My latest for Huffington Post discusses what Jerry West recently said about the Lakers.  For those who missed this story, the NBA’s Logo argued last week that the Lakers

• have a problem on defense
• and this is because the team is old

As I argued at Huffington Post, I think West is a little bit right and a little bit wrong.  And I think this whole discussion can be linked back to what was being said earlier this month.  Back on January 4^th I argued that rumors of the Lakers decline was greatly exaggerated.  This post appeared soon after the Lakers had lost four of six games.  And at that time, people were arguing the Lakers were in trouble.

Starting on January 4^th, though, the Lakers won seven consecutive games.  But in the past week, the Lakers have lost two out of four.  And now West is questioning this team. 

One suspects that each time the Lakers lose, people are going to argue the Lakers are in trouble.  And each time this team wins a few in a row, these arguments go away.

When we look at the entire season, though, this team seems to be about where they should be.  Specifically, if we look at the Lakers’ Wins Produced this year, and what we would expect given the performance of the Lakers’ players last year, we don’t see much difference.

As the following table notes, given what the Lakers have done across the first 45 games we would expect this team to win between 59 and 60 games when the season ends.  This is quite close to what we would expect given the player’s performance last year.  Specifically, last year’s per-minute performance from these players suggests a team that would win about 62 games this year.

Now a team that is going to win 60 to 62 games is going to lose 20 or 22 times.  That is simply how the math works.  And when this team loses, it is going to look bad.  It’s defense won’t look good and/or it’s offense will look bad.  That’s what happens when you lose.  But since those losses are expected, we shouldn’t be reading much into these losses. 

In other words, we should look resist the urge to look at data from one game or a small subset of games and then leap to a conclusion.  A better approach is to look at a much large set of data, say perhaps an entire season.  When we look at this much larger data set we see that the Lakers are actually pretty good this season.  Yes, this team is old.  And yes this team will some day be too old to compete for a title.  But I don’t think that some day is today. 

- DJ 

On Saturday night I watched Jimmer Fredette (who scored 42 points) and BYU defeat Colorado State (where Martin Schmidt, Stacey Brook, and I received our Ph.Ds back in the 1990s).  Throughout the broadcast I got to hear much about the greatness of Fredette.  And that led me to wonder, how good is Fredette?

Fredette currently leads the NCAA in points scored per game.  The mock drafts I have seen, though, only rank Fredette as a late first round or early second round selection in 2011.  For example, Draft Express currently lists Fredette as the choice of the Sacramento Kings with the 32^nd pick (which is similar to what we see at ESPN and NBA Draft.net).

Beyond consulting mock drafts, though, we can also look at each player’s numbers.  Specifically, Draft Express – which seems to have any number you might want to see – reports each player’s Win Score per 40 minutes (WS40).   To interpret these numbers, though, we have to consider positions played.  And here are the average WS40 for each position for each player drafted out of college from 1995 to 2009 (and I will update these numbers for 2010 at some point).

• Point Guard: 7.40
• Shooting Guard: 8.40
• Small Forward: 9.95
• Power Forward: 12.59
• Center: 12.32
• All Positions: 10.17

Prior to Saturday night, Jimmer Fredette had a WS40 of 9.6 (Draft Express says it is 9.9 after Saturday night).  Fredette is listed at point guards, so his PAWS40 (Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes) would be as follows:

Fredette PAWS40: [9.6 – 7.40] + 10.17 = 12.37

Again, average is 10.17.  So relative to the players drafted from 1995 to 2009, Fredette  has above average college numbers.  His WS40 last year was 9.5, so the numbers we see this year are not a one-year wonder.  But how do they compare to the other players who might be drafted next summer out of college?

To address this question, let’s look at PAWS40 for each of the college players listed in the mock draft at Draft Express.  There are 50 such players, and the following two tables reports where each player ranks in terms of the Draft Express mock draft and PAWS40.

The first table reports the players ranked in the first round (24 college players are listed in this group).  The second table reports the 26 college players listed in the second round.

Before we discuss the numbers, let’s repeat something said before.  There is a statistical link between college numbers and what we see in the NBA.  But these numbers do not predict perfectly.  In other words, players who are ranked low in PAWS40 are not guaranteed to be poor NBA players (although there is a tendency for this to happen) and players ranked high in PAWS40 are not guaranteed to be productive NBA players (although there is a tendency for this to happen).  The college season is only about 30 games long (and so far we are only looking at about half of that small sample) and even players from the top conferences are primarily playing against players who will never be in the NBA.  So it is not reasonable to expect these numbers to predict the future perfectly. But these numbers do give us something to think about with respect to these players.

Okay, with caveats in mind, let’s talk about the numbers. 

• Of the players ranked in the top 10 in the mock draft, the following are also in the top 10 in PAWS40:  Kyrie Irving (PG, 15.47 PAWS40), Jared Sullinger (PF, 14.17 PAWS40), Kemba Walker (PG, 13.97 PAWS40), and Marcus Morris (PF, 12.97 PAWS40).  Of these players, Irving has only played eight college games.  So the sample for Irving is very, very small. 
• And of the players ranked in the top 10 in the mock draft, the following are in the bottom 10 (i.e. ranked 41 or lower) in PAWS40: Perry Jones (PF, 7.17 PAWS40), Josh Selby (SG, 5.66), and Harrison Barnes (SG/SF, 4.99 PAWS40).  Of these players, Selby has only played nine games (again, that is a very, very small sample).  Barnes was listed as the number one pick by some before the season started and Jones has been listed by others as the first choice right now.  The PAWS40 numbers, though, suggest the NBA’s losers should think twice about drafting these players (but again, PAWS40 numbers are not a guarantee – so after thinking twice it might still be a good idea to take these players).
• If we look further down the list we see five names ranked in the top 10 in PAWS40 but not ranked in the top 10 in the mock draft.  Derrick Williams [PF, 13.87 PAWS40] is listed in the 11^th spot in the mock draft.  So Williams just misses the top 10.  Kenneth Faried [PF, 16.67 PAWS40], Markieff Morris [PF, 14.47 PAWS40], Rick Jackson [PF/C, 14.41 PAWS40], Justin Holiday [SG/SF, 14.09 PAWS40], and Kawhi Leonard [SF/PF, 12.90 PAWS40] are ranked further down in the mock draft. 
• Of these, Faried is a player who should generate quite a bit of conversation.  Faried is the subject of an article in the January 24 issue of Sports Illustrated.  As the article notes, Faried is a monster on the boards.  But he also plays at Morehead State.  So will he be a productive pro?  Well, rebounding is a number that translates from college to the pros.  In other words, players who rebound well in college – or don’t rebound well in college – tend to follow this pattern in the NBA.  Then again, players from bigger conferences tend to do better as well.  Faried is currently listed as a potential lower first round pick.  So my guess is that he has the potential to join a contending NBA team – and assuming we get a 2011-12 season – could be a factor for a 2012 playoff team. 

Let me close by noting that it is possible to find productive players outside the NBA lottery (so Fredette — the player who got this story started — might be a productive NBA player even if he is not taken in the lottery).  The most recent example is Landry Fields.  Last year Fields had a PAWS40 of 13.6, and yet was left off of most mock drafts.  As we can see at the automated Wins Produced numbers (from Andres Alvarez), Fields currently ranks second among rookies in Wins Produced (behind Blake Griffin).  When we consider WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes], Fields ranks first among rookies who have already played 500 minutes.   Looking at these same numbers, though, we also see that only three rookies – Fields, Griffin, and Ed Davis – have played more than 500 minutes and posted a WP48 mark beyond 0.120.  And that is consistent with a story also told before.  Rookies generally don’t help much.  So the NBA’s losers — despite what we see from a few rookies this year – should generally not expect the players we see in college this year to transform their NBA roster next season.

- DJ

On November 2^nd of 2008, the Pistons — the team I root for — were 2-0 and coming off a season when the team had won 59 games.  The next day, though, the Pistons decline began.  Chauncey Billups, Antonio McDyess, and Cheikh Samb were sent to the Denver Nuggets for Allen Iverson.  At the time, Joe Dumars – the president of basketball operations for the Pistons – was quite optimistic: “We just felt it was the right time to change our team.  Iverson gives us a dimension that we haven’t had here and we really think it’s going to help us.”

Before the 2008-09 season ended, though, Iverson had stopped playing for the Pistons (apparently unhappy with the idea of coming off the bench).  And when the season concluded, the Pistons had only won 39 games.

Iverson came off the books, though, and the salary cap space gave fans of this team optimism. Unfortunately, Dumars took that space and spent it on Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva.  With Gordon and Villanueva on board, the Pistons only won 27 games last year.  And this year hasn’t been much better.

The Iverson, Gordon, and Villanueva decisions have been discussed in this forum in the past.  What hasn’t been discussed (at least, I don’t think this has been talked about before) was another decision made in the same week Iverson was added to the roster.  On November 4^th of 2008, the Pistons agreed to a three-year extension with Richard Hamilton.   At the time, Hamilton still had two years remaining on a seven year deal he had signed in 2003.  So the $34 million extension didn’t start until the 2010-11 season.

The 2010-11 season, though, hasn’t gone well for the highest paid person on the Pistons roster.  On January 10^th, Hamilton came off the bench and missed all five field goals he attempted in a loss to the Chicago Bulls.  Since this performance, the Pistons have played five games and Hamilton – like Iverson at the end of his brief time in Detroit — has yet to leave the bench. 

At the time Hamilton was first benched there was some thought that he was about to be traded.  But now that the Carmelo Anthony trade that involved the Nuggets, Nets, and Pistons is reportedly dead, it doesn’t appear that Hamilton is going anywhere soon.  And this means the Pistons highest paid player (have I mentioned this fact already?) is getting paid a great deal of money to watch his teammates play basketball.

Here is how Rob Otto summarized this situation at MLive.com:

With the potential trade dead, now the team has lost the built-in excuse for benching Hamilton.  Now if he remains out of action, they are going to have to admit the real reason why:  because the Pistons are a better team without Rip Hamilton.

So what does the team do with him now?  It was a gift that the Nets were willing to take that horrible contract off of Detroit’s books.  I do not expect any other team to be willing to do that, although seeking that trade is exactly what Dumars has to try to do.  Good luck with that.

Are the Pistons really better off without Hamilton?  The numbers seem to agree with this assessment.  After 42 games the Pistons have won 15 times.  The team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) is -4.5; a mark consistent with a team that can win about 30 games across an entire season. When we move from efficiency differential to the team’s Wins Produced – reported below – we see that Hamilton has posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.025.  And since Hamilton has played 878 minutes, his Wins Produced this far is 0.45.  If Hamilton played as much in the second half of the season, he would still produce less than one win in 2010-11.

The team’s other options at shooting guard – Tracy McGrady (0.205 WP48 as a shooting guard), Ben Gordon (0.046 WP48 as a shooting guard), and even Rodney Stuckey (0.127 WP48 if he played shooting guard) are all more productive than Hamilton.  Will Bynum does offer an ADJ P48 [per 48 minute performance before we adjust for position played] below Hamilton’s mark.  But it does appear that Hamilton’s production this year doesn’t warrant him getting many minutes over most of the other options the team has at guard. 

Again, though, Hamilton is in the first year of his three-year extension.  And according to player salary information at HoopsHype.com, Hamilton, Gordon, and Villanueva are currently part of the Pistons’ future.  In fact, each is due to collect more than $33 million for the 2012-13 season.  This trio – if they repeated in the second half of this season the per-minute performance and minutes played observed in the first half of 2010-11 – would only produce 4.5 wins this season.  So that is not very helpful.  And at their age, it seems unlikely the Pistons are going to get more in the future.  When the 2012-13 season starts, Hamilton will be 34 years old while Villanueva and Gordon will be 28 and 29 years of age respectively. In other words, each player will have passed their peak; a peak that wasn’t really that impressive in the first place.

The shortcomings of Gordon and Villanueva have been discussed previously.  Let’s focus now on why Richard Hamilton isn’t that helpful.

These numbers indicate that Hamilton is above average with respect to getting assists, getting to the free throw line, hitting free throw shots, and taking field goal attempts.  He is generally below average with respect to shooting efficiency from the field.  But because he takes a large number of field goal attempts, Hamilton is an above average scorer.  And therefore – given how scoring totals drive wages in the NBA – we should not be surprised that Hamilton will be paid more than $100 million in his NBA career.

When we move past scoring, though, we see that getting shots from the field to actually go in the basket is not the only issue for Hamilton.  Relative to other shooting guards, Hamilton is also below average with respect to rebounds, steals, blocked shots, turnovers, and personal fouls.  Given all these deficiencies, it is not surprising that Hamilton has generally posted a below average Win Score [and correspondingly, a below average WP48].  And during his nine seasons in Detroit, he has only produced about 30 wins. 

Despite this production, though, Hamilton was still signed to a three-year extension that is supposed to pay him more than $12 million when he is 34 years of age.  And that means, the Iverson trade was not the only bad decision Dumars made during the first week of the 2008-09 season.  As Rob Otto notes, though, fixing this bad decision is going to be difficult.

Although the big decisions haven’t worked out so well for the Pistons, I think there is some hope for this team.  Greg Monroe – the team’s lottery pick – has been almost average for an NBA center (and slightly above average if he is a power forward).  So that is very good for a rookie.  And Tracy McGrady is playing well (for just $1.3 million). 

And that means… well, not much.

McGrady is 31 years old and even if he re-signed with the Pistons, he is still 31 years old.  Plus, Tayshaun Prince – who leads the Pistons in Wins Produced this year – is also a free agent (and 30 years of age).  Ben Wallace – who is third in Wins Produced [and about equal to McGrady in WP48] is under contract for next year.  But Big Ben is now 78 years old (okay, just 36). 

So the Pistons leaders in Wins Produced are old.  The team has guaranteed money to players who don’t produce.  But we do have one rookie who is above average.

Okay, I guess I don’t have that much hope for this team.  And no, a three-game winning streak doesn’t give me that much optimism.  As Dean Oliver noted in Basketball on Paper, there is a 90% chance that a team with a 0.300 winning percentage (a bit worse than the Pistons current mark) will win three in a row at some point in an NBA season.  So fans of this team shouldn’t think that benching Rip Hamilton suddenly solves all the problems with the Pistons.

- DJ

John Calipari – head coach of Kentucky – has made a living off of recruiting one-and-done players (think Derrick Rose, Tyreke Evans, John Wall, and DeMarcus Cousins).  The latest in this group is Terrence Jones.  Draft Express currently has Jones as the #7 pick in their 2011 mock draft (a pick they project will be held by the Detroit Pistons). 

Here is how Jonathan Givony – of Draft Express – described Jones last December for Sports Illustrated:

Rated the 10th best player in the 2010 high school class according to the RSCI, not many people expected Jones to be averaging close to 20 points and 10 rebounds per game seven games into the season. He’s elevated his draft stock considerably to the point that some notable evaluators now consider him a potential top-five pick.

Jones is one of the most physically gifted prospects in the nation, standing 6-8 with a chiseled frame and an outstanding blend of mobility and explosiveness. Spending most of his time at power forward in John Calipari’s dribble-drive motion offense, he’s a mismatch capable of creating his own shot from the perimeter and showing range out to the three-point line. Jones likes to mix it up inside the paint as well, showing the ability to score with his back to the basket and establishing himself as an absolute force on the boards.

With his length and athleticism, he projects as the type of player who can see time at either forward position in the NBA, which makes him attractive to teams that like to get out in the open floor. He’ll need to continue to improve his fundamentals on defense and show that his hot early shooting from outside wasn’t a fluke, but it looks like Jones is here to stay when discussing the best prospects in this class

And here is how Calipari describe Jones on Tuesday night:

During a timeout with 2:03 remaining after Kentucky squandered a late chance to tie the game, Calipari unleashed a string of curse words at Jones as he came off the floor, culminating by calling him “a selfish mother[expletive].”

The story reporting this outburst also noted….

The one-sided shouting match between Calipari and Jones was the culmination of weeks of frustration with the freshman forward’s tendency to take contested shots rather than look to set up his teammates for easier ones. Calipari removed Jones from the starting lineup against Auburn earlier this month and criticized him in the media this week, telling reporters “he’s not passing enough” and “he’s shooting every time” he touches the ball.  

Readers of the Stumbling on Wins can understand Calipari’s frustration.  Consider the following…

• Teams win when players shoot efficiently (rebounding helps also).  And that means players have to be willing to pass the ball. 
• However, players like Jones understand that their future draft position – and the size of their future paycheck – is primarily influenced by their scoring totals.  And that means that no matter how much Calipari screams, Jones is probably better off in the long-run by taking more shots.  

Yes, winning in the NCAA tournament is important as well (as discussed in Stumbling on Wins).  But let’s face it. Jones is not in complete control of Kentucky’s Final Four chances.  What he can control is the number of shots he takes.   And this is why – even if Calipari keeps screaming — Jones will probably keep shooting. 

- DJ

P.S. And yes, Calipari could bench Jones.  But if he treats Jones badly, will future one-and-done players want to play for Calipari?  In other words, in the long-run it might be good for Calipari to let Jones shoot as well.