The NBA season is ending tonight, so let’s talk college sports. 

Okay, let me explain.

Tomorrow I am going to be presenting a paper at the Western Social Science Association meetings in Salt Lake City.  The session I am part of focuses on the NCAA.  The other three papers in the session – from Jim Peach, James Webb, and Leila Pratt – will focus on general problems with the NCAA.  My paper – co-authored with Jennifer VanGilder, Rob Simmons, and Kaitlyn Myer – will focus on the role race plays in the drafting of running backs in the NFL draft.

I do have a comment on problems with the NCAA.  To see this comment, though, let me refer everyone to an article in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.  As Darren Everson reports, the DOJ (has been) Asked to Probe BCS Under Antitrust Law (DOJ is the Department of Justice). 

Here is how Darren’s article begins:

A group of law and economics professors and practitioners has asked the Department of Justice to investigate college football’s Bowl Championship Series under antitrust law.

In a letter, a copy of which was provided to The Wall Street Journal before it was made public, the 21 signatories assert that the BCS is a cartel that “secures market access and revenue” for its favored members.

The article focuses primarily on the content of the letter we signed.  At the end of the article, though, Darren reveals a question I ask my sports economics class each year on the first day of class.  And as Darren notes, previously everyone always got this wrong.  Will this happen again next fall?  We will see.

Since I will be in Salt Lake City tomorrow, there won’t be any posting on Thursday (at least, not during the day).  But my picks for the True Hoop Smackdown are due tomorrow night, so there should be some discussion of the NBA and the upcoming playoffs on Friday (I think).

- DJ

Back in February the Oklahoma City Thunder sent Jeff Green and Nenad Krstic to the Boston Celtics for Kendrick Perkins and Nate Robinson.  At the time of this move, I expected the Thunder to be much improved.  In fact, I argued the Thunder might now be contenders.  

Since this move, the Thunder have been 19-6.  The team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) has also improved from 2.6 before the trade to 7.3 since.  In other words, the Thunder are now contenders.

So how did this happen?

People have focused on Kendrick Perkins.  After all, Perkins won a title with the Celtics.  So he is a winner.  And having winners help teams win.  Right?

Certainly Perkins has helped.  But not because he has been “good”,  but rather he has replaced someone who was very unproductive.  As the following table indicates, Perkins’ WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] has been 0.067 with the Thunder (average WP48 is 0.100).  But since Perkins replaces Krstic – who had a WP48 of -0.056 – adding Perkins makes the Thunder better.

But I don’t think the Perkins addition is the only reason this team has improved.  At the bottom of the above table is Jeff Green.  Green’s WP48 is -0.033.  And with Green in Boston, the Thunder have been forced to start Serge Ibaka at power forward (Ibaka has started every game for the Thunder since February 25). 

As the above table indicates, Ibaka is the third most productive player on the Thunder for the entire season.  But let’s look at what’s happened since Ibaka moved permanently into the starting line-up.  The following table reports what the Thunder players have produced across the past 25 games:

Since the trade, Ibaka has been the second most productive player in terms of Wins Produced.  And in terms of WP48, he is leading the team.  In essence, the Thunder have managed to swap Green for Ibaka (certainly this is true with respect to the starting line-up)   Such a move has vaulted the Thunder from a team that would have had trouble getting out of the first round of the playoffs to a team that can now contend with the best in the West.

Let me close by re-iterating the other benefit of the trade.  As we have noted recently in this forum, productive players do help a team win games. But not playing unproductive players also helps.  Prior to the trade, the Thunder allocated nearly 3,000 minutes to players whose WP48 was in the negative range.  Since the trade the team has only given 114 minutes to these players. 

So yes, adding Perkins has helped some.  But the increased time given to Ibaka – coupled with the removal of very unproductive players from the team — has been the big story in Oklahoma City.  So next time someone goes on and on about Perkins in Oklahoma City, remember the name Ibaka (and also, where Green and Krstic are now sitting). 

- DJ

This post – like our podcast — is in two parts. The first part is from Andres Alvarez and details the podcast from April 10^th.  The second part is just a few links that needed to go up someplace (so why not make it part of a post with many links?).

Super Stat Team Assemble!

• Dre Alvarez from Nerd Numbers
• Devin Dignam from NBeh?
• Ben Gulker from Pistons by the Numbers
• Dave Berri from The Wages of Wins Journal

This week we decided to try a little something new and cut your weekly podcast into bite size pieces that can be found here.

• Super Stat Team Podcast Part 1 – 04/11/2011
• Super Stat Team Podcast Part 2 – 04/11/2011

If you’re interested in more you can also

• Try our RSS Feed
• Find us in iTunes

With that here’s a run down of some links that may make listening more enjoyable.

The Pistons

• Dave holds that Joe Dumars is trying to prove the Isiah Thomas school of thought is right.
• Devin sums up Joe Dumars managerial style well – Take the mystery box!
• What will Joe do with Stuckey?
• At least Greg Monroe is panning out.
• Should Detroit have let Ben Wallace go?

Dennis Rodman

• We discuss a Sport’s Illustrated piece on if Dennis really belongs.
• Were the Bad Boy Pistons really all about Isiah and Joe?
• We discuss Basketball Reference’s awesome Hall of Fame model a few times.
• Dave brings the George Costanza defense for some NBA players.
• My dog Mobius decides to voice his disapproval at Dennis Rodman making Hall of Fame.

The Hall of Fame

• Devin discusses his thoughts on the old “greats”
• Artis Gilmore got in, was he that good? Dave thinks he was.
• Sidney Moncrief was an agreed snub. Did someone else get the credit?

Of course we also talk briefly about how Derrick Rose is not MVP. Hope you enjoy it and as always leave your thoughts.

-Dre

And Now for More Links

• Mosi Platt – of the Miami Heat Index – is normally part of the podcast.  Although he missed this week, check out his investigation of the Denver Nuggets’ defense for the Bleacher Report.
• Jonah Lehrer – author of How We Decide (an excellent book on behavioral economics and decision-making) – has authored the following article for ESPN the Magazine: True grit: Quarterbacks need instincts more than smarts; why are some better at getting better?  The following should be familiar to readers of Stumbling on Wins:  Consider a recent study by economists David Berri and Rob Simmons. While they found that Wonderlic scores play a large role in determining when QBs are selected in the draft — the only equally important variables are height and the 40-yard dash — the metric proved all but useless in predicting performance. The only correlation the researchers could find suggested that higher Wonderlic scores actually led to slightly worse QB performance, at least during rookie years. In other words, intelligence (or, rather, measured intelligence), which has long been viewed as a prerequisite for playing QB, would seem to be a disadvantage for some guys.
• I should note that Lehrer did not actually interview me (or Rob) for this story.  It would have been great to talk to the author of one of my favorite books on behavioral economics, but I was still glad to see Lehrer quote our research. 

Speaking of focusing on the negative… let me close with another observation from behavioral economics.  The difficulty decision-makers have with selecting quarterbacks in the draft has been documented and discussed frequently in the past.  And of course, the story of Tom Brady illustrates this problem.  An ESPN documentary – the Brady 6 – details what happened to the quarterbacks selected before Brady in the 2000 draft.  What is interesting about this story is how Brady still remembers being passed over eleven years ago.  After all the success he has had as an NFL player, he still gets very emotional when thinking about having to wait until the 199^th pick to hear his name on draft day (check out the video clip “Brady Recalls Draft Day”).  Brady’s reaction is not unusual.  People tend to have stronger reactions to losses than they have to victories.  This is true for Brady.  It is true for Michael Jordan.  And it is likely to true for most everyone else.  

- DJ

The Spurs have clinched the best record in the Western Conference.  And they may finish with the best record in the NBA.  But despite their lofty status in the NBA standings, the Spurs have not been a frequent topic in this forum.  In fact, the last post dedicated to the Spurs was offered on the 3^rd of December. 

That post looked at the Spurs after just 18 games.  Now that 80 games have been played, what stories can be told?

The Spurs have won 61 games, but that record is a bit of an illusion.  The team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) is 6.3, a mark consistent with a team that would win about 55 or 56 wins in 80 games.  When we turn to Wins Produced, we see that these 55 or 56 wins come from a familiar source. 

• Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker have combined to produce 31.6 wins.
• Everyone Else on the roster has combined to produce 24.0 wins.

As I did back December, let’s take a similar look at the Spurs across the past four seasons.

• 2006-07: Duncan-Ginobili-Parker (43.9 Wins Produced), Everyone Else (19.2 Wins Produced)
• 2007-08: Duncan-Ginobili-Parker (41.2 Wins Produced), Everyone Else (12.4 Wins Produced)
• 2008-09: Duncan-Ginobili-Parker (30.7 Wins Produced), Everyone Else (20.4 Wins Produced)
• 2009-10: Duncan-Ginobili-Parker (31.7 Wins Produced), Everyone Else (22.8 Wins Produced)

The big three in San Antonio are on pace to produce about as many wins as we have seen in each of the last two seasons.  And if that was all the Spurs had, this team would struggle.  But Everyone Else on the Spurs is clearly helping.  Consequently, although the Spurs are not the “best” team in the NBA (in terms of efficiency differential or Wins Produced), this team does rank among the best.

The construction of the Spurs reminds me of a post offered this past week by Andres Alvarez.  As Dre noted in A Rose does not Equal Love, a team can’t just focus on the best players on the team.  A team also needs to focus on the worst players.  Specifically, a team can also improve outcomes by not hiring players who are very unproductive.

The team that illustrates this point in Dre’s post was the Chicago Bulls.  The San Antonio Spurs, though, also illustrate this observation.  An average player posts a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.100.  This season, the Spurs employ seven players – Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, DeJuan Blair, Tony Parker, Antonio McDyess, Tiago Splitter, and George Hill – who have posted above average marks and played more than 500 minutes.  And the Spurs have employed six players in the negative range.  But although these players have collected money from San Antonio, combined the negative players have only played 463 minutes.  In other words, negative players have mostly stayed on the bench for the Spurs this season.

Okay, the Spurs have done a good job building a title contender.  The team has a nice blend of productive stars and productive role players.  And although I didn’t have Dre’s observation in December, this is essentially what I said after 18 games (see why I never talk about the Spurs?).  So what can I say that hasn’t been said before (in this forum)?

Well, after 18 games, three more stories were offered:

• Richard Jefferson is above average again.
• DeJuan Blair is struggling.
• Tim Duncan looks older.

After 80 games, only one of these stories can still be told. 

• Jefferson is once again below average. 
• Blair is once again well above average.
• And Duncan – while still being the most productive player on the team – doesn’t look quite as good as he did in the past.

The play of Jefferson and Blair reminds us that small samples are a problem.  Again, after 18 games the story for Jefferson and Blair was not the same story we see after 80 games.  Although this is not surprising, it does seem like every season we start trying to draw conclusions before the season reaches the quarter pole.

As for the Duncan story, that story reminds us of the power of age.  Next year (assuming there is a next year), Duncan and Ginobili – the two players leading the Spurs in Wins Produced – will be 35 and 34 years of age respectively.  Although we can’t predict when age will ultimately end a player’s career, we do know that a player will eventually get too old to contribute at some point.

So although we don’t know if “some point” for Duncan and Ginobili is 2011-12, we do know that the Spurs need to find someone to replace these players someday.  Yes, you can help your team win games by not hiring and playing negative players.  But to contend for a title, you do need players who can produce wins in large quantities.  And that means, if the Spurs wish to contend again in the future, the team will have to find some players to produce wins in the same quantities it is currently getting from Duncan and Ginobili (and yes, I think I have told that story before as well).

- DJ

The Milwaukee Bucks finished the 2009-10 season with 46 victories, a mark good enough for the 6^th seed in the 2010 playoffs.  After such success (for Milwaukee, this was considered “success”), hopes were high for the 2010-11 season.  But now the Bucks have been officially eliminated from the 2011 playoffs.  And so the blame game has begun.

• Brandon Jennings is blaming his teammates and the front office. 
• And the front office might be blaming the coaches.

So who is to blame?

For an answer, we of course look at the data.

The following table details how the Bucks have performed in 2010-11. After 78 games, the team has won 32 games.  The team’s efficiency differential of -1.06 is consistent with a team that would win 36 games; or about 38 games across a complete season.  In other words, the team’s efficiency differential says Milwaukee should still be in contention for the playoffs in 2011.

Of course, even if the team was winning as often as their efficiency differential suggests, the team has still declined relative to last year.  Specifically, eight wins have vanished in Milwaukee.  So where did these wins go?

If we look at what these players did last year, we see a team that would have won about 42 games this year (or about 44 wins across the entire season).   That suggests the problem could be linked to the players – such as Andrew Bogut, Corey Maggette, and John Salmons – who have dropped off somewhat since last year.

There is, though, another issue.  Carlos Delfino, Ersan Ilyasova, and Bogut have combined to miss more than 50 games.  Had these players played more – and Larry Sanders (the only player to see more than 100 minutes of court time and produce in the negative range) played less – the Bucks would have won a few more games this year.  In fact, if these players had been healthy, the Bucks would have probably made the playoffs this year.

And if the Bucks made the playoffs, would Brandon Jennings be upset?  Would the jobs of the coaches be in jeopardy?

All of this suggests that people in Milwaukee do not understand what drives their success.  At least, if the issue is just injuries, then firing the coaches isn’t really going to help.

Of course, Jennings doesn’t seem to have a problem with the coaches. He has a problem with the people selecting the players.  But is this an argument Jennings should be making?  To understand this question, let’s talk about Mr. Jennings.

The Bucks selected Jennings with the 10^th choice in the 2009 NBA draft.  In his first season, Jennings was the only player on the Bucks to score more than 1,200 points.  Of course, he was also the only player to take more than 1,000 shots from the field.

This year, Jennings leads the team in scoring and field goal attempts per game.  And given the role scoring plays in player evaluation, it is not surprising for Jennings to think that the problem in Milwaukee is someone else. 

When we look at Wins Produced, though, we see that Jennings was below average as a rookie. And he is below average in his second season.  Across the past two season, the players in Milwaukee have produced 82.1 wins (with four games left this season).  Of these wins, only 6.7 can be traced to the play of Jennings.

Imagine if the actual production of wins from Jennings was consistent with his perception of his skills.   For example, what if Jennings had a WP48 mark of 0.200?  Then the Bucks would have already won about 44 games this year, or in other words, the Bucks would have already clinched a playoff spot.

So what can the Bucks do to improve in 2011-12 (assuming we have a season)?  Here are some suggestions:

• The team needs to keep the productive players on the court.  Again, if the productive players were healthy this year the Bucks would have probably made the playoffs.
• The Bucks would also be helped if they got more production at the guard positions.  Currently the team does not have a single player who is above average in the backcourt.  Yes, I know.  Jennings is a “star”.  And Keyon Dooling is one of the best players in the league according to Adjusted Plus-Minus (seriously, APM ranks him 15^th in the league this year).  But scorers are not always the most productive player (a story we have told many times before).  And APM is not a very reliable measure of player performance (a story we have also told more than once before).

If we look past scoring and APM, it seems clear the Bucks need help in the backcourt.  In other words, Jennings is right about the problem but he probably isn’t too keen on the solution.

If the Bucks can find a productive guard – and the other productive players on the team stay healthy – this team can make the playoffs in 2012 (assuming the playoffs are played in 2012).  And that can be accomplished without firing all the coaches (although if Jennings can’t play better, the team might have fire him).

- DJ