Back in September I was interviewed by Tom Sunnergren of Philadunkia.  At the time, I noted that there was more questions from Tom to be answered.  And I said at the time that I would get to those questions “this week”.  Okay, I really meant “at the end of the Fall semester”. 

Today the rest of the interview has finally been posted. These questions touch upon defense, position assignments, coaching, consulting in the NBA, how receptive the NBA are to statistical analysis, and which teams “get it”. 

Before we get to my answers, first read Tom’s introduction to this interview; an introduction that I think captures exactly why many sports fans are hostile to statistical analysis.

There is a lot of resistance to stats amongst the general basketball consuming public.  Well, not stats. New stats. We love the old stats. Points, assists, points…did I say points yet.  We just don’t like people telling us what they mean.  We like the power to control the narrative and we resent it deeply when nerds with quiet certainty wrest that power away from us.  “Why don’t you watch the games?”, is the only counter we can muster in the face of their overwhelming facts.

People hate, absolutely loathe, being proved wrong.  These same people have uniquely strong opinions about sports. And those opinions come from a position of knowledge.

Sports are probably the most complicated thing that the general public understands well, and for a long time, it was the subject area where the knowledge of the average follower most closely rivaled that of the experts, the practitioners.  I’ve read a little about Afghanistan, but I obviously don’t have anything resembling the comprehension of the place that, say, David Petraeus has.  I could though, I’m pretty sure, coach or GM a basketball team better than a lot of the guys who get paid millions to do it.  A lot of people could.

So getting proved wrong about sports, a thing we understand nearly as well as we give our selves credit for, makes people crazy.  One of the most enthusiastic perpetrators of this insanity is Dave Berri.

Berri –economist, professor, author, columnist, blogger– is the architect of win score, wins produced, wp48, and a host of other handy tools for understanding the why and how of basketball outcomes. A couple months ago he answered some of our questions on the Sixers (fyi, he saw this start coming) and now he’s provided some A’s for our Q’s on some of the nitty gritty of his methods.

Berri makes us crazy after the jump…

A few weeks ago I discussed how the New Orleans Hornets – the last team to lose a game in 2010-11 – managed to improve.  Today – at the Huffington Post – I returned to this subject.  Why am I returning to this story?

In the latest issue of Sports Illustrated, Ian Thomsen spends three pages on this story.  And as I noted at the Huffington Post, Thomsen never appears to mention what I think is the most obvious explanation for the Hornets improvement (if you can’t guess what this is, please click on the link above for my story at the Huffington Post). 

Beyond the big story (again, detailed at Huffington Post), let me also briefly note that Thomsen also fails to mention the name “Emeka Okafor”.  A few weeks ago it was noted that Okafor had improved dramatically this year.  That improvement, though, was based on an amazing level of shooting efficiency.  After a few more games, Okafor has returned to form with respect to shooting and his overall numbers are now about the same as well. 

So Okafor isn’t why the Hornets have improved.  But other players mentioned in Thomsen’s article aren’t a big part of the story either.  The difference between Okafor and the rest of the roster is that after Chris Paul, Okafor is the second most productive player on the roster.  So one would think Okafor would warrant a mention in a 2,000 word article on the Hornets.

Essentially, it is what Thomsen failed to mention that seems to be driving this team’s success.  Now I am not saying the stuff Thomsen focuses upon doesn’t matter at all. But I do think the big part of this story is missing from the Sports Illustrated version. 

- DJ

Earlier in the week I noted that the Clippers were the worst team in the NBA.  Perhaps surprisingly, though, this team has a very good collection of rookies. 

Since posting this observation the Clippers have been on fire. Okay, they only won two games in a row. But one of these victories was over the Hornets. 

What is interesting (at least to me), is that the minutes played by the players has changed a bit over the last two games.

The first table below reports what the Clippers have offered – with respect to Wins Produced – after 16 games.  As noted, the team is currently on pace to win 22 games (a seven game improvement since earlier in the week).

The second table, though, indicates the Clippers could be better.  If we consider how minutes have been allocated during this amazing winning streak (of two games!), we see a team that could be on pace to win 35 games.

What’s the difference?  The promising young players are getting more minutes.  And the veterans who are producing in the negative range are spending more time on the bench.

Now part of this is due to injury. But it does suggest that the Clippers could be a bit better – than their 3-13 record indicates – if the team simply allocated minutes a bit differently. And maybe when those veterans depart – or if those veterans started to produce – the Clippers could become “dominant” (or “good”, or “not really bad”).

- DJ

Just heard a comment at halftime of ESPN’s broadcast of the Magic-Heat game.  I don’t know which analyst offered this thought, but here is what was essentially said: “What Raymond Felton is doing this year is not that impressive because any point guard will put up numbers in the system of Mike D’Antoni.”

Okay, here is a quick check of the WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of point guards who have played at least 500 minutes for the Knicks under D’Antoni:

2007-08

Chris Duhon [0.090 WP48]

Nate Robinson [0.125 WP48]

2008-09

Chris Duhon [0.069 WP48]

Nate Robinson [0.074 WP48]

Sergio Rodriguez [0.022 WP48]

So prior to this season, only Nate Robinson posted an above average mark (average WP48 is 0.100).  And Robinson was below average last year.

Entering tonight’s game, Raymond Felton has played 550 minutes and posted a 0.208 WP48.  Last season Felton played 2,470 minutes for the Charlotte Bobcats and posted a 0.159 WP48.  Yes, Felton is somewhat improved (although it is early).  But Felton was above average before he came to New York.  So I am not sure we can argue that he is above average just because of D’Antoni.  This argument is especially problematic given the performance of point guards in New York in 2007-08 and 2008-09.

Let me close by noting that the Knicks entered play tonight on pace to win about 39 games.  About 13 of these projected wins can be traced to the play of Felton. And about 15 can be linked to Landry Fields (and only three to the play of Amare Stoudemire).

- DJ

P.S. Hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving!!