Monthly Archives: November 2010

Are the Hornets for Real?

Posted on by
44

And then there was one.   Only one team has failed to lose a game in 2010-11, and that team is somewhat surprising. 

Last year the New Orleans Hornets only won 37 games.  Since the 2009-10 season has ended the Hornets have added eight new players.  In other words, only five players from last year’s team are still in New Orleans.  Nevertheless, one would not think that players like Trevor Ariza, Marco Belinelli, Willie Green, Jason Smith, and Jerryd Bayless would be enough to transform a team that missed the playoffs in 2010 into one of the top teams in the league.

And one would be right to think this.  Yes, the Hornets appear to be a better team in 2010-11.  The team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) of 8.4 is clearly better than the -2.6 mark seen last year.   But this improvement is really not about the players added.

To see this, let’s move from efficiency differential to Wins Produced.  The following table reports the productivity of the Hornets after seven games (these are “hand-crafted” WP numbers).   It also reports what we would expect if the players the Hornets are employing this year offered the same level of per-minute production seen in 2009-10.

If we focus on the team’s primary additions, we see that Ariza, Smith, Belinelli, Green, and Bayless are projected to produce 7.1 wins across an 82 game season.  These same five players would be projected to 4.0 wins had their performance not changed from 2009-10.  In sum, it doesn’t look like the team’s newest faces are responsible for the team’s improvement.

To see who is responsible we need to look at the first two names listed.  Chris Paul and Emeka Okafor are currently on pace to produce 46.3 wins.  Had these players maintained what we saw last year they would only be on pace to produce 26.3 wins.  So, most of this team’s improvement can be linked to the play of the team’s two best players. 

Now that we can see who is responsible for this team’s fast start we can now ask the big question: Should we expect Paul and Okafor to keep producing at this level?

Let’s answer that question by first noting why Okafor and Paul are so productive.  Relative to last season, Okafor is offering – on a per-minute basis – fewer rebounds, steals, and assists.  He is blocking more shots, but the key to his productivity leap is an adjusted field goal percentage of 73%.  One would suspect that this level of efficiency can’t continue. 

A similar story might be told about Chris Paul.  Yes, Paul may finish as the most productive player in the game in 2010-11.  But he can hold that position without maintaining his current leap (from — as noted below — his career best performance) in productivity.  More specifically, Paul’s productivity leap is tied to an increase in rebounds and a decline in turnovers.  In fact, in 239 minutes, Paul has only turned the ball over 12 times. 

Yes, that could continue.  And Okafor could keep hitting 73% of his shots.  But if we look at each player’s career, it seems unlikely.   

The following table reports what each player’s career production. As one can see, neither player has ever been this productive.

Okafor’s best season was the 2006-07 campaign where he posted a 0.563 ADJ P48.  If he offered this mark in 2010-11 he would currently be on pace to produce 11.3 wins, or about 3.6 fewer wins than we see reported above.  Chris Paul’s best season was in 2008-09 (and yes, he was amazing that season).  If he was producing at the level observed that season he would be on pace to produce 26.5 wins, or about 4.9 fewer than what we are currently observing.  So if Okafor and Paul revert to their previous career highs, the Hornets would be on pace to win 53 games this season.  And this mark is a shade below what the Hornets did in 2007-08 (the best team in Hornets’ history).

So are the Hornets contenders for the title?  At the moment the team is Paul, Okafor, and not much else (of the other players, only David West has played more than 100 minutes and posted an above average WP48 mark).  And the lofty efficiency differential this team has posted so far is primarily due to Paul and Okafor posting numbers beyond what we have seen at any point in the past. 

So if you think Okafor can continue to hit 70% of his shots and Paul can keep his turnovers per game below 2.0, then it is possible to believe the Hornets are title contenders.  If these numbers don’t continue, though, it seems likely the Hornets will come back to the pack of Western Conference playoff teams. 

- DJ

The Detroit Lions Are a Top Team in the NFC (Really)

Posted on by
16

The NBA and NFL are currently in a similar spot.  The Detroit Lions have played eight games and have a record of 2-6.  The Detroit Pistons have played eight games and also have a 2-6 record.  With the NBA, though, the sample is considered too small to reach a definitive conclusion (although I think I am pretty sure the Pistons are not going to be great this season).  For the NFL, the sample of games played represents half of the eventual population.  Yes, eight games is still not much of a sample.  But we are also not going to get much more, so let’s start jumping to conclusions. 

The Lions Are Immensely Improved

As noted, the Lions are only 2-6. Last year the Lions were 1-7 after eight games.  And in 2008 the Lions were 0-8 at the midpoint.  So the Lions have improved, but in terms of wins and losses the improvement appears modest.

In evaluating teams, though, we know that wins and losses aren’t the entire story.  For example, the Pistons have been outscored by seven points per game.  That suggests – as I indicated above – that the Pistons are not really that good this season.

The Lions, though, look much better when we consider margin of victory (MOV).  So far the Lions have scored 203 points while allowing 188.  In addition, Pro Football Reference tells us the Lions Strength of Schedule (SOS) ranks the highest in the NFC.   Pro Football Reference also has a measure – the Simple Rating System (SRS) – that combines MOV and SOS.  And according to SRS, the Lions – with a 4.5 mark — rank 3rd in the NFC.  Yes, the 2-6 Lions – according to SRS – are the third best team in the NFC.

Last season the Lions had a -14.4 SRS.   Not sure what the record is for improvement in SRS, but one suspects that a leap of 18.9 is pretty impressive.

And it is even more impressive when we consider the history of the Lions.  The Lions have not had a positive SRS since 2000, or the year before Matt Millen came to Detroit with a mission to destroy the franchise.  And the last time the Lions had an SRS that was as high as what we see in 2010, it was 1995 and the Lions were led by Barry Sanders; and before 1995 the last time the Lions bested the 4.5 mark was 1981 (when the team was led by Billy Sims).  In sum, although the Lions are only 2-6, this is actually one of the better Detroit teams in my lifetime (and yes, that in itself is somewhat depressing).

The QB Story

When we think about why a team succeeds or fails, we often look at the quarterback position. For the Lions, quarterbacks historically struggle.  And that is the same story this year. 

Matthew Stafford – the number one pick in 2009 — has only appeared in three games this season, after missing six games in his rookie season.  And when he has played, Stafford hasn’t posted amazing numbers.   Last season Stafford posted a 0.151 WP100 [Wins Produced per 100 plays]. Average WP100 in 2009 was 0.497, so Stafford was well below average.  This season he has improved this mark to 0.315.   Yes, it is better.  But yes, it is still below average.

Stafford – once again – has missed most of the season.  The quarterback who has taken the majority of snaps for the Lions is Shaun Hill, and he has done more than Stafford.  But as the following table indicates, Hill’s WP100 of 0.391 is still below average.

Although Hill is below average, he is still posting a higher WP100 than Brett Favre (the QB with the most experience) and Sam Bradford (the QB with the least experience).  Of course, quarterbacks are inconsistent (a point made in The Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins).  So these numbers can change (although they might).

For now, though, the top quarterbacks in the game – in terms of WP100 – are Michael Vick, Phillip Rivers, and Kyle Orton.  And it appears Tony Romo does a bit more than Jon Kitna (as Wade Phillips discovered).

One last note on quaterbacks… if we look at the difference between the NFL’s metric (QB Rating) and WP100 we can see who is the most overrated and underrated.  Topping the list of overrated quarterbacks is David Garrard.  Eli Manning should also be seen as overrated.  The list of underrated signal callers begins with Donovan McNabb and Mark Sanchez.

Again, this is football.  So these numbers will probably change.   Maybe that wouldn’t happen if NFL teams played 82 games, although I suspect the interaction effects are so large in football that even with a much longer schedule players would be relatively inconsistent (by the way, intereaction effects in the NBA are much, much smaller).  So if you don’t like where a quarterback is rated, wait a few more game.  By the end of the season this list might look quite different (then again, maybe it won’t).

- DJ

The Four Horsemen of Negative Productivity in Toronto

Posted on by
107

Andrea Bargnani is finally living up to the hype of being a number one pick.  So far this year he is scoring 19.0 points per game, a career high for the 5th year player.  In addition, he is…. well, did I mention that he is scoring.  Yes, it is a career high in points per game.  Unfortunately, he has not improved with respect to any other aspect of the game.  All he has done this year is take more shots from the field each game.

And this performance has led Devin Dignam  — of NBeh? – to offer the ultimate “Andrea Bargnani is a Bust” post.  This post notes that according to Wins Produced, Bargnani is not as productive as other players taken with the first pick in the NBA draft. A similar story is told when you look at Win Shares or the Player Efficiency Rating (two metrics that Devin doesn’t recommend).  When you look at scoring, though, Devin notes the story changes:

…something interesting happens when you sort these players by points per 48 minutes; all of a sudden Bargnani moves up to 7th place, ahead of notably better players like Dwight Howard, Greg Oden, and Andrew Bogut. As David Berri has mentioned over and over, the popular way of evaluating NBA players is by points scored, so it should be no surprise that so many fans (and certain GMs) have problems recognizing that Bargnani is not very productive. Casual fans are blinded by the relatively large amounts of points that Bargnani scores, failing to notice his lack of production in other areas – such as rebounding – or his shooting efficiency.

Let me build upon Devin’s Bargnani post with the follow observation about the 1-6 Raptors.  If we look at the automated Wins Produced numbers (provided by Andres Alvarez) we see the following players who have played at least 100 minutes and posted above average WP48 marks (average WP48 – or Wins Produced per 48 minutes – is 0.100):

Reggie Evans: 0.343 WP48

Amir Johnson: 0.250 WP48

Jarrett Jack: 0.165 WP48

Jose Calderon: 0.129 WP48

Sonny Weems: 0.107 WP48

Again, these players have all played at least 100 minutes.  If you look at every player on this team you find that only four players are not posting above average WP48 marks.  Unfortunately, these four – listed below — are all posting numbers in the negative range:

DeMar DeRozen: -0.056 WP48

Leandro Barbosa: -0.069 WP48

Linas Kleiza: -0.105 WP48

Andrea Bargnani: -0.110 WP48

What do these four players have in common?  These four lead the Raptors in field goal attempts per game.  Yes, these players are all like Bargnani.  Each player knows how to take shots. And each has been quite unproductive (and three of these players are starting for the Raptors, demonstrating once again that scoring gets you minutes in the NBA).

Currently the Raptors have an average WP48 of 0.071.  This mark is consistent with a team that wins 29 games across an 82 game season.  What if, though, the “four horsemen of negative productivity” could somehow find themselves offering nothing (i.e. WP48 marks of 0.000)? If that happens, the Raptors would find themselves on pace to win 45 games. 

So now we know what Jay Triano – head coach of the Raptors – needs to ask of these players.  “I am not asking you to be productive.  I just want you to try to give me nothing.  Please…”

One last note… yes, a 0.00 WP48 mark really isn’t nothing.  The “four horsemen….” are doing something.  They just aren’t doing enough to help the Raptors win basketball games.  And if that doesn’t change (and it is early, so it very well could change), Triano is not going to be coaching in Toronto for very long.

- DJ

P.S. And before anyone says it — and I am looking at you IS :) — if Bargnani were a small forward he would still be below average.  In fact, he has been below average for a guard this season. 

Sparky Memories

Posted on by
5

Sparky Anderson – Hall of Fame manager of the Cincinnati Reds and the Detroit Tigers – passed away this past week.  In the past it has been noted that NBA coaches don’t generally alter player performance.  And I have heard that some research indicates the same for baseball managers. Although this may be true, I can report that Sparky had an impact on my childhood memories.

Back in 1979 the Detroit Tigers began the season with Les Moss as their new manager.  However, after 53 games (of which the Tigers won 27), the managerial career of Moss was ended and the Detroit Tigers hired Sparky Anderson.  At the time I was nine years old and living in Detroit.  All I knew about Sparky at the time is that he led the famous Big Red Machine (I can still name the starting line-up of this team off the top of my head) to two World Series titles.  And all I knew about the Tigers is that they were generally losers.

My earliest memory of the Tigers was the 1975 season, when the Tigers lost 102 games.  The next year brought Mark “The Bird” Fidrych (who passed away last year).  The Tigers, though, still finished with a losing record.  In 1977 the Tigers also finished with a losing record (and also lost Fidrych to injury). The next season the Tigers had a winning record, but when your team finishes in 4th place it is hard to believe a championship is right around the corner.

A similar story could be told about the other Detroit teams. The Lions, Pistons, and Red Wings were not title contenders in the late 1970s.  In fact, my friends in Detroit seemed to root for two teams in each sport.  Of course we followed a Detroit team.  But we also followed some other team that contended for a title (for example, in football I followed the Lions and Steelers while my best friend followed the Lions and Cowboys).

When Sparky came to town, though, it was expected that this was going to change.  Sparky had won two World Series titles.  So I fully expected the Tigers to instantly become contenders.  

When I say “instantly” I mean that I expected the Tigers to start winning the moment Sparky arrived.  As a nine-year old I tuned into the first game with Sparky as manager (my family didn’t have a television, so that means I was listening on the radio).  The Tigers, though, lost.  And I recall being very upset.  How could the Tigers not win for Sparky?  Again, I really thought having Sparky on the bench would instantly change everything.

Of course, eventually everything did change.  The Tigers finished the 1979 season with a winning record.  And they continued to have a winning record in each of the next ten seasons.  Along the way fans of the Tigers got to see the magical 1984 season, where the team started 35-5 and went on to win the World Series.  And in 1987 the Tigers finished with the best record in baseball (but were eliminated by the Twins in the league championship series). 

After 1988, though, losing started to happen again.  Across the next seven years the Tigers only had two winning seasons. And after the 1995 season, the career of Sparky Anderson – the career leader in managerial wins for the Tigers – came to an end. 

From 1996 to 2005, the Tigers employed four different managers.  All four failed to bring a winning record back to Detroit.  That means from 1975 to 2005, the only managers who led the Tigers to a winning record was Sparky Anderson (eleven times and parts of a 12th), Les Moss (part of the 1979 season), and Ralph Houk (1978).  In other words, for much of the first thirty years I followed the Tigers, Sparky was the only manager who seemed to get the Tigers to win consistently.

So although that first game with Sparky didn’t work out so well, he ultimately led the Tigers to a number of wonderful seasons and many, many wins.  Now were these wins all about Sparky? Well, maybe not.  But Sparky is a big part of the memories I have of these teams.

- DJ