y, team Y does better (or worse).  Again, one can show that such correlations exist.  But without a theoretical structure, it’s often hard to believe that a causal relationship has actually been uncovered.  And without a causal relationship, you really don’t have much of a 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.

Yesterday I noted that the Rockets losing their top three scorers from 2008-09 did not appear to dramatically impact the team’s fortunes this year.  Yes, the Rockets are not quite as good as last year.  But the loss of Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, and Ron Artest is only expected to cost the Rockets about seven wins (across the entire season). The Portland Trail Blazers are now experiencing a similar problem with injuries.  But for Portland, the effects might be more devastating. 

The following above average players have already missed – or will miss – extensive playing time this season (average Wins Produced per 48 minutes — or WP48 — is 0.100):

Nicolas Batum: 0.123 WP48 in 2008-09

Greg Oden: 0.154 WP48 in 2008-09

Rudy Fernandez: 0.167 WP48 in 2008-09

Joel Przybilla: 0.288 WP48 in 2008-09

Last season this quartet produced 26.6 wins for a team that won 54 games.  So losing these players will not help.

Of course, if other productive players can be inserted into the line-up – as the Rockets have demonstrated – the Blazers can still win games.  Unfortunately – as Table One demonstrates – Portland is running out of productive players.

Table One: The Portland Trail Blazers after 30 games in 2009-10

Across the first 30 games in 2009-10, the following players have posted WP48 marks that exceed the 0.100 mark of an average player:

Greg Oden [0.327 WP48]

Rudy Fernandez [0.196 WP48]

Joel Przybilla: [0.188 WP48]

Brandon Roy [0.159 WP48]

LaMarcus Aldridge [0.108 WP48]

As Basketball-Reference.com notes, Oden and Przybilla will probably miss the rest of the season.  And Fernandez is out for 4-6 weeks.  This leaves the Blazers with Roy and Aldridge.

Now if we look at last year’s performance, both Steve Blake and Andre Miller were above average.  Miller, though, is old (he was old last year, but now – as you can guess – he is even older).  And as I noted today, basketball is really a game for young people.  

All of this suggests the Blazers experience with injuries will be different from what we have seen in Houston.  This rash of injuries – coupled with a lack of productive players to take the spot of the departed players – means that Portland really has a problem.  So although Table One projects 50 wins for this team, the injury problem means this projection is going to be lower and lower as the season progresses.  And in the tough Western Conference, this might mean a trip to the lottery is a possibility for a team many felt (okay, maybe just me) thought could contend for in the Western Conference this season.

What is interesting about these two scenarios is that the injuries for Houston happened to scorers while the injuries for Portland are generally to players who don’t score.  Conventional basketball wisdom would suggest the loss of scorers will hurt a lot while the loss of non-scorers can be overcome (by other players “stepping up”).  Unfortunately for fans of Portland, though, I think the real story is the ability or inability of a team to replace productive players with other productive performers.  Whether the players lost are scorers or non-scorers really doesn’t matter much.

Okay, that is my second quick note today.  Now I need to go wrap presents (or something equally Christmassy). Hope everyone has a Happy Holidays.

- 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.

David Biderman of the Wall Street Journal has a short story today on the aging of NBA players.  The article notes that the peak age – or the point where player stop improving – is around 24 or 25 years of age.  Biderman’s source for this story is some economist from Southern Utah University.

The research Biderman sites will be discussed in Stumbling on Wins (which should be shipped to bookstores in February or early March).  Since everyone doesn’t have access to our book just yet (although we hope that changes for everyone – and we mean everyone – soon), let me offer a few observations.

Via a study of NBA players from 1977-78 to 2007-78 (a study discussed in more detail in the book), we found that an NBA player generally improves until he is in his mid-20s.  Performance after this point is not much different until a player reaches about 27 or 28 years of age.  After that point – and especially when a player passes the age of 30 – performance starts to decline more noticeably.

It’s important to note…

• we are reporting a tendency.  The peak at 24 or 25 will not be true for every player.  But when you look at the link between age and performance, controlling for a host of other factors, the general peak is in this range.
• the results were the same when we looked at NBA Efficiency.  So this result does not depend on looking at performance via Wins Produced.
• the key issue is not the specific point in the player’s 20s where the peak occurs, but rather that performance after age 30 has a noticeable drop-off.  In the player’s twenties the slope downward is quite gradual (and not something you would probably notice if you watched the player).  In other words, LeBron will still be LeBron – barring injury – for a few more years.

Let me also add that the drop-off after age 30 will not be the same for everyone.  For some players, performance declines considerably (as my post on Kareem and Shaq noted a few days ago).  However, John Stockton posted a WP48 of 0.262 at the age of 40 (Stockton’s best season, though, was at the age of 25).

And one last note…JC Bradbury had a very interesting article on this subject in the context of baseball. One issue Bradbury emphasized is that more athletic activities (like tennis, short distance running, and swimming) tend to see peak performances at a very young age.  In a sport like golf – and with respect to some aspects of baseball – peak performance occurs much later.  Basketball is a sport that relies tremendously on athletic ability, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see a peak in the mid-twenties (as opposed to a point closer to 30 years of age).

Again, we have more on this in our next book (which you can already  pre-order at Amazon.com).

-  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.