In October of 2005 the Chicago Bulls sent Eddy Curry to the New York Knicks for two first round draft picks (there was more stuff involved, but these were the main pieces of the trade).  One of these picks became the second choice in the 2006 NBA draft.  With this pick the Bulls selected LaMarcus Aldridge.  Soon after making this selection, though, the Bulls sent Aldridge to the Portland Trail Blazers for Tyrus Thomas (there was more stuff involved, but Aldridge and Thomas were the main players in the trade).

The Conventional Wisdom on Aldridge and Thomas

More than three years have passed since this draft day trade and it seems clear that although trading Eddy Curry has worked out for the Bulls, the Aldridge-Thomas trade was definitely a mistake. 

A quick glance at the number confirms this story.  After more than three seasons in the NBA…

• Aldridge has scored 3,925 career points, or more than twice as many as Thomas (1,833 career points).  Aldridge has also scored more points in every season these two players have played.
• Aldridge has averaged 15.5 points per game across his career.  Thomas is only averaging 7.8 points per contest.  Aldridge has also average more points per game in every season these two players have played.
• Turning to PER (Player Efficiency Rating) we see that Aldridge has a 18.3 career mark while Thomas has a career PER of 15.3.  And once again.. in every season these players have played Aldridge is the better player according to PER.
• Aldridge is currently ranked in the top 10 in All-Star votes — at the forward position — in the Western Conference.  He also ranked in the top 10 last season. Thomas has yet to be ranked in the top 10 in All-Star votes.
• Aldridge signed a five-year extension a few months ago that could pay him as much as $70 million.  Thomas has not signed such an extension.

So whether we look at scoring, PER, all-star votes, or salary, the story is the same.  LaMarcus Aldridge has simply been much better than Tyrus Thomas.

A Different Perspective

Obviously, given this set-up, it looks like I am about to argue that Tyrus Thomas is actually the better player.  Although that’s the impression I am giving, my point is a bit more vague.  Specifically, I am going to argue that the difference between these two players is not quite as great as the previous numbers listed might indicate.

Let’s start with Table One, which reports all the box score numbers for each player across their respective careers.

Table One: Comparing LaMarcus Aldridge and Tyrus Thomas

Fans of Aldridge will note that their favorite has an advantage with respect shooting efficiency (from the field and the line), field goal attempts, points scored, turnovers, and personal fouls.  Thomas, though, does better with respect to free throw attempts, rebounds, steals, and blocked shots. 

When we summarize all these statistics – via Win Score per 48 minutes and PAWS48 – we see that Thomas has the advantage over Aldridge.  It’s not a large advantage.  But Thomas has bested Aldridge in every season these two players have played.

Now Aldridge has played more minutes.  So in terms of Wins Produced, Aldridge currently has an advantage.  Across his career Aldridge has produced 15.0 wins. Thomas, though, has produced more than eleven wins while playing 3,500 fewer minutes.  So on a per-minute basis, Thomas has done more.

Of course there is value to staying on the court.  So if Aldridge fans wanted to focus on Wins Produced, that seems reasonable.  Nevertheless, it doesn’t look like the gap between these two players is as great as the difference we see with respect to scoring, PER, all-star votes, and salaries.  So for fans of the Bulls who look back on the 2006 draft with regret, perhaps this analysis will make them feel better.

The Bulls Today

Certainly if we look at the other part of this trade – the 2007 first round pick – fans of the Bulls should be very happy.  In 2007 the Bulls selected Joakim Noah. As Table Two indicates, Noah currently leads the 2009-10 Bulls in Wins Produced. 

Table Two: The Chicago Bulls after 33 games in 2009-10

Unfortunately for the Bulls, the only other above average performers – with respect to WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] – are Luol Deng and Tyrus Thomas.  And Thomas has only played 233 minutes this season (again, he has trouble staying on the court).  Noah and Deng – by themselves — are currently on pace to produce 25.5 wins this season.  The rest of the roster, though, is only projected to produce 1.1 wins.  Hence the Bulls in 2009-10 are struggling.  In fact, their current won-loss record – which is not very good (only 14-19) – actually exaggerates the quality of this team.

To understand this team’s problems, let’s look at what we should have expected given what Chicago’s players did last season.  The performances we observed in 2008-09 suggest the Bulls should currently be on pace to win 44.6 games.  So this team is under-performing this projection by 18 wins. 

Almost all of this drop-off can be linked to three players. Brad Miller, John Salmons, and Kirk Hinrich are responsible for nearly 16 wins of this decline.  If these three players were performing as they did last season, the Bulls would be an above average team in 2009-10.  And the Bulls would have six above average players.

As it stands, though, the Bulls only have a trio of above average performers.  If Thomas can play, the Bulls – led by the players acquired in the Curry trade (and Luol Deng) — should improve somewhat across the remainder of the season.  But unless someone else steps up (like Derrick Rose, for instance) the Bulls are probably not going to win as often as their fans might like.

- 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 Sporting News named the San Antonio Spurs the team of the decade last September.  Such a designation is not surprising when you consider that across the past 10 years the Spurs have won three titles and never failed to win at least 65% of their regular season games. 

On Sunday, though, the Spurs lost to the Toronto Raptors.  This defeat dropped San Antonio’s record in 2009-10 to 20-12, or a 62.5% winning percentage.   Such a mark projects to only 50 wins across the entire regular season.   For some teams – such as the Raptors (who have never won 60% of their regular season games) – a 50 win season would be cause for celebration.  But for the Spurs, the current mark suggests that years of championship contention have come to an end.

About a week ago, Johnny Ludden – at YahooSports! – argued that cracks have already appeared in San Antonio’s title foundations.  Looking at the standings today we see that currently four teams have posted a higher winning percentage in the Western Conference.  So some numbers suggest the party is ending in San Antonio.  But that’s not the story told by all the numbers.

Let’s start with efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).  For the Spurs, this number is currently 6.6.  This mark currently ranks 2^nd in the Western Conference (the Lakers mark is 7.7) and is consistent with a team that will win around 57 or 58 regular season games.  Yes, the Spurs differential suggest this team is second best in the West and one of the top five teams in the NBA.

To put this differential in further perspective, here is what the Spurs have done recently with respect to this measure:

2008-09: 4.1

2007-08: 5.3

2006-07: 9.1  (won NBA title)

2005-06: 7.5

2004-05: 8.5 (won NBA title)

2003-04: 7.0

2002-03: 5.8 (won NBA title)

2001-02: 6.7

2000-01: 8.5

1999-00: 6.3

The Spurs current mark tops what they did the past two seasons, and even bests what San Antonio did on its way to an NBA championship in 2003.   So this current Spurs team is not the best we have seen across the past decade, but it’s pretty good.

When we move from efficiency differential to Wins Produced we can see who is responsible for this outcome.

Table One: The San Antonio Spurs after 32 games in 2009-10

Not surprisingly – as Table One indicates – Tim Duncan once again lead this team in Wins Produced.  Duncan, though, is not a one-man team.  Of the Spurs 57 projected wins, about 28 can be tied to the play of Manu Ginobili, DeJuan Blair, Keith Bogans, and Matt Bonner.  As noted a few days ago, DeJuan Blair was clearly a steal in the NBA draft. It’s possible that Blair will lead all rookies in WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] this season, just as Blair led all players taken out of college in per-minute production last year.

Once we move past this quintet, though, the Spurs are only projected to receive 10 more wins from the rest of the roster.  “The rest” includes both Antonio McDyess and Tony Parker.  As Table One notes, these two players have declined the most from what we saw last season. 

For McDyess the decline might be tied to age.  McDyess was drafted in 1995 by the Clippers and now is 35 years old.  As noted before, age will ultimately reduce the productivity of all basketball players.   And this means that McDyess – who is obviously not getting younger – may not improve as the season progresses. The Parker story, though, may be different.  Ludden notes that Parker has not been healthy this year.  If Parker’s health improves, the Spurs may be even better as the team approaches the playoffs.

And this means the Spurs might be very serious title contenders when this season ends.  Again, the impact of age can’t be avoided forever.  Two of the key contributors this season – Duncan and Ginobili – are well past 30 years of age.  So the Spurs title window is definitely closing sometime in the future.  But it’s possible – despite the team’s current place in the standings – that the window will stay open for the 2009-10 season.

- 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 August I referred to the NBA franchise in Memphis as the  Memphis Lions.  Essentially I argued that the Memphis Grizzlies and Detroit Lions are quite similar.  Both teams have an owner that claims winning is important.  And most seasons, the team finishes with a losing record. 

The Detroit Lions have once again followed this pattern.  The 2009 season has now concluded and the Lions 2-14 record means fans of this team are now looking forward to the NFL draft (we actually started thinking of the draft in September). 

The Memphis Lions Vanish

Meanwhile the Memphis Lions… demolished the Phoenix Suns on Saturday night.  And now the Grizzlies have a 16-16 record.  So it appears the Memphis Lions have gone away.

And of course we wonder: How did this happen?    

A glance at Table One reveals who is responsible for this change. 

Table One: The Memphis Grizzlies after 32 Games in 2009-10

Table One indicates that the Grizzlies are on pace to win 40 games this season (and if that happens this will be the fourth best mark in franchise history).  Nearly 30 of these wins can be tied to the production of two players: Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol.  Based on last year’s performance each player was expected to be among the leading producers of wins on the Grizzlies. This year, though, each is doing much more.

Relative to last year, Randolph has improved with respect to shooting efficiency and rebounds (the improved shooting efficiency can be partially explained by Randolph taking fewer three point shots).  The same story (minus the three-pointer story) can be seen with respect to Gasol.

The Benefit of the NBA Draft?

One of the supposed benefits of losing is that a team gets a top draft choice.   After years of losing the Grizzlies have certainly accumulated a few top picks.  What is interesting (at least to me) – as the following list illustrates — is the size of the benefit these top draft picks have provided. 

• Rudy Gay (8^th pick in 2006): 5.4 projected wins in 2009-10
• Mike Conley (4^th pick in 2007): 1.1 projected wins in 2009-10
• O.J. Mayo (3^rd pick in 2008): 4.5 projected wins in 2009-10
• Hasheem Thabeet (2^nd pick in 2009): 2.4 projected wins in 2009-10

If we add the projections together we only see 13.5 wins.  So if the Grizzlies were depending on their top draft picks they would still be the Memphis Lions.  Rather than depending on the draft, the Grizzlies have improved because of  a second round choice in the 2007 draft (Gasol) and a high-priced power forward the L.A. Clippers essentially gave away this past summer (Randolph).

Lucky or Good? 

One could argue that the performance of both Gasol and Randolph was not expected when Memphis acquired these players.  And had these players performed as they did last year, Memphis would be on pace to win fewer than 30 games again. So it looks like the Grizzlies have essentially stumbled on wins (sounds something like a great title for a great book).  The teams high draft picks have yet to produce significant quantities of wins (although Thabeet is already above average very early in his career).  And the team’s top producers of wins had not done this in the past.

Of course, it’s better to be lucky than good (or at least, that is how the saying goes).  But in evaluating decisions – and learning how to make better choices – it’s important to know why success (or failure) was achieved.  And when we look at the Grizzlies, it looks like at least some of this team’s success is tied to simple good fortune (as opposed to simply great decisions).   

- 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 couple of months ago fans of the NBA were given a very big gift by Bill Simmons.  The Book of Basketball is more the 700 pages of Simmons’ thoughts on everything NBA basketball.  When this book was released it was my intention to read it over and offer some thoughts.  Two months have passed, though, and I just haven’t had time to read all that Simmons is offering. 

Fortunately, I came across a review from No Time to Read.  The review does go on for more than 6,000 words. So it’s a bit lengthy (not as lengthy as the actual book, but as you read the review the difference will not seem large).  But I think this review of The Book of Basketball – titled Statistical Certainty – is excellent (and not just because I am mentioned a few times).

Here is how the review begins:

I read Bill Simmons’s The Book of Basketball. I enjoyed his book, as it is a fun survey of NBA history. The book isn’t just a numbers game or just breaking down plays. It includes enough human interest elements that it should appeal to a casual fan or diffident parties (like me; I can count the number of basketball games I’ve seen – TV or live – on both hands.) Simmons does a fantastic job of conveying his love of basketball. For me, he really brought different basketball eras to life, inserting comments from players, coaches, and sportswriters. He also seems fairly astute in breaking down plays and describing the flow of the game.

Yes, I bought the book because I think Bill Simmons’s writing. If you enjoy his blog, you will find that same breezy conversation style here. Read more at No Time to Read…

By the way, I also promised Wayne Winston a review of Mathletics.  Not sure when I will get to that (or find someone who does it for me). But I would encourage everyone to get a copy of both The Book of Basketball and Mathletics. 

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy