A few months ago the Cleveland Cavaliers were contenders.  Then LeBron James – and his 27.2 Wins Produced– left for Miami.  And even though Daniel Gilbert promised a title in Cleveland before LeBron and the Heat win a championship, NBA observers expected the Cavaliers to be much worse without King James. 

But after 10 games in 2010-11,the Cavaliers are actually 5-5.  And Cleveland is only a game and a half behind the Heat.  So apparently

• Cleveland isn’t quite as bad as people thought
• the Heat aren’t that good.
• Daniel Gilbert might be right.

Then again…

Okay, the Heat’s record is a bit of an illusion.  Miami actually has an efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of 11.6.  Such a mark is identical to the mark of the 1996-97 Chicago Bulls and second only to the 13.0 mark of the 1995-96 Bulls.  Yes, the Heat have been very good.  And this has been achieved without Mike Miller (so the Heat could get better).

Just like the Heat, the Cavaliers record is also a bit of an illusion. Unfortunately for fans of the Cavs, the won-loss record actually overstates how good this team has been.  Currently the Cavaliers’ differential is -2.8.  Such a mark is consistent with a team that will win about 34 games across an 82 game season.  And that mark currently ranks 10^th in the Eastern Conference.  So although the Cavs would be in the playoffs if the season ended today, the team’s efficiency differential (a better predictor of the future than won-loss records) indicates this team will not be in the playoffs when the season ends.

Of course, that assumes that what we see after 10 games continues the rest of the season.  And of course, players can get better (and of course, they can also get worse).

As the season unfolds we will see who gets better (or worse).  For now, though, let’s move from efficiency differential to Wins Produced.  As the following table indicates (and these are my handcrafted numbers), the Cavaliers currently have five players – Daniel Gibson, Jamario Moon, Anderson Varejao, Antawn Jamison, and Ryan Hollins – who are above average (average WP48 – or Wins Produced per 48 minutes – is 0.100).

Relative to last year, two of these players – Gibson and Hollins – are performing quite a bit better.  In fact, Hollins was the second least productive player in the NBA in 2009-10.  So Hollins producing at an above average rate (okay, 0.102 is only slightly above the 0.100 average mark – but this is Hollins, so cut him some slack!) is quite a bonus.

Unfortunately, Hollins entered this season with 2,384 minutes of NBA experience and he had never posted numbers for a season in the positive range.  Gibson has been consistently been in the positive range.  But in 5,616 minutes of NBA experience Gibson had never had a season where he was above average.  If both Hollins and Gibson revert to form, then the Cavaliers will decline across the remaining 72 games this season.

Even if that doesn’t happen, though, the Cavaliers have clearly declined from last year.  Going forward it’s clear what this team needs.  It is difficult for a team to contend when its most productive player posts a WP48 mark that is below 0.200.   If your most productive player offers so little (and Gibson’s WP48 is only 0.187 and he is on pace to produce just 9.1 wins), all of the remaining players on your team have to average a WP48 of 0.141 for the team to win 60 games.  The Cavs do have five players who exceed this threshold. But the team also has eight players who do not reach this level. 

So going forward, the Cavaliers could find a whole collection of players who can produce at an above average rate.  Or the team can find one player (or maybe two players)  – like a LeBron James – who can produce at a rate beyond 0.300 or 0.400.

Until either happens, the Cavaliers are not going to contend for a title. And the odds are, Gilbert will continue to be wrong about Cleveland’s chances to win a championship.

- DJ 

P.S. If you want to see Wins Produced numbers for every team, check out the WP numbers from Andres Alvarez.  These numbers are being updated every morning.  And check out all the blogs in The Wages of Wins Network for additional stories on the NBA.

Joe Dumars – general manager of the Pistons – recently offered some thoughts on why the Pistons have struggled in 2010-11.  According to Dumars, the problem is an “inability to close out games”, which is related to the number of new faces employed by the Pistons. 

Of course, the Pistons – relative to last year – only have two new faces (Tracy McGrady and Greg Monroe).  But only five players remain from the 2008-09 team.  And there are only three players left from the team that took the title in 2004 (and none from the team that won the title in 1990).  Yes, if you go back far enough you can discover that these players are entirely new to the Pistons.

Okay, I think you can guess that I disagree with the story Dumars is offering.  For a story I find to be more agreeable, let’s turn to the words of Ben Gulker.  Ben recently started a blog – Pistons by the Numbers – that uses Wins Produced to examine the Pistons.  His latest post – reprinted below – offers a more objective assessment of the current state of the Pistons (and yes, he fails to focus on the ability to “close out games” and “team chemistry”).  Keep in mind that this was written before the Pistons failed to “close out” the Golden State Warriors (a team that also has many new faces) on Monday night (for the most current WP numbers, please refer to the automated numbers provided by Andres Alvarez):

Update: Ben has also noted the problems with what Dumars has recently said.  

- DJ

One week into the young season, this team looked like it could lose all 82; in the midst of that dismal beginning, I offered some analysis that suggested the Pistons might win 34 games (or be a .415 ball club). After 10 games, the Detroit Pistons are 4-6 (or a .400 ball club). Yes, the sample is small, but our record thus far corresponds with what I anticipated in terms of winning percentage and record. However, the performances of individual players doesn’t, at least not in every case. Here’s what the Automated Wins Produced Numbers tell us about the players’ performance through 10 games.

I thought an interesting approach to reviewing the team after 10 games would be to revisit some of my thoughts about individual players to see what I got right and what I got wrong. Complete box score stats here, courtesy of Basketball-Reference.com.

Rodney Stuckey: Will the real Rodney Stuckey please stand up? Or thinking pessimistically, is he already standing? After a blistering start, Stuckey has regressed significantly. While what we’ve seen on the whole is better than what we’ve seen historically (at least a little bit anyway), the past several games have been relatively poor – and that up and down play is something that’s plagued Rodney his entire career. Three games of brilliant play followed by seven of mediocre or worse.

Austin Daye is not a PF. He’s playing most of his minutes out of position (in spite of the automated numbers having him at SF 49% of the time), and he’s struggling mightily. It would be nice to see him get minutes at SF and SG, but that seems unlikely to happen barring a major roster overhaul. I’m still optimistic about his future, and he has dug himself out of the negative range of late. Still, it’s not what I expected.

Ben Gordon is playing some of the best ball of his career and certainly the best we’ve seen from him as a Piston (barring the start of last season pre-injury). My only concern with Gordon is that his spike in productivity has been tied to almost superhuman shooting percentages for a guard whose game is predicated on jump shooting. Can he keep burning up the nets, or will he eventually cool off?

Charlie Villanueva: in spite of shooting the ball and scoring very well, Charlie’s not having the career year I’d hoped for, at least not yet. This is largely due to the fact that he appears to have an aversion for rebounding the basketball, and rebounding – especially from your big men – matters.

Tracy McGrady has made me enjoy eating crow so far. He’s looked much better than I thought he could, and that’s been reflected in the numbers. Per minute, he’s been the second-best player on the team; unfortunately, he hasn’t been able to play big minutes, and it’s not clear if he will. In any case, I had him completely wrong.

Greg Monroe: after a miserable start, Monroe continues to play … well, not that good. However, he has been a much better rebounder than I anticipated, which is an excellent sign. He’s struggled to finish around the rim (and, well, from everywhere else, too), and he doesn’t look like he’ll ever be a shot-blocker. But he’s showed that he can and appears to have a desire to rebound the basketball, and that’s a good place to start.

Rip and Tayshaun: Ugh. I’m not sure what else to say. They look miserable on the court, both in terms of demeanor and performance, and the numbers don’t provide any consolation. As much as I’ve pulled for these players for the better part of a decade, it appears their time in Detroit is coming to an end quickly.

Ben Wallace: The Benaissance continues! That is all.

To conclude this rather lengthy post I’ll revisit the three questions that I think are key for the Pistons this season:

• Can our productive veterans (Big Ben and Tay) stay healthy and productive? Yes (!!) and no respectively.
• Can some of our new pieces (McGrady, Gordon, Charlie V) return to form? More than yes, more than yes, and not even close.
• Can even one of our young players (Daye, Stuckey, and I’m adding Monroe) take a significant step forward? Not yet.

- Ben Gulker

Who would you rather have, John Wall or Derrick Rose? 

Both players played one season of college basketball with John Calipari.

Both players were the first player chosen in their respective draft.

And both players are already considered by many people as star point guards.

But which player is more productive?

The two played each other on Saturday and Rose was somewhat more productive (despite not shooting particularly well).  But one game is hardly much of a sample.  What we need is a sample that is much, much bigger. 

For Rose, we have such a sample.  Rose has already played 167 NBA games, so we have some idea what kind of player he has been in the NBA.  As for Wall… well, his entire NBA experience only consists of eight games (a sample that is eight times bigger than a single game!).  And eight games isn’t much. But I am going to throw out the numbers we have so far (because those are the only numbers we have).

The following table reports what John Wall has done across his first eight NBA games.  It also reports what Rose has done this season, what Rose offered last season, and what an average point guard gives an NBA team.

The two players have many similarities.  Both players have been below average this season with respect to shooting efficiency and turnovers, about average with respect to rebounds, and above average with respect to assists and getting to the free throw line.  The primary difference is that John Wall is very good at getting steals and Rose is below average in this department.  As a consequence, Wall has so far been an above average NBA player (although in my conversation with Andres Alvarez and Arturo Galletti yesterday, Andres noted that Wall has been inconsistent). 

And Rose…okay, Rose is still about average.  Yes, I know. He’s an all-star.  He stars in commercials.  But his production of wins is about average (something I have noted before).  And this is because he has yet to be consistently above average with respect to any aspect of the game (besides taking shots).  This year – again, after just eight games — he is offering quite a few assists.  This production, though, is offset by poor shooting.  If he could offer the assists and better shooting, then he would be above average.  And if this happens, I would then say “Rose is now above average”.  For now, though, Rose is just average.

His team, though, is better than average.   As we can see below, this is primarily because of the play of Joakim Noah, Keith Bogans, and Taj Gibson (a trio that is projected to produce nearly 40 wins).  The team is also projected to receive 11.1 wins from Rose and Ronnie Brewer.  But the trio of Noah, Bogans and Gibson are leading the way so far (and Noah is easily the most productive player for the Bulls).

As of now the team is projected to win about 54 games.  This projection should go up

a. once Carlos Boozer starts to play.

b. if Luol Deng starts producing (as he has done in the past).

If the Bulls do manage to approach 60 wins this year, we can expect Derrick Rose to be considered a star by many more people.  After all, Rose is the team’s leading scorer (primarily because he has decided to take the most shots).  But if Rose continues to be average, the team’s success will still be about Rose’s teammates.

What about Wall? Unfortunately for John Wall, his teammates are not nearly as productive.  As the following table indicates, Wall is on pace to produce 12.0 wins this year.  The rest of his team, though, is only on pace to produce 7.0 wins.  Yes, without Wall the Wizards could be historically bad. 

And remember, Wall eclipses Rose because of Wall’s ability to get steals.  If Wall was average with respect to steals, Wall’s WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] would fall from 0.179 to 0.112 and his projected Wins Produced would fall from 12.0 to 7.5.  And the Wizards projected wins would fall from 19.0 to 14.6.

Those steals, though, have happened.  And if they continue – and if Wall continues to perform as we have seen so far (and yes, the sample is still just eight games) – then Wall will be above average and the Wizards will approach 20 wins.  The team can also be better if Andray Blatche and Yi Jianlian get back to what they were last year.  Yes, both players were below average in 2009-10. And yes, I think some fans thought each player was going to get better.  But both have been much worse.  If each can get back to just being bad, the Wizards might approach 30 wins. 

Of course, that assumes every player who has improved stays improved.  And that… okay, really we just have eight games. So we really can’t say too much.  What we can say is that

•  John Wall has been above average (primarily because he is good at getting steals).
• the Wizards have not been very good.
• and the Wizards will need more productive players if the team wishes to above average.

And if Wall stays above average once better teammates arrive – and Rose stays about average – then I think people will see Wall is the better player.

Of course, that is a bunch of ifs.  And Wall still has only played eight games (have I mentioned the sample size yet?).

Let me close by noting that neither Wall nor Rose are as productive as the top point guards in the game.  Recently Chris Broussard and Ric Bucher debated whether Chris Paul or Deron Williams was the “best” point guard in the game (insider access required).   Bucher took the position that Williams is better than Paul.  The numbers, though, suggest this isn’t even close.  Not only is Paul the most productive point guard (with Rajon Rondo coming in second), Paul is also the most productive player in the game (on a per-minute basis).  Meanwhile, Williams is not even the most productive player on his team this year (see the automated WP numbers from Andres Alvarez for each player’s Wins Produced and WP48 this season).

One reason Paul is so productive is that he limits his turnovers.  Andres Alvarez reported the following quote from Paul that illustrates his attitude towards turnovers:

“As soon as the game’s over, I want to know how many turnovers I had,” Paul says. “My job is to run the team and get us as many possessions as possible. When I turn the ball over I take possessions away from us.”

Perhaps someday Wall and Rose – who turn the ball over about twice as often as Paul – will adopt the same attitude.  And when that happens, we might say that Wall and Rose are among the top point guards in the game.

- DJ