Note: This is a joint post by me (DJ) and Robbie O’Malley.  The first part is from me and the last part comes from Robbie.

A couple of weeks ago I asked the question: Is John Wall the Obvious Number One Pick for the Wizards?  In response to this question – and my discussion – I have seen at least two prominent answers.  The first comes from The Big Lead.  On Saturday this website offered the following quick post:

Because Somebody Had to Come Up With a John-Wall-Doesn’t-Go-First Scenario

Brace yourselves, people. “There is, though, a link between what we see in college and what we will see in the future. And that link – which we will illustrate with PAWS40 [Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes] – suggests the following order: 1. DeMarcus Cousins: 15.61, 2. Evan Turner: 14.37, 3. Wesley Johnson: 13.40, 4. Derrick Favors: 11.20, 5. John Wall: 9.97.” A nice effort, but this is a reach of epic proportions. As is the Derrick Rose assertion late in the link.

And then on Monday, David Aldridge at NBA.com stated the following:

I like the Wages of Wins guys; they do strong work and can make compelling arguments. But in this case we will have to agree to disagree. Numbers in a vacuum, without any context (the Wizards, coming off of their disastrous, star-player-is-indicted season, cannot afford to take any kind of gamble with the first pick) are as meaningless as “gut feelings” without any empirical data (bolded words in the original).

Okay, I guess my post didn’t resonate well with everyone.  In response, I wish to do the following:

1.  Review my original argument.

2. Review the early career of Derrick Rose

3. Offer an evaluation of the Wizards from Robbie O’Malley, a writer at the WoW Journal who has volunteered to cover Washington (and is not impressed with the current Wizards and the ability of John Wall to have much impact in 2009-10).

Here is what I noted two weeks ago:

• John Wall – relative to the other players considered top choices in 2010 – was not an outstanding college player.  Specifically, his performance at point guard was roughly equivalent to what an average point guard selected out of college since 1995 has offered.  That suggests – and it is only a suggestion – that we should not simply assume Wall will be an elite NBA player.
• Derrick Rose also left college after one season and was the number one pick in the draft.  Relative to Wall, Rose posted better numbers in college.  But Rose – despite claims in 2008 that he was sure to be an elite NBA player – has yet to post the numbers you see from an elite point guard.

Just to be clear, here is what I am NOT saying:

• Wall will never be an outstanding point guard in the NBA.
• Rose will never be an outstanding point guard in the NBA.

My sense is that this is what people, though, are reading.   The argument, though, is more subtle.  All I am saying is that the Wizards need to figure out why Wall under-performed (relative to expectations) last year. Perhaps there is a perfectly logical explanation.  Then again, perhaps there is not. 

As for Rose, I get the sense that people think the Rookie of the Year in 2009 and a member of the 2010 All-Star team has already arrived.  I think the numbers, though, suggest otherwise.

To see my point, let’s compare Rose in 2009-10 to Chris Paul (who is the top point guard in the NBA) as a rookie.   In other words, let’s look at Rose at the age of 21 (in his second season) and Paul at the age of 20 (in his first season).

The Original Argument

As one can see, Paul was below average with respect to shooting efficiency from the field, blocked shots, and personal fouls as a rookie.  But he was well above average with respect to getting to the free throw line (and converting), rebounds, steals, and assists.  And relative to an average point guard, Paul didn’t turn the ball over much.  Consequently, Paul posted an outstanding 0.305 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].

Now let’s look at Rose.  From the field, Rose is an efficient scorer.  And he gets to the line, but not quite as often as Paul (and Rose is a slightly below average free throw shooter).  Beyond scoring, Rose is about average on the boards, and below average with respect to steals and assists.  In essence, Rose is almost the opposite of Paul as a rookie.  Rose seems to focus relatively more attention on taking shots and relatively less attention on the aspects of the game that lead to wins.  As a consequence, Rose was only average across the entire 2009-10 season.  Yes, Rose did better after the New Year.  But even if we take the 2010 version of Rose as the “true Derrick Rose”, he is still not as productive as the elite point guards in the game.

Now this doesn’t mean Rose will never be an elite point guard. It simply means that at this moment, we don’t know if this is going to happen. So when people look at Wall and see Rose, maybe what they are seeing isn’t that great.

One last note on Wall before we move to Robbie O’Malley’s observations. No Division-I basketball team won more games this past season than the Kentucky Wildcats.  When you look at the numbers on this team, though, we see that DeMarcus Cousins –despite a reputation that is less than stellar – probably led the team in production per-minute (and might have been the most productive player overall).  Would the Wildcats had been so successful had Cousins spent his freshman year elsewhere? And if the Wildcats were less successful, would people still be sure that Wall was the obvious choice for the Wizards in the NBA draft?

Decision-makers in professional team sports must separate a player from his teammates.  If this is not done, the individual player will not be evaluated correctly.  I am not sure in the case of John Wall that this task has been fully completed.  And had Wall spent his one college season at Michigan – or another school that was not as successful as Kentucky – I am not sure everyone would be so certain that the Wizards choice in this draft is so easy.

The State of the Wizards

Okay, enough on Wall and Rose.  Let me turn the rest of the post over to Robbie O’Malley.

Robbie O’Malley is a senior at Towson University (near Baltimore).  He is studying psychology but is also a sports junky. He is a big believer in statistics based evaluations but has – in his words – only a very basic understanding of the fields of statistics and economics. He has lived in Maryland his entire life and is a life long Wizards fan. He plays basketball in the summer every year and this year he will wear number11 (even though he says his game is much more Glen Davis than John Wall).

It’s about that time of the year where teams begin to assess how the team performed during the season and, based on their judgment, decide which direction the team should head in for the future. The Wizards have as much to figure out about their path forward as any team in the NBA. First, they were awarded the number one pick in the 2010 NBA Draft! I would have rather won it last year (Blake Griffin) but I’m generally excited for this years potential selections. After they decide on their draft strategy the Wizards will have to assemble the rest of the roster as well (they have only 6 players under contract for next season).

Before we begin discussing the future of the franchise a summary of the Washington Wizards of 09-10 is needed.

In 09-10 the Wizards had an efficiency differential of -5.3 which is a mark of a team that should win about 28 games (they were 26-56). They employed a league high 24 players! Luckily, most of a teams wins can be explained by talking about a few of its players. The Wizards were led in wins by SG Mike Miller, who had a .219 Wins Produced Per 48 minutes (WP48, .100 is average) and produced 8.2 wins.  Brendan Haywood – with .200 WP48 for 6.7 Wins Produced – was the team’s second most productive player. Neither of these two players, though, is signed with the Wizards for next season. Haywood was sent to the Dallas Mavericks during the season.  And Mike Miller is a free agent.  Miller does have a chance to return.  However, given how bad the Wizards are projected to be, Miller may look elsewhere.

Their next two most productive players were PF Antawn Jamison (.103 WP48/3.4 Wins) and SF Caron Butler (.079 WP48/3.05 Wins).  Like Haywood, both Jamison and Butler were also traded during the 2009-10 season.  These four players (Miller, Haywood, Jamison, and Butler) were responsible for about 21 wins. The Wizards as a whole won 26 games, so that gives you an indication of how well the rest of the team performed.

There are six players under contract for next season – PG Gilbert Arenas (.089 WP48/2.1 Wins), PF Andray Blatche (.044/2.1), SF Al Thornton (-0.040/-0.6), SG Nick Young (-.077/-2.3), C JaVale McGee (.072/1.45), and SF Quinton Ross (-.207/-1.13). These six combined for about 1.7 wins. This is not very encouraging when thinking about the team’s potential next season (in fact, Thornton, Young, and Ross were so bad they had a negative impact on the team). 

Moving past these six, SG Randy Foye (.029/1.0) and SF Josh Howard (0.084 WP48/0.16 wins) are restricted free agents and should be allowed to move on. I would make an effort to resign 6’7″ PG Shaun Livingston (.122 WP48/1.7 Wins).  He is young, can play multiple positions, and is considered a good defender.

The Wizards also have three selections in the upcoming NBA draft. The average rookie has a WP48 of .050. So, if the Wizards re-sign Shaun Livingston and keep all three draft picks, they will have ten players under contract for next season. A possible lineup would look like this…

First String

PG: John Wall (.050 WP48)

SG: Gilbert Arenas (.089)

SF: Al Thornton (-0.045) mark with Washington and the LA Clippers

PF: Andray Blatche (.044)

C: JaVale McGee (.072)

Second String

PG: Shaun Livingston (.106) mark with Washington and Oklahoma City

SG: Nick Young (-.077)

SF: Quinton Ross (-.165) mark with Washington and Dallas

PF: Rookie (.050)

C: Rookie (.050)

If we make the assumption that the starters play 36 minutes per game while the reserves play 12 (and don’t get injured), this team would be projected to go 12 – 70. Obviously that’s a very bad mark.

Now, what if Wall is much better than average (as many expect)?  If Wall manages to produce at the level of 09/10 Rookie of the Year Tyreke Evans (.158 WP48) — and not an average rookie — then the team projects to about 19 wins.   What if Wall is as good as Chris Paul, the 05/06 ROY?  Paul posted a 0.305 WP48 as a rookie.  If Wall is Paul, then Wall will produce 18.8 wins and the Wizards – with this cast of players doing as they did in 2008-09 – will win about 28 games.  Yes, even if Wall is everything people hope for, the Wizards – given the current roster – are still not that good.

Again, all of this also assumes that no one gets hurt.  If one is optimistic they might note that a) Andray Blatche did play a little better once he became a starter, b) Arenas wasn’t fully healthy but once upon a time (back in 2006-07) was an above average player, and c) the Wizards might make some other moves. 

So there is some hope.  Still, if the Wizards do not make drastic changes this off-season expect them to be very bad next season. The team at the moment has no particular strengths and could use an upgrade at every position.  And that means – if we can be optimistic for a moment – the Wizards can also expect to be in the hunt for another top draft pick in 2011!!

- Robbie O’Malley

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Ben Gulker is a Program Director for a statewide AmeriCorps program in his home state of Michigan, where he was born and raised. He’s a lifelong Pistons fan that grew up during the Bad Boy era, suffered through the “Teal” era, and spends his current fan time reading up on top 10 draft picks, thanks to the recent demise of his beloved team. If you ever want to talk Pistons, you can find him among other Piston die-hards over at Detroit Bad Boys.

For a large portion of the last decade, the Detroit Pistons were consistently among the Eastern Conference elite. The “Going to Work” Pistons, as they were known among Pistons faithful, were defined by lock-down defense, tenacious rebounding, and slow-paced but efficient offense. As fans, we took pride in this approach to the game; the blue-collar ethos of the Pistons resonated with the Michigan populous.

However, the current Pistons squad consists of a markedly different pool of talent that has produced markedly different results. Regular readers of this forum will know that a great deal of prior Piston success can be linked directly to three players: Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups, and Antonio McDyess. Although Ben Wallace returned to Detroit and led the team in Wins Produced in 2009-2010 (something some of us Pistons fans like to call the “Benaissance”), the holes left by McDyess, Billups and others have not been filled by equally productive players.

As a result, the once mighty Pistons won only 27 games this past season and currently hold the #7 pick as a result of the Draft Lottery.

To make matters worse, there does not appear to be an immediate solution to the team’s problems. Joe Dumars signed Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva to large, lengthy contracts last summer, investing approximately $95 million in these two players combined through 2013-2014. Both players have been average at best to this point in their careers, and both made unimpressive debuts in Detroit. Additionally, Richard Hamilton – whose best basketball appears to be behind him — is owed approximately $25 million over the next two seasons ($12.5 million more is partially guaranteed in 2012-2013).

In the summer of 2011, the Pistons will need to make a decision on another of their “important” players – Rodney Stuckey. It has become clear that Joe Dumars and the Pistons think highly of Stuckey. In November of 2008, Chauncey Billups was traded, and Rodney Stuckey was handed the reigns of the franchise. This trade was made for a variety of reasons, but Dumars’ high opinion of Stuckey and his talents is indisputably one of them. In fact, Keith Langlois, editor of www.Pistons.com, has intimated that Stuckey is actually “at the center of the next phase in Pistons history.”

More recently, Langlois compared Stuckey to the remarkably productive Rajon Rondo, arguing that Stuckey’s 2009-2010 performance “isn’t much behind where Rondo was a year ago (2008-2009).” Presumably on the cusp of a breakout season, Dumars has a “tough call” to make concerning Stuckey: give him a Rondo-like extension now (5 years, $55 million)? Or, wait and let Stuckey become a free agent in 2011 and be forced to match a potentially larger offer sheet then?

In my opinion, if Stuckey is on the brink of becoming as productive as Rondo, the ink on that extension can’t dry fast enough. Point guards as productive as Rondo are rare and can alter the course of a struggling franchise for years to come. However, the story told by Wins Produced — told the two tables below — suggests that Stuckey simply isn’t as productive as Rondo and is very unlikely to ever become so. Therefore, signing Stuckey to a similar contract would be a significant mistake.

In 2008-2009, Rondo was a phenomenally productive player on one of the top-performing teams in the NBA, producing 17.8 wins out of team’s 60.9 Wins Produced. Again in 2009-2010, Rondo was exceptional, producing 17.9 out of 50.5 total Wins Produced. Although many perceive this season as a “breakout” season for Rondo – especially in light of his recent heroics in the playoffs – his performance is remarkably similar to what we saw in 2008-09. In short, Rondo has been consistently exceptional.

So, how does Stuckey measure up?

In 2009-10, Stuckey logged 2,499 minutes – and according to the Wins Produced numbers provided by Andres Alvarez – produced 2.6 wins.   The position algorithm Alvarez employs, though, allocates Stuckey (one of the bigger guards on Detroit’s roster) to shooting guard.  Stuckey, though, is primarily a point guard.  And when he is compared to point guards he only produced about 1.6 wins.  Either way you look at it, what Stuckey did this past season is a far cry from what Rondo did each of the past two seasons.  Furthermore, this level of production should not have been surprising given Stuckey’s previous performance. Last season, for example, Stuckey produced merely 4.0 wins for the Pistons while posting .077 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  In short, Stuckey has been consistently below average (an average player posts a WP48 of 0.100).

Pistons fans — such as myself — are left asking the question, “What is it that Dumars sees in Rodney Stuckey?” Unfortunately, I suspect the answer is all too familiar. If we compare the box score statistics that each of these players has generated throughout their careers, we can see that Rondo grabs more rebounds, dishes out more assists, gets more steals, and scores more efficiently than Stuckey. But, Stuckey scores more points; and this season, Stuckey averaged over 16 points per game. As a result, it would appear that Stuckey can anticipate a hefty payday.

If that payday comes from the Pistons, and if it is similar to what Boston offered Rondo, Pistons fans are likely to be disappointed. The reason? Detroit would have just over $40 million per season committed to Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva, Richard Hamilton, and Rodney Stuckey.  This quartet combined to produce fewer than five wins this past season.

Stuckey is still young, and it’s still possible that he could improve. But he isn’t that young, and he has quite a way to go before he achieves average production. It also seems likely that at least one of those other players will be traded in the near feature, freeing resources for more productive players. So maybe we won’t be lottery-bound for too much longer.

But regardless of what other moves the Pistons do make, the “tough call,” as Langlois describes it, isn’t that tough at all. Stuckey simply isn’t worth a Rondo-like contract because Stuckey simply can’t do what Rondo does.

Ironically, in June of 2009 Adrian Wojnarowski reported that Boston offered Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen to Detroit for Tayshaun Prince, Richard Hamilton, and Rodney Stuckey – a deal that Detroit “immediately rejected.” Apparently, Danny Ainge came to his senses and made the right decision. As a Pistons fan, I can only hope Dumars can do the same.

- Ben Gulker

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Table One-Two: The Indiana Pacers in 2008-09 and 2009-10

Injuries

The injury woes for the Pacers started early this season when 1^st Round Draft pick, Tyler Hansbrough, re-injured his shin during summer league play. From there it got worse with Troy Murphy, Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy, and Jeff Foster all missing significant time. In addition to his shin injury, Hansbrough missed most of the second half of the season with vertigo induced by a viral ear infection. Together, those five players missed 163 of 410 possible games due to injury (Granger also sat out one game because of a suspension).

• Danny Granger – 19 games missed
• Troy Murphy – 10 games missed
• Mike Dunleavy – 15 games missed
• Jeff Foster – 66 games missed
• Tyler Hansbrough – 53 games missed

“Improvement”

“Improvement” is in quotation marks because this section is really about a lack of improvement. When looking at Wins Produced, neither Roy Hibbert nor Brandon Rush had a successful rookie season. However, each showed signs of the ability to develop into a solid contributor. There was improvement to be sure, as each player made the leap into the positive range on WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes], but both were still below average for their designated position. 

• Roy Hibbert – (-0.072 WP48 last season, 0.006 WP48 this season)
• Brandon Rush – (-0.036 WP48 last season, 0.038 WP48 this season)

We should note, though, that if Rush is considered a shooting guard, then Rush was exactly average (WP48 of 0.100).  A similar story cannot be told for Hibbert.  At least, we really can’t argue that Hibbert was anything more than a below average center.

Underwhelming Additions

The Pacers lost four major contributors from last season and replaced them with four veterans supposed to provide toughness and defensive upgrades. Although the team defense did improve, the net production over the players lost was barely positive. To add insult to injury, the only two players who provided positive contributions, Luther Head and Earl Watson, were signed to one year contracts and are thus free agents again this summer. Solomon Jones and Dahntay Jones will be back next season, and that means their negative WP48 will likely return as well. 

Regression

Troy Murphy, Danny Granger and T.J. Ford were the only three above average (>/= o.100 WP48) contributors who returned to the Pacers in 2009-2010. Although Murphy continued to contribute at a terrific level, all three players saw a tremendous decline in their production.

• Troy Murphy – (0.374 WP48 last season, 0.281 WP48 this season)
• Danny Granger – (0.115 WP48 last season, 0.082 WP48 this season)
• T.J. Ford – (0.101 WP48 last season, 0.084 WP48 this season)

Even when you account for the reduced minutes they played this season, the decline of these three players cost the Pacers about seven wins (26.21 Wins Produced using 2008-2009 WP48 with 2009-2010 minutes played vs. 19.69 Wins Produced this season).  Seven wins would have meant a three game improvement over the previous year, and would have had the team in contention for a playoff spot up until the final days of the season. Considering the injury woes the team suffered, this could have been viewed as a successful campaign and an indication of the improvement the fans and team were both looking for.

A New Hope

So where do the Pacers go from here? Where do we find hope for next season?

Unfortunately, things may get worse before they get better. Using Wins Produced, it’s clear the Pacers most productive player last season was Troy Murphy. By all accounts the organization is intent on using his expiring contract as a trade chip to move up in the draft or acquire other young talent. The second most productive player, Earl Watson, is a free agent and is unlikely to be re-signed because of financial constraints.

That being said, the eternal optimists in Indiana do have some reasons for hope:

• Although Danny Granger fell off last year, he has been an above average contributor in the past and has the potential to return to that level of play.
• Mike Dunleavy produced 10.72 wins for the Pacers in 2007-2008. He was an average player last season and, fingers crossed, will be starting a season completely healthy for the first time in two years.
• Tyler Hansbrough’s WP48 was a paltry 0.006 last season. This was almost entirely due to his poor shooting percentages, and he proved to be a much better rebounder than advertised. If he can play a full season, continuing to improve, there is every reason to believe he will be a solid contributor.
• Perhaps Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush can accelerate their rate of improvement and become average win producers.
• In a very deep draft, the Pacers hold picks #10, #40 and #57.

With the short term goal of returning to the playoffs next season, here’s hoping the Pacers value what they have, and are smart in seeking value in the draft and on the free agent market. I would say things can’t get any worse, but as the good people of New Jersey can attest, I would be lying through my teeth.

- Ian Levy

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Arturo Galletti – who has contributed two stories to the WoW Journal (see HERE and HERE) – and Andres Alvarez (who has created the automated Wins Produced website and posted this column) have been looking at my calculation of Wins Produced from 1977-78 to 2009-10.  Soon (not sure how “soon” is defined but I guess before the end of summer) this data will be posted on-line.  And we are already discussing various studies we can do with this data (beyond what I have published with my fellow economists). 

Andres got this work off with the following question:  How many “game-changing” players have been selected in the NBA draft?

The answer to this question depends on the definition of “game-changing”.  For Andres a “game-changing” pick is defined as a player who posted a 0.250 WP48 as a rookie and also produced 15 or more wins.  In other words, he was a “star” player who actually played.

Since 1977-78, there have been hundreds of players drafted into the NBA.  And of all these players, these nine players were the only “game-changing” draft picks.

To put these numbers in perspective, only 343 times – of the 12,773 player-seasons since 1977-78 – has a player posted a 0.250 WP48 and 15 Wins Produced.  So less than 3% of the time does a player do this well. 

Rookies tend to play worse than average, so we should not be surprised that few rookies can step in and have this kind of impact in his first season.  What is interesting is that since the turn of the century (at least, I thought this was interesting), Chris Paul is the only game-changing rookie.

All of this is but one more piece of evidence that rookies – despite what you will hear during the broadcast of the NBA draft next month – are not going to immediately transform the fortunes of the NBA team who becomes their new employer.  And for most of these rookies, they will never transform their team’s fortunes (and that is a good story for another day).

In the coming weeks and months, look for more of the stories told by all these numbers (via the incredible work of Arturo and Andres). 

Another Radio Appearance…

On Tuesday night was I was a guest on Last Call, a program on Hardcore Sports Radio.  On the blog associated with the show my appearance was described as follows:

- Talks about the economics in sports
- Chats about some of the stories in his book
- Book has stories ranging from a variety of sports in North America and the economics
- Talks about player/coach relationships and the effects
- Chats about LeBron James and former coach of the Cavaliers Mike Brown
- Believes the Cavs are in panic mode this off-season
- Talks about the value of head coaches and Phil Jackson
- States that players get better being coached by Phil Jackson
- Brings up similarities between Phil Jackson and Red Auerbach
- Talks about Phil Jackson and his contract with the Lakers
- Believes Phil Jackson has a huge impact coaching the Lakers
- Discusses rating NBA players from his research
- Chats about specific baseball stats
- Talks about basketball stats, specifically scoring stats
- Believes the NBA has a problem with statistics and how players are signed to contracts
- States that NBA players care more about scoring points to gain a high value contract
- Chats about evaluating the NBA free agent class of 2010
- Talks about the differences between David Lee and Chris Bosh
- Chats about superstar’s on a team shooting the ball rather than having another player shoot in clutch situations
- Talks about the best head coaches available

If you wish to hear the actual broadcast, a podcast is available at the Hardcore Sports Radio website (look under Last Call).  The interview was live, and it was 10:30pm in Utah (and after midnight Eastern time).  Although it was late, the questions were great.  I can’t say the same for my answers.  Again, it was pretty late for a 40-year old professor.

By the way, if you choose to download the interview and listen, I come on 30 minutes into the broadcast.  The interview starts with a discussion of teaching, sports, and economics (where I note that some stuff in economics is not interesting).  From there we eventually get around to the list of topics seen above.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

About ten days ago I posted a brief comment examining how many “stars” and “super-stars” a team needs to win a title.  Looking at the teams that won an NBA title from 1980 to the present, we see that only three teams – the 1994 Houston Rockets, the 2006 Miami Heat, and the 2009 LA Lakers – have managed to win an NBA title without a “super-star” (defined as a player with a WP48 – Wins Produced per 48 minutes — in excess of 0.300). And only four teams – the 1987 LA Lakers, the 1994 Houston Rockets, the 2002 LA Lakers, and the 2004 Detroit Pistons — have won a title without two “stars” (defined as a player with a WP48 in excess of o.200).  In sum, of the 30 teams that have won a title since 1980, only six teams managed to win a title without at least one “super-star” and one more player who was a “star.”

Such analysis leads one to ask: How many teams in 2009-10 managed to meet this criteria? The answer – reported in the following table* – reveals only five teams employed both a “super-star” and at least one “star” this past season.  And Portland only fits this criteria if we include Greg Oden and Nicolas Batum in our analysis (both played less than 1,000 minutes due to injury). 

If we look at teams that had a “super-star” (but no one else who was a “star”) or employed multiple “stars” (but no “super-star”), we see eight more teams.  Of these, Minnesota, New Orleans, and Philadelphia completely missed the playoffs.  And Boston – much to my chagrin – might win the title in 2010.

The above two tables only included 13 teams.  That means 17 teams in the NBA failed to employ a “super-star” or multiple “stars”.  And according to the criteria listed above, were not likely to win a title.  Of course, included in this list we see the Phoenix Suns.  And the Suns – like Boston – can win the title this year.  Despite this point, it does appear that most NBA teams were not title contenders this past season.

Let me close by noting that of these 17 “non-contenders”, the Houston Rockets, the LA Clippers, the New Jersey Nets, and Sacramento Kings did not employ a single player with a WP48 in excess of 0.200.  This makes the season the Rockets had this past season even more impressive.

- DJ

*- the numbers I report were not taken from the Wins Produced website of Andres Alvarez, but are my own calculations of WP48 and Wins Produced.  In other words, these numbers reflect how I allocated players across positions.

The WoW Journal Comments Policy