Ted Leonsis – owner of the Washington Wizards – had this response (and the following is his entire response) to the last post on Eddy Curry and the NBA owners:

Stats Are One Thing – Details Are Another

It is the Pollin family NOT the Pollard family.

Just saying. Show some respect. Do some basic research. Thank you.

Hopefully, Matthew Yglesias – who wrote the offending sentence (and who I think is  a fan of the Wizards) – reads this and tries to do better next time J

- DJ

P.S. And next time I cut and paste from another blog, I will proofread first (just kidding, I am not that good at proofreading my own writing).

A few weeks ago, Jeff Pearlman wrote a column at Sports Illustrated that claimed Eddy Curry was young, talented, and a complete waste.  When I saw this column I thought I should write something.  And today I finally did at the Huffington Post.   My basic argument… fans of the Knicks shouldn’t be disappointed that Eddy Curry isn’t currently available.

The Eddy Curry story is part of a larger story in the NBA.  David Stern is currently asking players to take a significant wage cut.  He claims that without this cut in wages, owners can’t make money.  

For a response to Stern’s claims, let me re-post a brief story offered today by Matthew Yglesias:

The best way out of a recession is a combination of expansionary fiscal and monetary policy to bolster aggregate demand. Failing that, you need to have a grinding process of nominal wage cuts and unbalanced deflation that can take years to end and cause massive human suffering in the meantime. David Stern wants the National Basketball Association to do its part to make the dream a reality:

Stern said the league wants player costs to drop $750 million to $800 million. Deputy commissioner Adam Silver said the NBA spends about $2.1 billion annually in player salaries and benefits. [...]

Stern and [Deputy Commission] Silver spoke after completing two days of meetings with league owners, who are seeking major changes to the current CBA that expires June 30. Silver said the league has told the union that owners are in a “diseconomic situation,” with projected league-wide losses of about $340 million to $350 million this season.

Though season ticket sales are up, both insisted that no matter how well the league does at the box office, it won’t change the fact that an overhaul is necessary to a system in which the players receive 57 percent of basketball-related income.

“Even though we reported we have record season ticket sales over the summer and otherwise very robust revenue generation, because of the built-in cost of the system, it’s virtually impossible for us to move the needle in terms of our losses,” Silver said.

This kind of pleading always strikes me as unpersuasive on the merits. If I owned a business that was losing tens of millions of dollars a year, I’d be eager to sell the business for a relatively small amount of money. When the Washington Post Company put Newsweek up for same, for example, they were ultimately willing to part with the firm for $1 on the condition that the new owner assume Newsweek’s pension liabilities. Similarly, when General Motors and Chrysler were revealed to have an unsustainably high labor cost structure, nobody wanted to buy either firm at any price so the government had to step in.

By contrast, when Mikhail Prokhorov bought the New Jersey Nets—by no means the league’s most lucrative franchise—he paid $200 million for the privilege. Ted Leonsis bought the Wizards, a terrible team, from the Pollard family for over $500 million this past summer. The high price of NBA franchises strongly suggests that operating one is valuable even with 57 of basketball-related revenue going to player salaries. Part of the issue is that the teams themselves can be in some ways loss-leaders for businesses whose real profit center is an arena or a cable network. Accounting can be misleading, actual asset prices are telling you something.

And here is something else Yglesias said about the NBA’s claims last February.

If NBA teams are really in such bad economic shape then how come we’re not seeing more teams change hands? In other words, if “[a]bout half of the league’s 30 franchises are losing money” then how come that isn’t leading owners to sell their teams? Someone genuinely losing money on his NBA team ought to be willing to sell it at a cheap price to a rich guy hoops fan who doesn’t mind losing money, or just to a businessman who overestimates his basketball-management prowess.

Rationally speaking, if NBA teams are hugely profitable it makes sense for owners to grab as large a share of the revenue as possible. And if NBA teams are posting huge losses it . . . also makes sense for owners to grab as large a share of the revenue as possible. The state of the economy, in other words, has very little to do with anything. And this is really the key issue in the collective bargaining dispute—as a fan, I’d be fine with a hard cap (easier to understand) and happy with shorter contracts (nobody likes to see a team crippled by a bum long-term deal) but from a business point-of-view the owners’ core interest is in reducing the players’ aggregate share of the revenue but nothing about their pursuit of that goal has anything to do with the business cycle or anything a fan would care about.

Let me summarize…NBA owners have every reason to claim they are losing money.  And NBA owners do want a system that allows them to make money even if they give Eddy Curry $60 million.  But the recent sale of NBA franchises suggest that the NBA is really not a league where losing money can’t be avoided. 

- DJ

Arturo Galletti  – from Arturo’s Silly Little Stats – offers the following review/preview of the New Orleans Hornets.  As one can see, there is some hope that life in New Orleans will go better than life in Cleveland (and freechrispaul.com doesn’t need to be taken).

“The Mardi Gras memories
Of creole tunes that filled the air
I dream of oleanders in June
And soon I’m wishing that I was there” -Do You Know What It Means to Miss New Orleans

A cross cultural melting pot with awesome food. A Colonial city with old world charm and kicking music. It’s no surprise that New Orleans is my kind of town and given the lack of a previous cheering interest, I always cheer for her team’s to do well. For the longest time that meant the Saints and the Tigers but in 2002 the Hornets brought the NBA back to town after an absence of more than 20 Years.

Mr. Basketball Louisiana

Now not only did basketball come back to the big easy but the 2005 draft brought them a once in a lifetime player: Chris Paul. How good is Chris Paul? If I look at all the players drafted in the last thirty three years (using my handy rankings ):

(Note: If you’re new here, the numbers used for the ranking and the rest of this post are explained here).

For his first four years, He’s fifth best behind some guys named Barkley,Magic, Bird and Robinson and just ahead of some piker named Jordan. So the Hornets lucked out and found that transcendent and rare superstar that we know gives you hope , keeps you in constant contention and guarantees the long term success of the franchise right? No. The Hornets got their superstar but have failed to keep him happy. They did such a bad job that trade rumors swirled this summer (and I may have made some jokes about that).

Still Available

Now the front office got overhauled and the team got remodeled. There are still some rumblings of discontent . In contrast to other disgruntled NBA stars (Hint: one is a superstar who makes lists and one is overrated and wants to go to the Big Apple), Chris Paul had a legitimate gripe. He’s a historically great player who’s franchise has not stepped up to the plate to build a winner around him in the last few years. The question is has that changed for this coming season?

The New Orleans Hornets in 2009-2010

25-20. That’s the Hornets record when Paul went down to injury January 29th against the Bulls. At that rate the Hornets would have won from 45 to 46 games if he hadn’t gotten hurt. So this was, at full strength a better team than their final 37-45 record. Let’s take a look at their roster from last year:

Based on wins produced, the Hornets slightly overachieved in 2009-2010. As for the roster turnover, while they lost what amounted to 43% of their minutes from 2009-2010 oddly enough they only lost 11% of their win production. In fact, if we average the WP48 for those lost minutes we get .022 WP48 which is below the level (.050 WP48) we use for rookies and replacement level players. This we shall see is a case of addition by subtraction.

The New Orleans Hornets in 2010-2011

(Note this is current as of 10/21/10) The Hornets brought in seven new players and two rookies to replace the players they lost and a simple projection shows that their roster as built only gets the to about 42 wins. A more complicated projection looks like this:

49 Wins. See here for detail on how this was done and note that Raw wins are simply ADJP48 (Raw productivity per 48 minutes) times Minutes played divided by 48. I’m also using depth charts from here (thanks to Sham Sports).Now this first projection only assumes 2368 minutes for Paul. If we move his minutes to 2008/2009 levels:

54 wins. So by clearing out the dead weight and getting some decent low cost pieces, this New Orleans team is not only better than last year’s team, they’re edging slightly into contender territory. New Orleans is a playoff team with a superstar (Paul) and a decent big (Okafor) and some complementary pieces. Rarefied air indeed for a small market franchise. We can only hope that the story plays out for the the Big Easy more like San Antonio than Cleveland.

Andres Alvarez – from Nerd Numbers the Blog – offers the following review and preview of the Orlando Magic.  His analysis suggests that there might be two dominant teams in Florida.

Sometimes I have trouble letting go. In Tuesday’s podcast I asked if Camby for Vince Carter would be good for Orlando. My brother said it was a bad idea. I brought it up to Arturo, he also said no. I could have let it go but instead I decided to look over the numbers myself. In the end I agree with them (kind of), and you lucky readers get a review/preview of the Magic. We all win (except me)!

Table 1: 2009-2010 Orlando Magic

Last year the Magic had two great players; Matt Barnes and Dwight Howard. For some reason they let Matt Barnes go. On the plus side they still have Howard. This team is very deep and very balanced. Something I will point out is they do have a lot of their success riding on Dwight Howard. While this is a great model for regular season success, it is not necessarily the ideal way to go for the playoffs. I apologize but I’m going to throw a bunch of tables at you and then hopefully use it to make a point.

Table 2: 2010-2011 Orlando Magic Optimistic Prediction

Table 3: 2010-2011 Orlando Magic Pesismistic Prediction

Table 4: Win Range for 2010-2011 Orlando Magic

Looking at each player’s WP48 for the last two years gives a very funny picture. In the optimistic year I used each player’s best year from the last two years. In the pessimistic year I used each player’s worst year from the last two years. Essentially at tip top shape this team could challenge Miami for best in the league. However, at their worst this team could be fighting with Atlanta for best of the worst in the playoffs. We can see four players have a lot to do with this. Rashard Lewis was absolutely terrible last season. Had he even played mediocre this team would have taken top spot in the East. Quentin Richardson had a break out year and clearly Miami Orlando (thanks SportsFanatic613!) is hoping he’ll replace Barnes. This could cost the Magic a few seeds if it doesn’t pan out. Finally Nelson and Gortat both have shown flashes of brilliance, but questionable coaching decisions around Gortat and injuries from Nelson have slowed them. With that I’ll do one last table.

Table 5: Final Prediction for 2010-2011 Season

If Jameer Nelson and Gortat can regain a little form, Vince Carter plays primarily at the two-guard and Dwight Howard keeps on being Superman then this team can pretty much repeat last year. Rashard Lewis and Quentin Richardson are the big question marks. Between the two of them they’ll probably use between 4000 and 5000 of the Magic’s minutes. If they play close to average the Magic look great. If they play poorly then they leave some holes on the team. Still the Magic look poised for another 50.0 win season. However, all of the complaints about them in the playoffs last year will still hold and I don’t think Miami, Los Angeles or Portland will cut them any slack.

-Dre

P.S. Still refusing to let go I’ll follow up my Camby comment. Vince Carter actually helps keep the Magic well stocked at the SG/SF positions. Rashard Lewis is really the biggest weakness on this team. The Magic could try and trade him for Camby, which would be amazing. I doubt Portland would be foolish enough to do that. Another option would be to simply play Anderson and Gortat more minutes. These two players are young and have both played above average. Doing this would require the Magic to admit Lewis is not really worth the money and history doesn’t seem on our side for that happening.

As I noted earlier in the week, teams in the NBA have been reviewed via Wins Produced each summer since 2006.  Reviews from this past summer, though, are incomplete.  Fortunately, Andres Alvarez – at Nerd Numbers the Blog — and Arturo Galletti – at Arturo’s Silly Little Stats – have come through in the clutch (and yes, there is clutch performance in The Wages of Wins Network.

What follows are the Andres Alvarez reviews of the Atlanta Hawks and LA Clippers (and that means we only have Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, and Orlando left to discuss before the season starts).

Reviewing and Previewing the Atlanta Hawks

This article may uses the Wins Produced per 48 Minutes (WP48)  and Wins Produced (WP) metrics. These estimate how many wins a player generates for their team based on their box score stats, their team’s stats and league averages. Use this handy scale when analyzing players!

• Average Player – 0.100 WP48, 6 Wins for a starter.
• Star Player – 0.200 WP48 12 Wins for a starter.
• Superstar Player – 0.250 WP48, 15 Wins for a starter (This is usually considered a requirement for a championship team)

Let’s move right along with another team review. Next up on the docket is Atlanta. Part of the reason I wanted to do this review was the following piece I saw. In particular the following part stuck out

“Horford and the Hawks have been talking for weeks, but the odds are just about 50-50, from what I’m told, that something gets done in the next two weeks. Atlanta has a delicate game to play with Horford; Jamal Crawford has made his desire for a new deal quite clear, but after giving Joe Johnson $124 million this summer there’s only so much money to go around.”

Anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself. To start things out, the Hawks went 53-29 last season. What did the numbers have to say about this?

Table 1: 2010 Atlanta Hawks

The numbers were pretty much spot on with the Hawks last season. They were indeed an impressive 53 game winning team last season and played about as expected in the playoffs. Looking over the why, two players really stick out with Josh Smith and Al Horford both earning over 13.0 wins and playing at a “Star” level. Joe Johnson was a good Guard-Forward and then the rest of the team was nothing special. A 50 win team with two stars is an excellent start. The Hawks felt their team was pretty solid so in the offseason they really didn’t do anything. Was this a wise strategy?

Table 2: 2011 Atlanta Hawks, Status Quo

The Hawks stood pat in the off-season. Assuming their players perform about as well as last year then they will have a record almost the same as last year! I know that’s shocking analysis. But before Atlanta revels in its second chance at a 50 win season (and likely second chance at falling in round two to a much better team) we need to consider something. The thing to consider is called “Regression towards the mean”. To some of you savvy stats folk this will be familiar. To the rest of you, don’t’ worry I’ll explain.

The concept is pretty simple. Essentially if you do something over and over again you get an average (think handicap in golf). However, you may have an awesome day (or a really bad day). Guess what though? The next day you’re likely to revert to closer to your average. The reason this is important is Josh Smith and Joe Johnson.

• Joe Johnson 2004-2009 Averages: 3123 Minutes, 0.103 WP48, 6.7 Wins
• Josh Smith 2007-2009 Averages: 2647 Minutes, 0.126 WP48, 7 Wins

Leaving out both Joe Johnson and Josh Smith’s rookie and sophomore seasons and just looking at their averages we see Joe Johnson has been a very average player and Josh Smith has been an above average player. Last season Joe Johnson was good and Josh Smith was amazing. The optimistic in us can believe that they’ve both upped their game and the Hawks will be winning 50.0 games for the foreseeable future. The realist in us can believe next year both players may come down to earth. Another problem is that in the offseason the Hawks acquired Jason Collins and Etan Thomas, who were both terrible last season. They also kept Josh Powell around. In short they have three very bad tall players. This is apparently a bad idea.

• Etan Thomas 2010: 321 Minutes, -0.141 WP48, -0.9 Wins
• Josh Powell 2010: 581 Minutes, -0.164 WP48, -2.0 Wins
• Jason Collins 2010: 115 Minutes -0.352WP48 -0.84

Even if these players’ minutes some how are offset by some of the rookies on the Hawks, there is a danger these three players will actually hurt the Hawks wins. How do the Hawks look with a slightly deflated Joe Johnson and Josh Smith paired with some terrible bench players?

Table 3: 2011 Atlanta Hawks, forced landing

Uh-oh! This team is starting to look more human. If Miami and Chicago claw into the top four (as many are predicting) then Atlanta looks set to be best of the worst in the East. Josh Smith and Al Horford are very good players and should be built around. The issue now is that neither is a top tier player. If the Hawks want to be competitive they need to surround these players with more talent. What did they do instead? They signed an aging average guard-forward to a long expensive contract. Apparently they are also focusing on Jamal Crawford. What do we notice here? He is also an aging average guard. The Hawks should be focusing on Horford and Smith and surrounding them with talent. Instead they are focusing on guards that shoot a lot. Next season they can hope that Johnson and Smith keep their legs. This gives them a repeat of last year. Long term they can hope Horford will sign for less than he’s worth and that someone will be silly enough to trade for Joe Johnson. Otherwise the Hawks will disappear out of the East.

-Dre

Reviewing and Previewing the LA Clippers

Table 1: 2009-2010 Los Angeles Clippers

When I first looked at the Clippers regular season record I put them in perspective. They finished 3^rd in their division. There were 8 teams worse than them (New York loses the tie breaker, because I say so). With all that said this team was bad. In fact according to the stats they were worse than they appeared. Last year the Clippers should have won around 24 games. This put them in solid lottery territory. Let’s refresh your memory about the Clippers of last year before we move onto more optimistic times.

Backcourt: Starting off their review solidly the Clippers did in fact employ two above average players in Baron Davis and Steve Blake. The bad news is Steve Blake’s minutes were limited (more on that in a second) and he left at the end of the season. Eric Gordon had a pretty unspectacular rookie sophomore (thanks Sportsfanatic!) season, but at least put up positive numbers. The rest of the guards sadly combined for over -3 wins. That’s right if a player not named Blake,Davis or Gordon was in at guard it was costing the Clippers.

Wings:It looks like this team had no chance to fly with their wings clipped (I had more puns I could have used, be thankful I settled on that one) Travis Outlaw was the only wing to not lose the team games while on the court. I am pretty sure the way to win games is not to spot your opponent a player and play four on five.

Big Men:Drew Gooden and Marcus Camby actually put up solid numbers. For Camby solid is an understatement. While in the Clippers employ he was playing better than any player in the league not named Lebron. Sadly this wasn’t enough to help this flailing team and in an act of mercy they shipped him to a contender. Sadly even these two players (that never actually played together) couldn’t stop the rest of the bigs from being below average. Kaman was also a surprising disappointment netting basically no wins for the team. Somehow he got an All-Star game for that (something Camby has never received).

The biggest part of the Clippers’ “success” last year was Camby. With him gone how do they fair? Let’ present two scenarios. In the first the players from last year play stay the same. Griffin enters the league and puts up minutes but is just average. Finally any unknowns (there are quite a few rookies on this team) combine for zero wins.

Table 2: 2010-2011 Los Angeles Clippers, bleak outlook

Well the good news is that this team would crack 20.0 wins and probably prove my brother wrong. Daniel thinks this team will have the worst record next year. Sadly, this team wouldn’t be anything special and would in fact take a step back from last year. A big problem remains the wings. As I said, I don’t think you can essentially leave out a position completely and hope to be successful. If Kaman stays as bad as he was then that is essentially playing 3 on five with two average players (Davis and Griffin) and two “half players” in Gordon and Gomes. Of course there is no depth on this team either, so the outlook for the Clippers with their one playoff series victory (guess who that happened against) does not seem good.

Now as a reader over at the Wages of Wins Journal kindly pointed out, the offseason is a time for optimism. Let’s give the Clippers another try. What if Griffin hits the ground running, plays like rookie of the year and is twice as good as an average player? What if Kaman gets some of his form back. I can’t realistically even put him at average, but heck even 75% of an average player would be a boost. Let’s also let Davis, Gordon and Jordan show a little growth. We can call it chemistry. Last but not least I’ll even entertain a crazy notion that the bench of rookies somehow plays average with their limited minutes. To make it clear, I am stretching a lot here to help the Clippers. What happens then?

Table 3: 2010-2011 Los Angeles Clippers “happy” outlook

This would be an improvement over last year. Pretty much the Clippers would just salvage some pride. The fact is that this team does not have much hope going into next year. It’s possible Blake Griffin will play like a star and win Rookie of the Year. It’s possible Kaman will get an All-Star spot again. What won’t happen is the Clippers winning more than forty games. Luckily for Clippers fans, this is nothing new.

-Dre

The Stats

• All basic NBA stats, including play time and salary are from Basketball-Reference
• The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) metric is the work of John Hollinger. The exact numbers are taken from Basketball-Reference. (***Warning***: Read this before attempting use
• The Win Shares (WS and WS48) metric is based on the work of Dean Oliver and Bill James. It is implemented by the fine folks at Basketball-Reference.
• The Wins Produced (WP and WP48) metric is the work of Berri and Schmidt. I use the Automated Wins Produced site, which is powered by data from Basketball-Reference and Yahoo Sports.