Arturo Galletti – of Arturo’s Silly Little Stats (which are certainly not silly) – is a wizard when it comes to spreadsheets.  He is also fairly amazing when it comes to blog posts.  And this morning he figured out how to import one of his blog posts into this forum (and this means what Arturo does can now be easily re-posted here). 

What follows is Arturo’s review of the Cleveland Cavaliers.  And this means we only have seven more teams to review – via Wins Produced – before the seasons starts (and Arturo and Andres think we will get this done).

Jake Taylor: I play for the Indians.
Chaire Holloway: Here in Cleveland? I didn’t know they still had a team!
Jake Taylor: Yup, we’ve got uniforms and everything, it’s really great!

-Major League

The opening quote is from one of my favorite movies. For those who are not familiar with it it’s a movie about a plucky Cleveland team of re-treads, has-beens and never was who overcome all the odds to make it to the playoffs and face a hated and historically superior rival. For some weird reason, this seemed like an appropriate movie reference to serve as a narrative frame for my review/preview of the Cleveland Cavaliers. (go here for the Basics if you’re new here)  

The villian of the piece

The Cavaliers in 2009-2010

Harry Doyle: Just a reminder, fans, comin’ up is our “Die-hard Night” here at the stadium. Free admission to anyone who was actually alive the last time the Indians won a pennant. -Major League

“Now, I make fun of Cleveland because everybody makes fun of Cleveland. I mean, every country has one city that people make fun of. In Russia, we used to make fun of Cleveland.”— Yakov Smirnoff 

Recently Forbes did a poll of the most miserable cities in the US. Unsurprisingly, Cleveland won but other than that It’s been a long time for Cleveland fans. 1964 and the Browns was the last title but since then it’s been a long and torturous journey. Unlike Cubs fans, Hawks fans and Lions fans whose teams toil away in obscurity and mediocrity, Cleveland get to suffer the ignominy of good to great teams that never,ever get a break and can never vanquish their tormentors. Sometimes it was Elway with the drive, sometimes Jordan with a shot, sometimes it was Art Modell upping the team to Baltimore (and driving Belichek to New England) and once it was Edgar Renteria. But this one probably hurt the most.

Local Boy makes good is an old story. It’s well know that Lebron is an Ohio native. He willed his team to the 2007 finals but management didn’t get him enough help. But this version of the Cavaliers was finally supposed to have all the pieces around LeBron necessary for a championship run. Cleveland won 61 games last season and 66 the year before. To put this in perspective, the Cavaliers are only the second team to win sixty games two years straight and fail to make the NBA finals (the other team was Lew Alcindor’s 1972 & 73 Bucks (63 wins and 60 wins), a team which ran into the 1972 & 73 Lakers (69 wins and 60 wins) and won the 1971 title and lost in seven in the finals in 1974). This team made the finals in 2007 but they can’t point to any banners hanging in their stadium and much like Milwaukee before them they can’t even point to their superstar anymore.

Who were these Cavs? Let’s take a look:

This team lost 7251 of their minutes and 30.39 wins produced . On the surface by that math you would expect this team to drop precipitously in the standings. Lebron was the best player in the regular season and the playoffs according to WP48 and as you might have heard he’s in Miami now. So they lost the best player in the league and now they’re a 27 win team right? Not so fast there cowboy all hope is not yet lost. There’s still players to be added and minutes to be doled out before we come to a final conclusion.

The Cavaliers in 2010-2011

Board Member 1: I’ve never heard of half of these guys and the ones I do know are way past their prime.
Charlie Donovan: Most of these guys never had a prime.
Rachel Phelps: The fact is we lost our two best players to free agency. We haven’t won a pennant in over thirty-five years, we haven’t placed higher than fourth in the last fifteen. Obviously it’s time for some changes.
Board Member 2: This guy here is dead!
Rachel Phelps: Cross him off, then!

-Major League

The Cavs brought in four free agents and two rookies to replace the players they lost and a simple projection shows that their roster as built only gets the to about 31.1 wins. A more complicated projection (see here for detail on how this was done) look like this:

So after I figure in some development for the players and logically allocate the minutes the Cavs look like a 36 win team and the good news is that’s probably good enough for an eight seed in the playoffs. The scrappy team will make a run at the playoffs. Sadly the bad news is that as is Cleveland’s birthright, the villian of the piece, Lebron and his new cohorts, the Heat, await to crush them. Because we all know an eight seed can never beat a one seed.

Beginning in 2006 each NBA team was reviewed each summer via Wins Produced. With the season rapidly approaching, though, the reviews of the 2009-10 season are incomplete.  Prior to today, the following teams have not been reviewed in this forum: Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, LA Clippers, Miami, Milwaukee, New Jersey, New Orleans, Orlando, San Antonio.

Fortunately, Andres Alvarez – at Nerd Numbers the Blog – recently reviewed the Dallas Mavericks and San Antonio Spurs.  And I am going to repost these below.  For the remaining teams on the list… well, we will try and get something posted before the season stars.

Here is what Andres Alvarez had to say about the Dallas Mavericks.

This article uses Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] metrics shown in the books “Wages of Wins” and “Stumbling on Wins” to evaluate player performance.  Wins Produced is the total number of wins a player is responsible for in a given season. WP48 is the number of wins a player would win if they were to play a complete 48 minute game. These measures use three key components to evaluate a player:

• The player’s per minute box score statistics
• The player’s team’s per minute box score statistics
• The average performance at the player’s position(s) (PG, SG, SF, PF or C)

A full explanation can be found here. To give a general scale, an average player has a WP48 score of 0.100. The very best players in the league usually have a WP48 over 0.300. To put this in perspective; an average starter who plays a full season at 36 minutes a game would generate around six wins for their team.  In contrast, a player posting a 0.300 WP48 would generate more than eighteen wins in this time on the court.

The Utah Jazz, Phoenix Suns and Dallas Mavericks have a bittersweet trait in common. These teams all were considered juggernauts and contenders at one point and yet all somehow came away empty handed. The Jazz days are long gone and the Phoenix sun has probably set. With Cuban at the helm Dallas continues to make moves to try for that ever elusive championship. Last year they were second in the conference and their playoff hopes looked bright. Unfortunately they were upset in the first round by a bitter rival. Let’s look at last season and also how this season is stacking up for our German Cowboys.

Table 1: 2009-2010 Dallas Mavericks

There are a few important facts to point out about the 2009-2010 Mavericks. The first and most important is that Jason Kidd is carrying this team. For the last thirteen years Jason Kidd has played at least 2400 minutes a season and had a WP48 of at least 0.250 (the “superstar” threshold”). Last year was no exception as he carried the Mavericks. The second fact to accept is that Dirk has gotten old. He is still a good Forward-Center, which is a valuable thing to have. I would wager his MVP days are over though, which is a fact the Mavericks clearly did not accept when they gave him a lucrative contract in the offseason. The final note is that according to the stats the Mavericks over-performed last year. Their record was six games stronger than what their raw stats put up. This is not to say this team was bad, in fact the numbers put them near 50 wins, which is the very definition of a good team. The point is that their playoff run was not as big of a surprise as it would seem.

Other than resigning Dirk the Mavs have not done too much in the offseason. To be fair the big move by the Mavericks was last year’s trade deadline acquisition of Butler and Haywood. A few years ago this roster would have been a monster. Sadly I don’t think this year that will be the case but I do want to present two tables to you to mull over when contemplating next season.

Table 2: 2010-2011 Mavericks based on 2009-2010 Numbers

The first chart is actually a cause for celebration. Simply going on last season’s numbers the Mavericks could see a record that would have battled for the top seed last season. In short the window isn’t shut. This team is still relying on Jason Kidd to pull them along. Another key thing to consider is age. Only Barea and Chandler played over 1000 minutes last season and will be under 30 at the end of next season. While Chandler has been good, Barea has not. This team can’t really hope for improvement from much of their roster. Rather they are hanging on to hope that their top players don’t run out of steam. With that I have one last table to present

Table 3: 2010-2011 Mavericks with a weaker Kidd and Nowitzki and fewer minutes for Haywood and Beaubois

Let’s just throw a few tiny wrenches at the Mavericks. Let’s say age finally catches up with Kidd and keeps toying with Dirk and each player comes back at 90% of their previous season’s strength. Also, let’s assume Beaubois doesn’t get out of his boot (he has a broken foot) and barely plays next season. Finally let’s just assume Haywood drop to lower minutes due to injury and/or poor coaching decisions. These small acts could actually drop the Mavericks to not even making the playoffs if the West is as strong next year as it was this last year. The point is that the Mavericks roster is very fragile as constructed, essentially relying on Kidd, Dirk and Haywood to carry the load. These are older players and in Haywood’s case they have injury concerns. As such the Mavericks will probably be a good team but to be great will depend largely on getting some lucky breaks. If they happen to be unlucky they can join Houston and Portland as teams with a lot of skill on paper but hampered by injuries and circumstance.

I do want to close with some positive thoughts. Butler had a bad year last year. If he even returns to average it will be a great help to the team. Beaubois was terrific in the 700 minutes he played last year. If he can recover from injury and play major minutes it could be a huge boost. This of course will be difficult as he is younger, injured and Terry may get preferential treatment for Shooting Guard minutes. Finally if Kidd can keep it up for one more year the Mavericks have a shot. Not a great shot as even if they weather the West a superior Magic or Heat will likely be waiting, but they do have a shot. I’m betting the follow the Jazz and Suns route of never getting the title, but at least they’ll go down swinging.

And here is what Andres had to say about the San Antonio Spurs.

Let’s start by talking about what the Spurs did last year. In a “surprise upset” the Spurs beat the Mavericks to give hope that the old Spurs dynasty had some life left in it. Of course the next round saw them get trounced pretty convincingly. The upset in the first round is misleading for two reasons. The first is that the West has been a very tight place the last few years. The Spurs had a 50-32 record last season and still found themselves in the bottom half of the seed chart. The other reason is that the Mavericks were worse than they appeared and the Spurs were better than their record indicated.

Table 1: 2009-2010 San Antonio Spurs

Tim Duncan returned to his amazing form and with fellow star Ginobli he lead the charge for the Spurs. Dujain Blair was an amazing rookie and looks poised to help form a new big three in San Antonio. Beyond these three it is hard to find much talent in the rest of the roster. Antonio McDyess played well but is now on the wrong side of 35 and has been playing limited minutes. Ian Mahinmi played well in limited minutes, but has since left for the enemy. Finally Tony Parker had injury concerns. In a healthier year this team could have vied for the top spot out west.

The Spurs have gotten old. Despite still playing like all-stars the question is how long will Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobli last? Another issue with age is Richard Jefferson. Years ago he was a good player. He’s a long time removed from that. Yet, the Spurs gave him minutes as if he was the best player on the team. In the offseason they could have let him walk but decided to keep him around. If age catches up with the Spurs and Jefferson plays significant minutes at forward then this team could lose its coveted 5 Star Rating (I’ve been watching a lot of Hell’s Kitchen lately)

Using ESPN.com’s trade machine to see who is currently listed on the roster for the Spurs brings some hope. Based on last year’s minutes the Spurs will have no choice but to play some of their younger players more. I have a few hopeful assumptions. Let’s assume Parker plays healthier and more minutes. Let’s also assume the Spurs play Splitter and Blair a good number of minutes. Finally, let’s assume Splitter comes in and is a good player. I don’t want to go super optimistic with Splitter, but if he is an above average Forward-Center then the Spurs are looking good.

Table 2: Spurs 2010-2011, Optimistic Prediction

The Spurs have a lot of young players and rookies on their team; James Anderson, Marcus Cousins, Thomas Gardner, James Gist, Curtis Jerrells, Gary Neal and Kirk Penney. They also have some players that played low minutes last year; Bobby Simmons, Alonzo Gee and Garrett Temple. Rather than try and predict all these variables I will list the best case scenario as the average of all of these players being half average. With some health, proper minute allocation and luck the Spurs could easily be a 60 win team nest year. I’m also happy this is close to some of Arturo’s projections. If Jefferson plays the SF more, he can actually be close to average and a front court of Duncan, Splitter and Blair bolstered by Ginobli is very potent. In short I agree Arturo’s assessment that this team is a contender. I do think Parker is probably right that the team as currently constructed probably only has one more year to win it all.

That’s the good news. However, it is important to list consider the bad as well. With that I’ve run the numbers with some different and more pessimistic assumptions. What if Parker doesn’t regain his old form? What if Splitter comes in and is not that good? What if the Spurs get nothing from their bench? Finally, what if all the 30+ year olds on the team come back at 90% strength from the previous year?

Table 3: Spurs 2010-2011, Pessimistic Prediction

With some bad breaks the Spurs could drop below the 50 win for the first time in a decade. A lot of this team rests in two equally frightening places. The first is that the older stars will play well, and it is always frightening to trust older players. The next is that Blair and Splitter will be able to step up and help the team out. Of course, in the grand scheme of things having aging stars and young inexpensive big men are problems most teams would love to have. The Spurs should still be a playoff team next season, the question is if they will be a contender or a fading star.

-Andres Alvarez

 Stats used

• All basic NBA stats, including play time and salary are from Basketball-Reference and ESPN.
• 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.

The Milwaukee Bucks won 46 games in 2009-10.  This result was a surprise to the pundits, who expected the Bucks to be among the worst in the NBA.  So how is it the NBA came to “Fear the Deer”?

 Ty Willihnganz at Courtside Analyst summarized Milwaukee’s 2009-10 season last April with the following comment: Berri and I and BucksNation were all right

Last night the Milwaukee Bucks clinched a playoff spot.

On October 29, 2009, a certain author of a certain book you ought to purchase and read sent me the following email, Subject lined “Bucks forecast?”:

Hi Ty,

What is your forecast for the Bucks right now? Still think they are going to be good? The consensus is they are very bad, but I don’t see that in the numbers.

I didn’t see it in the numbers either.  And I said so at the time.  And the readership here was with me, and now we have been vindicated. 

Skiles rules, the Bucks rule, and BucksNation rules.  And this should teach us all something about the reliability or credibility of the national press corp. 

In the summer of 2009, the pundits argued the Bucks would be one of the worst teams in the NBA.  Ty and I thought otherwise. And when you look at the numbers from 2009-10 – in the table below — you can see why Ty and I did not think the Bucks were going to be among the NBA’s worst last year:

A simple look at the past numbers suggested that the Bucks would win about 35 games last year.  And this forecast is artificially low because the only numbers we had on Ersan Ilyasova were from 2006-07 (his only prior NBA season when he was quite bad).

Why did the pundits think the Bucks were going to be extremely bad?  Once again the problem is with the perception of scoring.  The Bucks only won 34 games in 2008-09.  And then Richard Jefferson (19.6 points per game) and Charlie Villanueva (16.2 points per game) departed.  Furthermore, Michael Redd (21.2 points per game) was injured and there was some question if he could play the entire season (he ultimately only played in 18 games). With all these scorers departing (or not contributing), the pundits thought a 34 win team was about to get much worse.

Ultimately the leading scorer on the Buck was John Salmons (19.9 points per game). But Salmons wasn’t there at the beginning of the season.  If you look at the players who were there from the beginning, the leading scorer was Andre Bogut.  And Bogut only averaged 15.9 points per game.  So as the pundits expected, the Bucks did not have a dominant scorer for much of the season.  Still, this team was not horrible.

To understand why, we need to look at all the stats (via Wins Produced).  And when we take this step it was clear the Bucks were not going to be horrible in 2009-10. Bogut, Carlos Delfino, Luke Ridnour, and Luc Mbah a Moute had all been productive players in 2008-09.  And since NBA players (relative to what we see in the NFL and MLB) are quite consistent across time, it was reasonable to expect these players to produce win in 2009-10. 

That is what happened.  This quartet produced 29.4 wins last year.  So even if we only look at these four players, we would have expected the Bucks to be better than the 14^th best team in the Eastern Conference (where ESPN.com placed the Bucks) or the 28^th best team in the NBA (where Chris Mannix at SI.com ranked the Bucks).

What about this next year?  The pundits have seen the Bucks were a playoff team last year.  And the Bucks have not lost any major scorers.  So the pundits seem to think the Bucks will be about what they were last year.

What if we turn to Wins Produced?  As the Bucks story last year demonstrated, forecasting the NBA is easy. Right?

Well, before we get too smug, let’s look at some forecasts.

Let’s start by noting that this year the pundits and Wins Produced seem to agree with respect to the Bucks.  Ty Willihnganz projected the Bucks twice (see HERE and HERE) and each time concluded the Bucks can expect to win about 46 games in 2010-11.

Ian Levy – at Hickory High (the latest member of the Wages of Wins Network — and past contributor in this forum) — utilized Wins Produced to forecast every team in the NBA.

As you can see, Ian concludes the Bucks can expect to win 45 games next year (Ian also has an Expected Point metric that looks quite interesting – and I hope to talk about this in the future).           

Ian is not the only one to use Wins Produced to forecast this next season. Arturo Galletti is also busy forecasting.  And his latest (he is offering various versions) says the Bucks can expect to win 39 games.  So Arturo expects the Bucks to decline a bit.

Six or seven wins, though, are not that big of a difference.  An injury here or there can easily cause a team to decline by this amount.  Likewise, if Brandon Jennings improves (young players do this) then the Bucks can be better than Arturo expects.

One should note that Ty, Ian, and Arturo are not the only people who will be forecasting this next season.  And what we see from just these three forecasts is that even if people mostly agree on how basketball should be analyzed, forecasts will still differ somewhat. 

Maybe it would be better to do something similar to what Chad Ford does for the NBA Draft at ESPN.com.  Rather than forecast exact draft position, Ford focuses on Tiers.  In other words, some players are Tier 1, others are Tier 2, etc.. One would expect the players in the first Tier to be taken before the second Tier, but within Tiers it is hard to forecast. 

Looking back at Ian’s forecast, one can argue the NBA breaks down into the following Tiers:

Tier 1 (championship contender – 55 or more wins): Miami, Portland, LA Lakers, and Chicago

Tier 2 (homecourt playoff contender – or 45 to 54 wins): Orlando, Boston, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Dallas, Golden State, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, and New Orleans

Tier 3 (possible playoff contender – or 35 to 44 wins): Atlanta, Cleveland, Sacramento, Denver, Utah, Memphis, and Houston

Tier 4 (top lottery team – or 25 to 34 wins): New York (could be playoff team in weak East), Charlotte, Indiana, New Jersey, Minnesota, Detroit, and Toronto

Tier 5 (bottom lottery team – or less than 25 wins): Philadelphia, LA Clippers, and Washington

Again, this is based on Ian’s foreacasts. If we use Arturo’s forecast, we see…

Tier 1: Miami, Portland, LA Lakers, San Antonio, and Boston

Tier 2: Chicago, Orlando, Utah, Atlanta, Dallas, Golden State, New Orleans, and Denver

Tier 3: Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Sacramento, New Jersey, Milwaukee, Houston, Memphis, Cleveland, Charlotte

Tier 4: New York, Detroit, Toronto

Tier 5: Minnesota, Indiana, LA Clippers, Philadelphia, and Washington

Okay, there are some similarities.  But there are clear differences also.  And again, Arturo and Ian are using the same basic idea to forecast the teams (so maybe the Tier idea doesn’t really work). 

All of this illustrates something that I think needs to be emphasized. Even if we agreed on how to evaluate the past, projecting the future is still not going to be something we all agree upon.

And it also illustrates how I think that people looking to “test” Wins Produced might need to think of other tests.  For example, one could consider…

1. Is there a clear theory behind the model (this is not the same as … does the model produce results consistent with your prior beliefs)?

2. How well does the model explain what it purports to explain?

3. How consistent is the model across time?

And these are just some of the issues to consider.  For a semi-complete guide one could consider something I wrote about three years ago. 

- DJ

Sekou Smith at NBA.com has snapped.

While debating the merits of Al Jefferson over Carlos Boozer as the low post catalyst for the Utah Jazz, someone informed me that Jefferson’s numbers on losing teams don’t compare the stats Boozer put up in a winning situation in Utah the last six years.

I snapped. Seriously, I lost it.

When told that solid numbers on a bad team mean nothing, I couldn’t hold my tongue. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard.

Smith went on to make two arguments.

1. Numbers are numbers, and whether you are on a good or bad team these numbers have the same meaning.  

2. The Jazz will at least be as good with Al Jefferson as they were with Carlos Boozer.

Let me address the second argument first. 

Here are the career numbers of Al Jefferson and Carlos Boozer.

In terms of Wins Produced, Boozer has consistently offered a higher level of production.  In fact, in Jefferson’s best season – with Boston in 2006-07 – he offered a lower level of production than we see from Boozer’s career averages. 

What explain the difference? Three months ago Robbie O’Malley actually discussed this issue.  According to Robbie, the key difference is shooting efficiency.  Yes, both players can score. But Boozer gets more of his shots to actually go in the basket.  Consequently, Boozer has a bigger impact on team wins.

So moving from Boozer to Jefferson is not a step in the right direction for fans of the Jazz.   Yes, Jefferson is cheaper. And he is probably less of a headache (fans in Utah grew very tired of Boozer’s attitude).  But Boozer does produce more wins than Jefferson (and fans everywhere really like wins).

But is it the case that the production we see from Jefferson will actually decline because he is moving to a better team?  On this point, Smith is sort of correct (and sort of not correct). 

In both the Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins we discuss the subject of diminishing returns.   Economic theory – and the empirical evidence – tell us that as the productivity of a player’s teammates increases the production we see from the player will fall.  But the effect is small.

To see how small, let’s estimate how the move from Minnesota to Utah will impact Jefferson’s numbers.  Our story begins with what every player did last year with the Jazz and Timberwolves.

Carlos Boozer produced 16.2 wins last season in 2,673 minutes.  The remaining Jazz produced 38.9 wins in 17,083 minutes.  And this means that Boozer’s teammated posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.109. 

In contrast, Jefferson only produced 6.4 wins in 2,463 minutes.  Jefferson’s teammates played 17,316 minutes but only produced 8.9 wins. This means that Jefferson’s teammates posted a WP48 of 0.025.  So it is the case that Jefferson’s teammates were much worse than the players who played with Boozer.

Now what does it mean to move from a team where the players are quite bad to a team with much better teammates?

For an answer we turn to our study of NBA coaches.  This study considered the impact a variety of factors (beyond coaching) had on player performance.  The list of various factors we considered included the productivity of a player’s teammates, or more precisely, teammate WP48.  This study – across 30 years of data – indicated that teammate WP48 had a statistically significant and negative impact on player performance. 

The coefficient on this factor was -0.300.  And this tells us that the Jefferson’s WP48 should decline by 0.025 as he moves from Minnesota to Utah [-0.300 * (0.109 – 0.025)].

One should note that the change in the quality of Jefferson’s teamates is rather large.  And this impact appears somewhat small.  To see how small, consider how much Jefferson’s and Boozer’s numbers jump from season to season.  Boozer has been consistently above average – and except for seasons where he missed significant time due to injury – Boozer has been consistently above 0.200.  But movements of 0.025 in the WP48 numbers are not uncommon.

A similar story can be seen for Jefferson. With one exception, Jefferson has been an above average player who fails to clear the 0.200 mark.  Again, though, changes of 0.025 are not uncommon (three times we have seen a larger year-to-year change for Jefferson).

In sum, Smith is sort of right.  What we saw from Jefferson in Minnesota is probably close to what we will see from Jefferson in Utah.  In other words, Jefferson will probably be above average but will probably not be able to clear the 0.200 mark (and if he does, probably not by much). 

Unfortunately for fans of Utah, Boozer consistently did more.  Again, this is because Jefferson’s shooting efficiency has consistently lagged behind the mark we see for Boozer.  And that means that Jefferson will probably produce fewer wins than Boozer (and therefore, Utah will probably not be as good in 2010-11 as they were in 2009-10).

- DJ