If you are fan of one of the losers in the NBA (like the Nets, T-Wolves, Pistons, etc…), your thoughts are probably already turning to the NBA draft.  And judging by what people are saying, it’s likely such thoughts are focusing on John Wall. As Peter May states: “(the) Kentucky guard is the first name out of everyone’s mouth.”  When we look at the performance data, though, a red flag suddenly appears. Thus far, Wall’s numbers have not been exceptional.

The 2009 Draft Again   

Before we get to the numbers – and what those numbers mean – let’s acquire some perspective by reviewing the 2009 NBA draft.

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

Table One reports what the players who were drafted last summer did in college in 2008-09.  The players are evaluated in terms of Wins Score and PAWS40.  As noted, these numbers are calculated as follows:

Win Score = PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST – FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF

PAWS40 = Positions Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes =

Win Score per 40 minutes – Average Win Score per 40 minutes at position played (with Average PAWS40 = 10.1)

As one can see, the most productive player listed in Table One was DeJuan Blair.  And at the midpoint of the 2009-10 season, the most productive rookie was DeJuan Blair.

An Early Look at 2010

That being said, the link between college performance and NBA productivity is not perfect. So the following numbers – for the top college players identified by May – don’t necessarily “prove” (as if we are proving stuff) that a specific player will be a “good” or “bad” NBA player. 

The first number listed for each player is Win Score per 40 minutes (taken from DraftExpress). The second number listed is PAWS40. Again, average PAWS40 is 10.1, so any numbers below that mark indicates that the player thus far has been below average (for a player drafted out of college).

• John Wall: 7.2 and 10.0
• Evan Turner: 15.1 and 16.8
• Wesley Johnson: 14.8 and 16.5
• DeMarcus Cousins: 20.4 and 18.0
• Derrick Favors: 14.3 and 11.9
• Cole Aldrich: 18.6 and 16.4
• Ed Davis: 16.4 and 14.0
• Al-Farouq Aminu: 13.4 and 13.6
• Solomon Alabi: 13.1 and 10.9
• Patrick Patterson: 12.7 and 10.3
• Greg Monroe: 12.3 and 9.9
• Jarvis Varnado: 17.7 and 15.3
• Xavier Henry: 7.8 and 9.5

Of these thirteen players, only three have been below average.  And one of those three is Wall. So does that mean Wall shouldn’t be the first choice in the draft? 

Well, not really.  What these numbers represent – as noted above – is a red flag.  Wall is supposed to be a dominant NBA player.  Thus far, though, Wall hasn’t been a dominant college player.   So before a team invests the first pick in Wall, someone has to explain why Wall has not dominated this year.

One possible explanation is that Wall is just a freshman.  DeMarcus Cousins, though, is also a freshman.  And Cousins is the most productive player listed above (and probably the player most responsible for Kentucky’s success this season).   Additionally, Chris Paul – the most productive point guard in the NBA – was also above average as a freshman in college.  In sum, it’s possible for a freshman to play well.  Thus far, though, Wall’s numbers are not very impressive (although his game against Alabama last night – despite the six turnovers – was above average).

It’s important to emphasize that this doesn’t mean Wall will never be a good player.  Again, college numbers are not a crystal ball.  There is a correlation, though, between what we see in college and the pros.  Although that relationship isn’t perfect, that relationship does suggest college numbers mean something.

And the something those college numbers appear to be saying is that teams that don’t select Wall can still find productive players.  Cousins, Evan Turner, Wesley Johnson, and Cole Aldrich have all posted outstanding numbers this season.  That means that if your favorite losing team fails to win the lottery, there’s still hope that your team can draft a productive player (of course, it’s also still possible that your team will make the wrong choice and draft an unproductive player).

- 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.

On Christmas day the Boston Celtics defeated the Orlando Magic.  With this victory the Celtics record improved to 23-5.   Glen Davis played less than five minutes in that victory.  After that game, though, Davis has logged more than 10 minutes in all but two contests.  And the Celtics record has only been 9-12. 

In general I am skeptical of analysis that focuses on how a team does with and without a player.  Basketball is a game of five-on-five, so the outcome with and without a player can be about the player in question or about something else.  The efforts to untangle the player from all that comprises “something else” have not generally produced great results.  And in this particular case, I don’t think Davis playing has been the entire problem.  But as Table One notes, Davis really hasn’t helped much.

Table One: The Boston Celtics after 49 games in 2009-10

After 346 minutes, Davis has produced 0.2 wins and posted a 0.034 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  Yes, that mark is better than what Davis did last season.  But it’s still well below average.

To be fair, although Davis may be the biggest player, he’s not the biggest problem.  For the real problem, let’s start with what the Celtics are saying.

Here is Kevin Garnett’s take on the current state of the team:

“It’s motivation and we’ll figure a way to come out of it. We don’t lack any confidence. Our spirits are high. We have a little saying that we work hard and you put into it what you want to get out of it. Just as of late we haven’t been producing wins.  We’re going to continue to work, and that’s the only way to come out of this. It’s just unfortunate that we haven’t been on top a lot of these games as of late, but Doc tells us that nothing worth acquiring is easy.”

And here is Ray Allen:

“We still love who we are as a team, but I think we’re back where we were at the start of the season. We’ve got to build back who we are.”

So Garnett and R. Allen essentially argue that the problem is a lack of hard work.  Or at least, hard work will solve the team’s problems. 

The numbers, though, suggest a different story.  Let’s start with the starting line-up and the bench.  The starters — Rajon Rondo, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Kendrick Perkins — have produced 30.5 of the team’s 32.8 Wins Produced.   This means that the bench players have produced less than two wins.

When we look at the production of these bench players (who have played more than 100 minutes) we only see two players – Tony Allen and Shelden Williams – that are above average (and Williams hasn’t been leaving the bench lately).  Once you get past Williams and T. Allen, the remaining players on the bench have combined to produce -0.7 wins.  Last year’s numbers suggest that some of these bench players should be better.  Had the bench players not named T. Allen and Williams maintained what they did last year, the Celtics would have received about 4.9 wins from this collection of players.  And most of this production would have come from Eddie House and Rasheed Wallace, two players – on the wrong side of 30 — who have declined relative to last year.

Wallace and House are not the only players who are offering less.  The player who has posted the biggest drop-off is R.  Allen.  Again, R. Allen is on the wrong side of 30.  And so far Allen has offered 3.4 fewer wins this year than his production last year would suggest.  In fact, if R. Allen, Wallace, and House had maintained what they did last year, the Celtics would currently be on pace to win 68 games.

So when we look at the problems in Boston we need to look past Big Baby and the supposed lack of hard work, and focus primarily on age.  Again, R. Allen, Wallace, and House are older than 30 and all are posting declines relative to last year.  The numbers tells us that players do get much worse after 30 years of age.   Although some players can deny the impact of time for a period of time, at some point age will reduce the productivity of all players.

The big question is whether or not these players can briefly return to form in the playoffs.  If they can, Boston may still be able to win a title in 2010.  If not, it seems likely Boston’s decline will continue into the future (a future where everyone will be even older).

By the way, who proposed the title “Ages of Wins”?  Someone noted that title with respect to the issue of age and productivity in the NBA and they should get full credit (that is, if they want the credit).

- 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.

As I watched the Saints defeat the Colts in the Super Bowl it occurred to me that I had forgotten to post the final quarterback rankings for the 2009 regular season.  So for those who are interested, here you go.

Table One: Final Quarterback Rankings for the 2009 Regular Season

In looking at these numbers it’s important to remember that quarterbacks are quite inconsistent (a story told many times before).  Relative to what we see for basketball players, the numbers for quarterbacks tend to be difficult to predict.  This is especially true for interceptions, as Peyton Manning learned tonight and Jay Cutler learned throughout the 2009 season.

Inconsistent numbers in sports suggest that those numbers are not strictly about the abilities and talents of the player in question.  Inconsistency suggests that a player’s teammates (or perhaps his coaches, the opponents he faces, etc…) have a substantial impact on the numbers we are seeing.  Consequently, the value of those numbers is reduced.

So although it appears that the quarterbacks listed at the top of Table One are “better” than those further down the list, we cannot say with any certainty that these “better” quarterbacks will post better numbers in the future.  And that means we don’t know who will be the “better” quarterbacks next year. 

All of this is good news for fans of the Detroit Lions.   After all, if the Saints can win a Super Bowl, why can’t the Lions? (okay, no one really needs to answer that question)

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

For more on the Wages of Wins football metrics see

The New QB Score

Consistent Inconsistency in Football

Football Outsiders and QB Score

The Value of Player Statistics in the NFL

After 48 games the New Jersey Nets have only managed to win four times.  Such a record projects to about seven wins across an entire season, or a record that would set the NBA’s mark for regular season futility.  And this begs the question, are the New Jersey Nets of the 2009-10 season really the worst team in NBA history?

Certainly the won-loss record says so.  But in evaluating teams, efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) gives us a better picture.  And that picture says the Nets are not quite the worst team ever.  Currently the Nets are posting the following numbers:

• Points scored per 100 possessions (offensive efficiency): 94.8
• Points surrendered per 100 possessions (defensive efficiency): 107.1
• Efficiency differential: -12.4

Since the 1973-74 season (the first year we have enough data to calculate possessions), here are the lowest marks with respect to efficiency differential:

• Dallas Mavericks [1992-93]: -14.7
• Denver Nuggets [1997-98]: -12.6
• LA Clippers [1999-00]: -11.9
• Vancouver Grizzlies [1996-97]: -11.2
• Houston Rockets [1982-83]: -11.0
• Miami Heat [1988-89]: -10.9
• LA Clippers [1986-87]: -10.7
• Vancouver Grizzlies [1995-96]: -10.5
• Philadelphia 76ers [1995-96]: -10.5
• Portland Trail Blazers [2005-06]: -10.4

The Clippers and Grizzlies appear twice on this list (thought I would just mention that).  As for the Nets, their current mark ranks third.  So although this is the worst Nets team in history (their previous worst mark of -8.0 in 1987-88 currently ranks 40^th since 1973-74), one could argue that the Nets in 2009-10 are not the worst team in NBA history.

Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that this team is very, very bad.  And naturally we wonder what happened.  To understand the wonder that is the 2009-10 Nets, we need to look at the individual players.  That look – presented in Table One – indicates that the productivity of the Nets this season has been worth 5.5 wins.  So again, the Nets are not quite as bad as they appear (but again, they are really, really bad).

Table One: The New Jersey Nets after 48 games in 2009-10

When we look at the performances of these players last year we see that the Nets should be bad, but not quite as horrible as we see.  Had each player on the Nets maintained the per-minute performance we saw last year, the Nets would expect to have a current mark of 14-34. This would still be the worst mark in the Eastern Conference, but actually better than the record currently posted by both the Golden State Warriors and the Minnesota Timberwolves.

In looking at he numbers for each individual players we can start to assign some responsbility for the disaster that is the 2009-10 season.  Certainly much of the blame should be directed at the people who assembled this roster.  But we can also see from Table One that two of the team’s point guards have been a particular problem.  Rafer Alston and Devin Harris have combined to produce 5.5 fewer wins than we would expect given each player’s per-minute production in 2008-09.  So a good chunk of the team’s decline from bad to disaster can be linked to the production received from just two players. 

Luckily for the Nets, Alston has departed.   In addition, the Nets have also added Kris Humprhries, a slightly above average big man.  These two changes might give fans of this team hope. 

No, the Nets are not going to morph into a good team in the near future.  But they might progress to just bad.   And if that progression somehow produces six more wins across the team’s final 34 games, the Nets can avoid the distinction of posting the worst record in NBA history.  Yes, that isn’t much of a goal.  But in such a season, it’s about all the fans of this team have left. 

- 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 interesting aspects (at least, interesting to me) of basketball performance is the consistency we see across time.  Relative to what we see in baseball and football, year-to-year performance in basketball is simply more stable. 

Although consistency is the general trend, exceptions do happen.  Players can decline because of age (when they are old) and injury.  They can also get better because of age (when they are young) and when they recover from injury.   And changes can occur for other reasons as well (although the “other” reasons seem less systematic).

The players who get “better” are generally thought of as candidates for “Most Improved”.   But how do we define “better?”  Not surprising, the focus here will be on Wins Produced.  Specifically, we are going to look at each player who played 1,000 minutes in 2008-09 and 500 minutes across the first 41 games of 2009-10.  And then we are going compare how many wins the player produced in 2009-10 to how many wins we could  have expected given the player’s per-minute performance in 2008-09. 

Given this approach, the fifteen most improved players are as follows (number of additional wins after 41 games reported):

• Corey Maggette: 4.8
• Josh Smith: 4.4
• Chris Bosh: 3.8
• Marc Gasol: 3.2
• Baron Davis: 3.1
• Gerald Wallace: 3.0
• Ben Wallace: 3.0
• Zach Randolph: 2.9
• Steve Nash: 2.4
• Kevin Love: 2.4
• Jermaine O’Neal: 2.3
• Raymond Felton: 2.3
• Carlos Boozer: 2.3
• Kevin Durant: 2.2
• Louis Williams: 2.0

Two quick thoughts on this list:

• Maggette’s leap is primarily tied to an increase in shooting efficiency.  He is getting a few more rebounds and assists, but for the first time in his career his adjusted field goal percentage is above 50%.   Last year he posted a mark of 47.9%.  This year, though, his mark was 55.5% after 41 games.
• The Josh Smith story has been noted before (see HERE and HERE).  If Josh Smith maintained what he did last season – and every other Atlanta player continued doing what they are doing this year – the Hawks would only be on pace to win 47 games this season (last year the Hawks won 47 games).  So the improvement we see in Smith’s production is really driving the story we see in Atlanta in 2009-10.  Interestingly enough, Smith’s shooting efficiency hasn’t changed much (50.8% adjusted field goal percentage last year, 51.2% adjusted field goal percentage after 41 games this year).  No, Smith has improved with respect to offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, assists, steals, blocked shots, and free throws.  In essence, Smith has gotten better across the board.  And now the Hawks are serious contenders in the East.

Certainly other stories can be told (and I look forward to seeing these in the comments). I want to close, though, by observing how little change we are seeing.  Zach Randolph is eighth on the list.  But his dramatic improvement is only worth 2.9 wins across 41 games, or less than six additional victories across an entire season.  Obviously if he is 8^th most improved, the vast majority of players are not making this much progress from what we saw last year. 

Consequently, what we see in Atlanta is all the more impressive.  In general, players do not make huge leaps from season-to-season. And therefore – again, in general – teams cannot expect to return the same cast of players and get very different results. 

- 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.