Tonight I was told there is another blog willing to join the Wages of Wins network.  Andrew Shookhoff – at NYK Mistakes — will be covering the New York Knicks from the perspective of Wins Produced.

Andrew has already offered the following two posts.

As the Knicks start off by ruining free agency

Just when you think Donnie Walsh can’t screw up anymore…

Both posts are well worth reading (even for people who are not fans of the Knicks).  So hopefully everyone can head over to Andrew’s site and welcome him to the network.

- DJ

The Wages of Wins Network current consists of the following five blogs:

Arturo Silly Little Stats

Courtside Analyst

Nerd Numbers The Blog

Roblog

The NBA Anti-Expert

In the past few days a number of excellent posts have been offered in these forums. 

• As already noted, Shawn Ryan has offered a tremendous review of the 2010 NBA draft.
• Ty Willihnganz has offered a comparison of the 2010-11 Miami Heat and the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls.
• Andres Alvarez has offered a comprehensive review of the transactions of Mark Warkentien (the general manager of the Denver Nuggets)
• Arturo Galletti has  reviewed how average AJDP48 has changed for each position across time.

Although each of these posts is excellent, I wanted to highlight a recent column offered by Robbie O’Malley.  The following post reviews John Hollinger’s comparison of Carlos Boozer and Al Jefferson.  Hollinger employs his Player Efficiency Rating to evaluate the two players.  Robbie discusses the problems with this approach.  If you have not seen this discussion, here it is in its entirety:

In his analysis of the Utah Jazz trade for PF Al Jefferson ESPN’s John Hollinger begins by posing to his readers this question – Would you trade Carlos Boozer for Al Jefferson?

Hollinger comes to the conclusion that he would make such a trade.He says, “You’d at least have to think about it. Jefferson is three years younger and had better numbers over the past three seasons. He can play center — Boozer cannot — which allows the Jazz to paper over Mehmet Okur‘s expected absence and move Andrei Kirilenko up to power forward in stretches, where he’s more effective anyway.”

I would probably agree with his assessment on opportunities this trade provides the Jazz in their front court. Kirilenko is feasibly more effective at PF and Jefferson is more suited to play center than Boozer. The thing that caught my eye, however, is that he believes Jefferson had better “numbers” over the past three years than Carlos Boozer. I wonder what numbers he is referring to? He is known in the media as “Professor Hollinger” and is ESPN’s only resident stat geek. If anyone should know numbers it is him.  I suspect the main number he is referring to is his Player Efficiency Rating (PER) metric. On average, over the past three years Carlos Boozer has a PER of 20.18. Al Jefferson’s PER over this time period is 1.5 points better at 21.68. So, according to Hollinger’s own PER, Jefferson has been the better player.

Is PER accurate? Let’s take a closer look at each players numbers:

Table One: Boozer vs. Jefferson

Table Two: Boozer vs. Jefferson relative to average PF

Carlos Boozer is 6’9″ 260 pounds while Al Jefferson is 6’10″ 260 pounds. They’re roughly the same size, although Jefferson has a longer standing reach than Boozer. They have played roughly the same amount of time at 65-70 games a year at ~34 minutes a game. They both have played similar minutes at PF and C. Bottom line is that this is as about as apples to apples a comparison you can make between two players in the NBA.

What do we find when we look closer at the numbers? In terms of net possessions (REB + STL – TO) they are virtually equal. They are both very good at generating extra possessions for their teams. Carlos Boozer is the better passer but Al Jefferson is the better shot blocker – essentially a wash there. Boozer commits about an additional foul each game. So far this is the biggest separation we have. I wouldn’t think that should account for a 1.5 points better PER, however.

So what else is different? When we look at the scoring categories we see that Jefferson takes nearly 3 more shots per game that Boozer. This allows him to score less than half a point more per game. That doesn’t seem like it’s in Jefferson’s favor though. A half point after three shots is not very efficient. When we look at the chart we see that Boozer is a good amount more efficient than Jefferson. This means that Boozer gets more out of the shots he takes than Jefferson does. Making the shots you take is important for winning games.

But essentially – according to John Hollinger – if Boozer took an additional 2.71 shots, making only .44 at a 16% rate, he would be as efficient as Al Jefferson. That just doesn’t work! Boozer is the more efficient player. There is no value in taking more shots if you don’t make those shots. It’s so strange that a metric that is named Player Efficiency Rating, does not value efficiency! If you shoot more shots your PER will be higher – even if you are not an efficient scorer.

I don’t get it. John Hollinger has the same numbers available to him that everyone else does. He also has more monetary incentive and available time than most others to use to get it right. He has underrated Boozer before while overrating the ability to take shots – HERE. You can see an explanation of why a players PER will increase with additional shots and nothing else – HERE.

Hollinger goes on to make a few other comments. He notes that Jefferson is three years younger and cheaper. He fits the center position better than Boozer. These points I agree with. He also said that Boozer is probably the better defender – backed up HERE and HERE. So Boozer has better numbers and is the better defender. Jefferson is younger, cheaper, and more versatile. A Boozer for Jefferson swap hurts the Jazz.

But it wasn’t exactly a trade. Carlos Boozer left via free agency. The Jazz did not control whether he returned or not. They basically added young PF Al Jefferson for nothing. This is a good move by them. Despite what I said, Jefferson can be a very good player and is better than the nothing Boozer left behind. He’s just not as good as Boozer, at least not yet.

- post taken from Robbie O’Malley’s Roblog

Jeremy Britton, an SF Bay Area interaction designer at ZURB, fell in love with NBA basketball as a kid while watching Eric “Sleepy” Floyd drop 28 fourth quarter points on the Lakers in front of a bank of TVs at a Bay Area Price Club with dozens of Warrior faithful. The Warriors took that thrilling game, but dropped the series 4-1. From Don Nelson (part 1), to Run TMC, Chris Webber, Latrell Sprewell attacking PJ Carlesimo with a 2×4, and their amazing “We Believe” run three years ago, Jeremy has inexplicably remained a part of the Warrior faithful but rarely been rewarded.

Hapless Warrior fans have focused their “we believe” energy almost exclusively on the chance reclusive, litigious owner Chris Cohan might sell the team to a more motivated owner this August. Yet even if the curse of Cohan is lifted, it’s not clear potential new owners Larry Ellison or the 24-hour Fitness guy can put a management team in place capable of assembling a winning team. If these owners aren’t shrewd with their money or their judgment of talent, they might dip too far into their own deep pocket and saddle Warrior fans with a version of the Knicks West.

But Wait…

A funny thing happened the day after the “The Decision” and amid all this new Warrior ownership talk. The current Warrior management led by GM Larry Riley traded Anthony Randolph, Ronny Turiaf, and Kelenna Azubuike to the New York Knicks for David Lee. Negative reactions from Warrior fans focused on how Turiaf and Azubuike had “heart” (they were fan favorites), on Randolph’s wild card “potential,” and on Lee’s perceived lack of defense and new expensive contract. But how does this move change the Warriors’ productivity at power forward?

 The move to get David Lee suggests a big jump in productivity at power forward–about a 14.4 win improvement. A quick back-of-the-napkin calculation suggests a 39 win team next year. Not great, but better. The Warriors didn’t have the horses at this position last year, but by replacing classic Nellie “small ball” with Lee — a great rebounder and efficient shooter — their fortunes should improve.

Unexpected Reason for Even More Optimism

What about the Warriors’ other moves? They drafted Ekpe Udoh with the sixth pick, traded Corey Maggette in a ‘contract dump’ for Dan Gadzuric and Charlie Bell, signed free agent Dorell Wright, and are letting fan favorite free agents C.J. Watson and Anthony Morrow sign with other teams. Let’s just say those yellow “We Believe” shirts will stay neatly tucked into dresser drawers.

The Warriors also hold out hope for Andris Biedrins and Brandan Wright to return from injury (they missed 131 games together last season) and for improvement from returning rookies Stephen Curry and Reggie Williams. [Note: I haven’t factored likely second year improvement in yet.] This is the same kind of ‘hope’ Warrior fans strain their eyes to see every summer, so ho-hum, right? But wait–what impact might all these moves have on the Warrior’s ability to win next season? Potentially, a lot.

Wins by position:

As the chart above shows, the Warriors might expect to win about 25.8 more games in 2010-11, making them a 50 win team. They see almost all of this improvement on their front line, first with Lee at power forward, and then at center and small forward.

At center we factor in the (somewhat) healthy return of Andris Biedrins.  Specifically, let’s imagine him at his 2008-09 form (a season he missed 22 games and was a shade below his peak productivity). If Biedrins returns to that kind of form, the Warriors will gain better than 7 wins at center.

At small forward the Warriors replace a collection of lesser players with a full season of Reggie Williams and newly acquired free agent Dorell Wright. Williams surprised fans last year, but as Wages of Wins pointed out, based on his college performance his good NBA performance shouldn’t be a surprise at all. Wright, meanwhile, has been an unheralded but positive contributor almost every year he spent in Miami.

 Who will get the credit if 50 wins pans out?

If this estimate is actually how it goes next season, the big story in Oakland will be about how the Warriors did it. Will the most productive players take the credit? More likely new ownership will somehow take a large share of the credit off the court (curse lifted?), while the Warriors’ leading scorers will take it on the court.

Stephen Curry, David Lee, and Reggie Williams will receive the lion’s share of the credit due to their scoring (and actually deserve much of it), while the lower scoring contributions of Dorell Wright, Brandan Wright, and Andris Biedrins will take an undeserved backseat for the team’s turn of good fortune.

Either way, most of the credit should go to a general manager no Warrior fan believes in, who doesn’t even know what kind of winning team he has assembled, and who may not even be employed by the Warriors in time to enjoy their success–Larry Riley.

EPILOGUE / ALTERNATE ENDING

How the Warriors Could Still Screw It All Up

The moves being made by current general manager Larry Riley are a mixed bag. While the Lee and Wright acquisitions bode well, the Maggette trade and Udoh pick suggest Riley stumbling through these decisions without a clear measure of player evaluation.

Rumors that the Warriors will trade Andris Biedrins in another ‘contract dump’ could threaten to drop the Warriors right back into the middle of the pack. Coach Don Nelson, both notorious and successful for his unconventional lineups, could shoot his team in the foot with “small ball” by sitting Biedrins and Wright too much, or by relying on Lee too much at center.

However, other rumors of a Monta Ellis trade could improve their weakest position. At shooting guard Ellis produced almost zero wins in a lot of minutes. Let’s just hope the bad moves continue to be more than offset by the good ones as the Warriors stumble into next season.

- Jeremy Britton

A few weeks ago, Shawn Ryan – who provided tables for the brief column posted in this forum on the NBA draft – sent along a complete analysis of the 2010 NBA draft.  And he was told – by the worthless editor in this forum – that it would be posted.

Well, that was going to happen this week.  Really.  But Shawn clearly got tired of waiting and decided to create his own blog.  Consequently, we have a new entry in what I am calling “The Wages of Wins Network” (see list on the right).  And the first post at Ryan’s website – The NBA Anti-Expert – is the post you should have seen weeks ago in this forum.

So if everyone doesn’t mind, please click over to Ryan’s post:

2010 Post-Draft Analysis

And if you can, please leave a comment (or two).  Or you can have a discussion here on the analysis Ryan is offering.

Speaking of submitted posts… Jeremy Britton has submitted some analysis of the Golden State Warriors.  Hopefully that will be on-line later today. 

One last note…the delays were primarily caused by the Western Economic Association meetings.  As noted, I was part of six papers that were presented.  Plus, as President of the North American Association of Sports Economists (NAASE), I have the responsibility to co-edit (with Brad Humphreys) a special issue of the Journal of Sports Economics (with papers from the meetings).  That means either Brad and I had to attend all 16 sessions sponsored by NAASE. In sum, my ability to edit material for this forum was limited (or I just didn’t feel like doing it).  Hopefully I will do better in the future.  

- DJ

Editor’s Note: Nicholas Yee sent along this wonderful post in June, soon after the NBA Finals concluded.  But the editor of this forum – who appears to be worthless – never got around to posting what Nicholas sent along.  That error has now been rectified and the editor has promised to try harder in the future (of course, promises, promises…).

Nicholas Yee, is a Computer Science graduate of Ryerson Univerity, 2006. He was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and developed into a Celtics fan because of his family’s love for the team. He had a hard time being Celtics fan because he had to live through the death of Reggie Lewis, the “loss” of Tim Duncan, the Rick Pitino years, and the loss of the Oden/Durant sweepstakes. He’s currently living in the Toronto area, but is apathetic to the local Raptors.

Much has been said of the amazing run that the Boston Celtics had during the 2010 NBA Playoffs. Famous Celtics fan Bill Simmons himself predicted that the Celtics would lose in the first round to the Miami Heat. This was based predominately on the facts that he felt the Celtics were a disappointing regular season team, and that the team with the best player, always wins the series. While in theory, this makes some sense (if my best player is better than your best player, and all others are equal, then my team is better), it appears that this year, the Celtics became the exception (Wade: 0.291 vs. Rondo: 0.290). And then again (James: 0.401). And again (Howard: 0.376).

Looking back at each series, most of the Celtic victories can be explained very simply via Wins Produced. Boston was the better team than Miami in the regular season, Jermaine O’Neal had a terrible series, and Boston had home court.

Versus Cleveland, as has been discussed, Maurice Williams was terrible, and Rondo was amazing. LeBron underperformed a little, and Cleveland mismanaged their minutes.

Orlando was another regular-season upset, since again, the Celtics did not have home court advantage. However, a couple of Orlando’s main players underperformed, namely Dwight Howard, and Vince Carter.

Finally, the post season reverted back to the regular season, as the Lakers defeated the Celtics in 7 games.

As a Celtics fan, this run was unexpected. While the Celtics were a 60 win team the last two seasons, they fell to only a 50 win team this year. Typically 4-seeds, do not make the NBA finals. Some of the reasons for the Celtics defeating these 3 Eastern Conference teams have been noted, but also, the fact that each playoffs series is only 7 games, allows for some random “noise” to produce a string of results as above. Let’s take a look at the regular season numbers for this year’s team.

As you can see, the team who is known as the Big 3 (+1), is really the Big 2 (Star players are 0.2+).  Also, if you compare the team to last year’s version…

You can see that even the Big 2, were not as good as they were last year when the team won 62 games. Last year, by Wins Produced, they were both Superstars. This year Rondo fell just short of that mark, while Garnett fell well short. Paul Pierce had a gentle decline, while Ray Allen had a significantbig drop. Leon Powe’s minutes went mainly to Sheldon Willams (good), and Rasheed Wallace (not so good), costing the team about 5 wins, or about half of the total difference between the seasons.

Rasheed came into this season with high expectations. He was previously the starting PF on the 2004 NBA Champion Detroit Pistons. Some experts had projected him having the biggest impact of all of the signings in the off-season. However, Rasheed Wallace is 35 years old and far removed from his NBA prime.  So his poor season was not completely unexpected. Rasheed posted a WP/48 of 0.079 in 2008-09, which was a good number for a 34 year old. However, it seemed that year 35 was not as kind to Wallace, as his WP/48 dropped to -0.038. This mainly was because of a drop in rebound rate, and his poor 3pt shooting.

Beyond just aging an extra year, Ray Allen, 34, did not shoot as well as he did last year either. Now, it is important to note that it was not that Ray Allen didn’t shoot well relative to NBA standards, as he posted his 3rd highest TS% of his career. However this was a decline from last season in which he posted his highest TS% ever. Most of this decline stemmed from his drop in 3 point shooting percentage. Ray had a bit of an outlier season in 08-09, so this was more a regression to the normal than anything else. Ray Allen was able to stay very productive, despite most of his athletic marker rates (rebounds, steals, blocks, FTA) dropping the last few years. He has been in a steady decline over the last few years, but his great shooting season from last year made this decline smoother.

Garnett , 33, saw his rebounding numbers drop from his previously unworldly levels the day he came to Boston, and they saw further decline this year. While he has shot a higher percentage from the field as a Celtic than he did as a Timberwolf (I think the Maple Leafs have defied grammar for the sake of bad writers like me), he no longer gets to the line as often, and thus his TS% remains about the same. He also saw a big decline in blocks this season. Another issue, remains his inability to stay on the floor. Always a leader in minutes played with Minnesota, Boston have “saved his legs” during the regular season. The 10% bump he saw in MPG in the playoffs, would have added another 1.2 wins to his regular season projections, adding in the fact that it could take away minutes away from Rasheed and Big Baby. Plus, further wins could have been gained from his increased health. However, part of the reason aging is bad for NBA players, is because it results in an increased risk for injury.

Paul Pierce, 32, on the other hand actually shot a better percentage this year, but faced a decline in his rebounding numbers. His overall productivity drop-off was slight, but it should be noted that he aged well this year all things considered.

Okay, let’s simply summarize.  All of this discussion leads to one conclusion: The Boston Celtics are an old team.

Up until this point, I’ve stated some of the more obvious observations about the Celtics team from this year. But I’d like to point out a couple of other possible reasons that could explain their performance for 2009-10.

One unexpected reason for the Celtics 12-game drop-off, was Eddie House.  I say unexpected because very few prognosticators mentioned Eddie House being a reason why the Celtics could or could not win 60 games. Last year House, 32, produced almost 5 wins, while posting a TS% of .592. This mark was a career high, eclipsing his previous high of .536. Eddie House had an amazing season last year shooting the basketball (especially for a guard who does not get to the free throw line). As he fell back down to earth — his .527 TS% with the C’s was just a little above his .506 career mark — so did his Wins Produced. Even after he was traded (basically) for Nate Robinson, Nate only produced about one win for the Celtics. These two players combined to equal a loss of about four wins for the Celtics at the backup PG position this year.

So while the Celtics are getting older, a big contributor to their decline in performance was the loss of Leon Powe (about 5 wins), and the decline/trade of Eddie House (about 4 wins).  

I’ve also included the Celtics playoff numbers below. I’ll discuss where the Celtics can go from here based on these numbers, in a later post.

Finally, I just wanted to add a comment about the finals. Much commotion has been made of the rebounding numbers, or Rajon Rondo’s in ability to shoot, being the reason as to why the Celtics lost in 7 games to the Lakers. But I approach this a little bit differently.

My explanation is very similar to what I noted here; the Celtics did not have their shots fall in game 7. Via Wins Produced, the Lakers were the favourites, and they also had home court advantage; but in reality, if the Celtics had hit a couple shots down the stretch against the Lakers, they would be the NBA champions.  Then very few would have written about the age of the Celtics, and instead people would be discussing their experience carrying them through their playoff push. What most teams attempt to do, is either build a team that is far superior to all others in the league – very difficult – or you can build a team comparable to the other top teams, and take your chances with luck. The Celtics were only able to build a team who when managed correctly, could compete with the other leading teams in the league. Essentially, their luck ran out in the Staples Centre.

- Nicholas Yee