On Friday, Henry Abbott – at TrueHoop – made the following observation:

Bringing Jerry West into the Warriors’ organization as an adviser will certainly lend credibility to the new ownership. Will it actually improve basketball decision-making? Hard to know. In his last job, he made the Grizzlies OK, but not as good as much-maligned Chris Wallace made them.

When I read this I immediately thought: Is Memphis really better today than they were under West?

I realize the Grizzlies have finally won a playoff game and advanced to the second round.  But because the playoffs are a small sample, they are not as good as the regular season when it comes to measuring the quality of a team.  So let’s compare the regular season performance of the Grizzlies under West and Wallace.

West came to Memphis in April of 2002.  He then departed Memphis in July of 2007.  So West was calling the shots in Memphis from 2002-03 to 2006-07.  Here is how Memphis performed across those seasons in terms of regular season wins and regular season efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).

• 2002-03: 22 wins, -5.27 efficiency differential
• 2003-04: 49 wins, 4.12 efficiency differential
• 2004-05: 45 wins, 2.51 efficiency differential
• 2005-06: 50 wins, 2.56 efficiency differential
• 2006-07: 28 wins, -3.34 efficiency differential

Chris Wallace took over in 2007.  And here is what the Grizzlies have done across the past four seasons.

• 2007-08: 22 wins, -6.30 efficiency differential
• 2008-09: 24 wins, -5.86 efficiency differential
• 2009-10: 40 wins, -1.54 efficiency differential
• 2010-11: 46 wins, 2.44 efficiency differential

So West inherited a poor team.  He then led the team to its best season in franchise history (2003-04 if we focus on efficiency differential, 2005-06 if we focus on wins).  But when the players who produced these wins – Pau Gasol, Shane Battier, Eddie Jones, and Mike Miller – departed (as explained back in 2007 – a process that began in 2006-07), the Grizzlies got much worse.

And that means Wallace also inherited a poor team.  Wallace has returned this team to respectability, but in the regular season it has yet to reach the level we saw under West.

Now people might still wish to focus on the playoffs.  Let me note, though, that Memphis might have had a better experience in the playoffs had they chosen to lose a particular game back in 2006.

Back in 2006, the LA Clippers advanced to the second round of the playoffs.  They were able to do this because they lost a game to Memphis towards the end of the season.  That loss gave the Clippers a favorable match-up in the first round.  Had Memphis lost that game, they would have had that favorable match-up and might have been able to win in the first round (before bowing out like the Clippers did in the next series).

Of course, Memphis didn’t lose that game.  And the Grizzlies never did win a playoff game until this year.  But again, I think we should evaluate West and Wallace in terms of regular season performance (the larger sample).

And I think that large sample says that West did a better job of leading Memphis (at least, so far).

- DJ

As I noted at the onset of the Conference Finals, I am now rooting for the Chicago Bulls.  This is a temporary condition, imposed by my desire to win the TrueHoop contest.   And as a fan of the Pistons, I am not entirely happy about this situation.

In the future I hope to be rooting for the Pistons in the post-season.  Of course for that to happen, Detroit has to get back to the playoffs.  From 1996 to 2009, the Pistons only missed the playoffs twice and never missed the post-season two years in a row. 

But since the Pistons spent millions to bring Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva to Detroit in 2009 (moves made possible by the ill-fated acquisition of Allen Iverson) the Pistons only won 27 games (in 2009-10) and 30 games (in 2010-11).  Both marks left the Pistons well out of post-season contention.

The Pistons in 2010-11

And these marks – given the roster the Pistons had assembled – were expected.  When we look at the what the Pistons did last year, and compare this performance to what we would have expected given the veteran player’s performance the previous season, the Pistons problems in 2010-11 were simply not surprising (a similar story can be told about 2009-10).

The above table indicates that Pistons could have expected to win about 31 or 32 games in 2010-11.  The team’s efficiency differential – and Wins Produced – was consistent with a team that conformed to this expectation. 

When we look at the individual players, we see a team that was led by Greg Monroe (the team’s lottery pick in 2010), Tracy McGrady (an injured star that few thought could still contribute), and the aging Ben Wallace.  This trio produced 60% of Detroit’s wins. 

Going forward, only one of these players – Greg Monroe – can be counted on to produce wins in large quantities for the Pistons.  In other words, if McGrady departs (he is a free agent and probably would like to play for a better team) and Wallace continues to age (yes, that has to happen), the Pistons are likely to get worse.  So playoff basketball will be less likely to occur in Detroit.

So is there any hope?  The obvious argument advanced by the Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins is that teams do better when teams employ better players and avoid playing really bad players.  This is why Miami, Chicago, Dallas, and Oklahoma City are all doing better this season.  All four teams went out and got more productive players.

Can the Pistons do the same thing? Well, of course.  The purpose of this post is to show one particular path back to the playoffs.

The Approach Taken in this Post

Before we get started, though, let me note that

• I do not know what moves the Pistons will make before the start of the next season (whenever that is).
• the moves I am suggesting are not the only moves the Pistons could make
• the purpose of this path is simply to demonstrate that the Pistons could be a playoff team next season.  
• And finally, one should look at this post as me doing what many fans of losing teams do (i.e. play around with their team’s roster and hope for better days) 

Okay, with all that said, let me also repeat something I said some time ago about George Costanza (from Seinfeld):

For those who are not fans of Seinfeld (all two of you)… in 1996 Seinfeld had an episode where George Costanza is considered a candidate for the job of assistant general manager with the New York Yankees.  Such a job would give George input into possible trades. As George thinks about this job he imagines some trade scenarios.  Here is an example of George’s thinking:

I think I got it. How ’bout this? How ’bout this? We trade Jim Leyritz and Bernie Williams, for Barry Bonds, huh? Whadda ya think? That way you have Griffey and Bonds, in the same outfield! Now you got a team! Ha ha ha.

Essentially, George – as a Yankee employee and fan – supports trades where the Yankees clearly get the better end of the deal.  Certainly one can imagine the Yankees easily acquiring Bonds and Ken Griffey in the past few years (both have left the game recently). But in 1996, it’s hard to see how the trades Costanza envisions happening (and that’s why this is funny).

If we were to follow the lead of George Costanza, we would suggest the Pistons acquire Dwight Howard and Chris Paul.  And these moves would make the Pistons instant title contenders.  But suggesting the Pistons acqurie Superman and CP3 is not “reasonable” (i.e. not possible).  What I would like to do is lay out a path back to respectability that requires moves that I think are “possible or “reasonable”.

What to Do With the 2010-11 Roster?

Let’s start with the players who are signed for next season that the Pistons should keep (at least, for now):

• Greg Monroe: 0.177 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] at center in 2010-11
• Ben Wallace: 0.165 WP48 at center in 2010-11
• Austin Daye: 0.110 WP48 at small forward in 2010-11
• Will Bynum: 0.014 WP48 at point guard in 2010-11
• Jason Maxiell: -0.051 WP48 at power forward in 2010-11

Now “keep” doesn’t mean “play”.  This I will discuss in more detail in a moment.  For now, let’s keep making roster moves.

Here are players who are under contract that the Pistons should try and locate in a new home:

• Charlie Villanueva: 0.014 WP48 at power forward in 2010-11
• Richard Hamilton: 0.039 WP48 at shooting guard in 2010-11  OR
• Ben Gordon: 0.019 WP48 at shooting guard in 2010-11

Yes, I think the Pistons should try and get rid of Villanueva (and no, I am not sure how to do that).  He has never been very productive and he is too expensive to keep on the bench.  The Pistons should also try and get rid of Rip Hamilton or Ben Gordon.  Either guard would be okay off the bench.  Having both, though, makes coaching difficult; since both are too expensive to keep on the bench game after game (as the Pistons discovered this past season).

The Pistons also have a few players from 2010-11 who are not under contract for next season.  These players can be brought back:

• Jonas Jerebko: 0.128 WP48 at power forward/small forward in 2009-10 (Jerebko missed all of last year because of injury)
• Chris Wilcox: 0.171 WP48 at center in 2010-11
• Rodney Stuckey: 0.089 WP48 at point guard in 2010-11

As noted, Jerebko was injured all of last year. But he is supposed to be recovered for next season.  Wilcox did produce in very limited minutes, and he might be able to do the same again next year. 

As for Stuckey, he did average 15.5 points per game last year and expects a significant raise.  I do not think his overall production, though, is worth the amount of money I hear people suggesting.  So what I suggest is that Pistons sign Stuckey to a one-year qualifying offer and let him walk after next season.   At this point, I do not see a better option than Stuckey in the draft or the free agent market.  But I can’t imagine that will always be the case.

We have now commented on almost every player the Pistons employed last year.  The exceptions are McGrady, Tayshaun Prince, and DaJuan Summers.  All three are free agents.  And I think all three are either leaving or should be allowed to depart.  McGrady is productive, but old.  If he wants to return, the Pistons should bring him back.  I am guessing, though, that he doesn’t want to come back (and I could be wrong about this).  Prince led the Pistons in points scored last year, but his overall production was below average.  And I think Daye – who is much younger and cheaper – can take Prince’s place.  And Summers… I am still not happy the Pistons drafted the wrong DaJuan (or DeJuan) two years ago.  Detroit could have had DeJuan Blair, one of the most productive players from the 2009 draft. Instead they took Summers, one of the least productive players from 2009 (and the college numbers suggested this outcome).

Okay, that is everyone the Pistons had last year.  And as I have noted in the past, just bringing back the same players will probably lead to the same outcomes.  So who should the Pistons add to the collection I have suggested should be retained?

The Draft and Free Agent Market

There are two places the Pistons can acquire new players: the draft and the free agent market

Let’s start in the draft.  After the lottery on Tuesday night the Pistons have the 8^th choice in the first round, the third choice in the second round, and the 23^rd choice in the second round.   Looking at the mock draft at Draft Express – and the Win Score data that is also provided by Draft Express – the Pistons should be able to select Kawhi Leonard or Kenneth Faried in the lottery.  Both put up impressive numbers last year.  And although college numbers cannot forecast NBA production perfectly, the numbers posted by Leonard and Faried suggest each could contribute next year.  Chad Ford – at ESPN.com – thinks Leonard will be gone by the time the Pistons make the 8^th choice in the draft.  But Faried should be available (again, Draft Express thinks both will be available).  And since rebounding is one factor that does translate from college to the pros – and Faried is amazing on the boards – I am going to suggest the Pistons take Faried (again, I am focusing on moves that are at least possible — although in this case, people might think I am departing from what is “reasonable”). 

In the second round, I am going to suggest the Pistons select point guard Norris Cole in the second round (another player who put up very good numbers last year in college).  And with the other second round pick… well, I am not sure that player will even make the roster.  So let’s just save that for the more extensive draft coverage we are going to offer in the future (and we have some very extensive coverage planned).

Now for the last move.  The Pistons have to go into the free agent market.  As I noted, I don’t think McGrady re-signs with the Pistons.  But there is another player I think the Pistons could sign that could help next season. 

When people think of the Indiana Pacers, they tend to think of Danny Granger.  After all, Granger averaged 20.5 points per game last year and is the only “star” on the roster.  When we look at Wins Produced, though, the player who led the Pacers was Mike Dunleavy. 

Back in 2002, Dunleavy was the 3^rd player taken in the draft.  When healthy, he has shown he can produce.  Last year he posted a 0.231 WP48 at shooting guard (0.188 WP48 mark at small forward).  But he also missed 21 games.  And he will also be 31 years old when the next season starts (assuming it does start).  So Dunleavy has problems.  And that is why I think the Pistons have a chance to sign him to a reasonable contract.  

A Possible Roster and Rotation for the Pistons in 2011-12

With Dunleavy on board, this is how I see the Pistons next season (per-minute productivity numbers from the veteran player’s most recent season, minutes are my guess).

Center

Greg Monroe: 34 minutes per game, 0.177 WP48, 10.3 Wins Produced

Ben Wallace: 14 minutes per game, 0.165 WP48, 4.0 Wins Produced

Power Forward

Kenneth Faried: 24 minutes per game, 0.100 WP48, 4.1 Wins Produced (I am guessing Faried can be at least average next year)

Jonas Jerebko: 16 minutes per game, 0.076 WP48, 2.1 Wins Produced

Chris Wilcox: 8 minutes per game, 0.171 WP48, 2.3 Wins Produced

Small Forward

Austin Daye: 28 minutes per game, 0.110 WP48, 5.3 Wins Produced

Jonas Jerebko: 16 minutes per game, 0.181 WP48, 5.0 Wins Produced

Mike Dunleavy: 4 minutes per game, 0.188 WP48, 1.3 Wins Produced

Shooting Guard

Ben Gordon: 24 minutes per game, 0.019 WP48, 0.8 Wins Produced

Mike Dunleavy: 24 minutes per game, 0.231 WP48, 9.5 Wins Produced

Point Guard

Rodney Stuckey: 34 minutes per game, 0.089 WP48, 5.2 Wins Produced

Will Bynum: 14 minutes per game, 0.014 WP48, 0.3 Wins Produced

TOTAL WINS: 50.0

Wow, that’s quite an improvement.  Of course, one should note that I have the Pistons playing only ten players.  So the 50.0 wins mark is similar to what we see when we look at playoff rosters (see the posts on the playoffs for examples).   Many of the playoff teams have a post-season roster that would be expected to win more than 60 games over a complete regular season.  Yet, only the Bulls and Spurs managed to win more than 60 games in the regular season.  What explains the difference?  Well, teams are not just the ten players or so who appear in the post-season.  On average, teams use 15 players in the regular season. 

Looking back at the Pistons, I am getting to 50 wins by leaving Jason Maxiell and the two second round picks on the bench (or if Cole does more than Bynum, leaving Bynum on the bench).  And I am assuming Dunleavy can play an entire season (which doesn’t often happen). 

So I really don’t think this roster would win 50 games.  But I do think more than 40 wins is possible, and that might begood enough to get Detroit back into the post-season in the Eastern Conference (and a probable first round exit).

Summary and Final Notes

Let’s summarize my suggested moves:

Keep (players under contract): Greg Monroe, Ben Wallace, Austin Daye, Ben Gordon (or Richard Hamilton), Will Bynum, and Jason Maxiell (but don’t play Maxiell if he is going to be as unproductive as he was last year)

Lose (players under contract): Charlie Villanueva and Richard Hamilton (or Ben Gordon)

Re-sign: Jonas Jerebko, Chris Wilcox, Rodney Stuckey (to a one-year contract, if possible)

Do not re-sign: Tracy McGrady (probably doesn’t want to come back), Tayshaun Prince, DaJuan Summers

Draft: Kenneth Faried, Norris Cole, and someone else towards the end of the second round

Sign: Mike Dunleavy

Starting Line-Up: Greg Monroe, Kenneth Faried (or Jonas Jerebko), Austin Daye, Ben Gordon, Rodney Stuckey

Bench: Ben Wallace, Chris Wilcox, Jonas Jerebko (or Kenneth Faried), Mike Dunleavy, Will Bynum (or Norris Cole)

Cheerleaders on Bench (i.e. shouldn’t play much): Jason Maxiell, Norris Cole (or Will Bynum), second second-round draft choice (and two other players)

The philosophy behind these moves is as follows:  Teams win because they have productive players (like Monroe, Jerebko, Faried, and Dunleavy) and they don’t play unproductive players (like Villanueva, Hamilton, and Maxiell).  When the Pistons followed this philosophy in the past, they were regular participants in the playoffs.  In the last two seasons they departed from this philosophy and gave minutes and money to players who do not produce wins. 

Once again, the path I outlined is not the only path the Pistons could follow.  But I was hoping to show in this poast that a path back to the playoffs does exist.  Now fans of this team just have to wait to see if Detroit can follow such a path and give us something else to watch next spring.

- DJ

Earlier in the week a familiar story was posted in this forum.  Although many scorers are valuable, there are scorers that can be – contrary to what you hear in the sports media – easily replaced.   Neil Paine – at Basketball-Reference – posted a comment that appeared to disagree with this argument (although if you read the comments you will see that the apparent disagreement may be because Neil mis-read the WoW post).  These two posts led to a comment by Alex Konkel (aka the Sport Skeptic).   In case people missed what Alex had to say, his comment has been re-posted below (thanks to Alex for sending this along).

The Value of Scoring

Recently Dave Berri put up a post examining what would have happened this past year if every NBA team lost its top scorer. Neil Paine then put up a post looking at what happens to team offense if they lose their leading scorer. The tone of the article seemed to say that it was refuting Berri’s post (although it became less clear in the comments), so I thought I would go through both and see exactly what panned out.

Berri starts his piece by noting that recently a few teams have lost prized scorers (such as Iverson, Carmelo, and Rudy Gay) and were predicted to fail afterward. Curiously, they did not fail. He points out that if you look at Wins Produced, this would not be surprising; scoring is not the only thing that leads to winning. Then he produced a table that showed how many wins each team was expected to have this season and how many the would have been expected to get if their leading scorer (determined by most points scored) were replaced by an average (WP48=.100) player. Berri notes that 19 teams would be worse off without their leading scorer, 4 very much so. 11 teams would be better with an average player, 1 very much so (take a bow, Bargnani).

The point, in general, is that leading scorers are generally above average, but only generally. If all you look at is scoring, then sometimes you’ll make a good decision and sometimes you won’t. You would be right to play your leading scorer broadly speaking; if you add up the numbers in the table teams would lose about 96 wins, or a little over 3 per team, if they replaced their scorer with an average player. But that isn’t true for all teams; Toronto should be looking for other options (as in almost any other option). The leading scorer is not critical for team success. In contrast, Berri’s previous post found that if you replaced a team’s *best* player as measured by Wins Produced with an average player, they would lose about 223 games (by my calculation from Berri’s table) or about 7.5 games per team. That’s over twice as many as you lose by replacing the leading scorer. Again: scoring is not always important, but good scorers can be good players.

In his post Neil Paine deemed a player to be the leading scorer if they played over half of the team’s games and had the highest points per game. I would imagine that would create the same set as Berri’s, although it might not 100% of the time. Paine also looked at the past 25 years instead of just this season. He gathered each team’s offensive rating (points per possession) in games played by the leading scorer and compared it to the offensive rating in games not played by the leading scorer. The ratings were adjusted by what an average team would have done against that opponent and weighted by the number of games missed by the leading scorer. Neil found that teams lose 2 points per 100 possessions when their leading scorer doesn’t play, although the number was only .9 per 100 this past year. Conclusion: the leading scorer is important.

Neil’s analysis is not the same as Berri’s. First, there’s no connection to winning. Berri’s WP analysis includes defense (even though plenty of people tell you it doesn’t!) to allow for a connection to team wins. Offensive rating alone ignores defense, so we don’t know how the teams did without their leading scorer in Neil’s analysis. Second, Berri ‘replaced’ the leading scorer with an average WP player while Neil looked at what happened with whoever actually replaced the leading scorer. While Neil’s analysis looks to be more practically useful, it also has flaws; it is easily the case that lots of things change when the leading scorer doesn’t play besides just the leading scorer not playing. For example, teams will rest players at the end of the year. That means that not only is the leading scorer not playing, but probably the top two or three scorers. Berri’s analysis explicitly removes only the leading scorer’s influence, whereas we don’t know that to be the case for Neil’s; the change in offensive rating is really more of a highest-possible-impact measure.

In response to that first issue, let’s see what a leading scorer might be worth in terms of wins for Neil. The average pace this season was 92.1, so to account for some overtime games let’s bump it to 95 (perhaps an overly large bump, but that isn’t too important). The important thing is that teams are losing less than 2 points per game if they lose their leading scorer; this past year it would be closer to .8. The general conversion for point differential to wins says that a point is worth 2.5 wins, so leading scorers this past year are worth 2 to 2.5 wins to an average team and over the past 25 years they are worth a little under 5 wins. Those numbers aren’t too different from the 3 we got from Berri.

So I don’t see that we have a disagreement here. According to Neil, leading scorers are worth 4 or 5 wins per season in terms of their offensive contribution beyond whoever comes off the bench; we would need to look at their defensive rating effect to see if that number goes up or down for their total contribution to winning. Dave Berri says the number is about 3 this year when you account for offense and defense compared to an average player. The analyses don’t strictly agree, but they’re also different approaches using different measures on different data sets. Given that, it’s impressive that they came out so close. But I think Berri’s overarching point still stands: it would be better to account for everything a player does than just look at his scoring.

- Alex Konkel (the Sport Skeptic)

Below is the first blog post from Shut Up and Jam, a new blog in the Wages of Wins Network from James Brocato.  Last June, James offered a post on the Oklahoma City Thunder.  Here is his bio from that post:

James Brocato graduated from Washington State University in 2009.  He is currently attending Law School at Gonzaga University.  He grew up a passionate supporter of the Seattle Supersonics, but their relocation to Oklahoma City in 2008 put him in an awkward position.   Failed attempts to root for Phoenix and Portland made him realize that his heart is still with the team he grew up loving, even if they’re not the hometown heroes anymore.

And as promised, here is the first post from Shut Up and Jam:

Anyone who watched the NBA Draft Lottery last night probably heard it at least 10 times (mostly from Jay Bilas): “It’s a point guard dominated league.” “You can’t have success in the NBA without a great point guard.” Of course, the media would have told you 10, 20, or 30 years ago it was a big man dominated league. But now they’re saying the point guard, not the big man, is the most important position for a team building for the future. How true is this though? Let’s take a look at the production offered by the point guards of the last five champions. (Note: I am using Dave Berri’s Wins Produced metric to determine production. For more information see the links at the bottom.).

WP48 is the wins produced by the particular player per 48 minutes he is on the floor. 0.100 is what the average player produces. 0.200 is considered to be “star” level. The most elite players in the NBA usually have a WP48 of greater than 0.300. Only one point guard starting for the championship team in the last five years has produced at the level of a star, Rajon Rondo (though Tony Parker was very close). Jason Williams was roughly average and Derek Fisher has actually been below average in the Lakers’ last two championship seasons. This data suggests that an elite point guard is not necessary in building a champion in the NBA. So is there a position that dominates the league? Let’s take a look at the main big man from the last five champions.

Of course, the term “big man” covers two positions, the power forward and the center. Still, I think it’s a fair comparison since these two positions are generally interchangeable, where the point guard is a very unique position. The second table demonstrates the importance of big men in title teams. Every single primary big man produced at “star” levels the year his team won the championship, and every single big man substantially out-produced his point guard counterpart.

So it seems that this league has not actually become a point guard dominated league. In fact, it remains dominated by the bigs. Thus, a general manager looking to build a champion should look at the big guys first. Of course, that is not to say that Cleveland should attempt to take a big with their #1 pick. In fact, there is a lack of quality big men in the draft. Kyrie Irving might be the right choice, but that post is for another day. Also, Derrick Williams, who played center at Arizona, is being evaluated as a small forward by NBA scouts. But is SF the best position for him in the NBA, or will he benefit a team more at power forward? NBA scouts don’t like his size for the PF position. But is the obsession with size (e.g., particular measurements for a particular position) warranted? Again, that will be discussed in another post.

-James

A few years back the 76ers send Allen Iverson – their leading scorer – the Nuggets.  At the time, people predicted doom for the Sixers.  Philadelphia, though, actually improved without Iverson (and the Nuggets really didn’t improve with The Answer).

A similar story recently played out with Carmelo Anthony.  This time it was the Nuggets that lost their leading scorer.  And again, people predicted doom for the Nuggets.  But doom never really happened.

And yet another similar story happened when the Grizzlies lost Rudy Gay (the second leading scorer in Memphis) to injury this season.  Memphis was 31-26 after the game where Gay was injured.  Without Gay, Memphis was 15-10, and for the first time in franchise history, won a playoff game and advanced to the second round of the playoffs.

In each of these examples, the loss of a scorer led people to forecast doom.  In each case, the team losing the scorer managed to survive and even improve.

Readers of The Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins understand this basic story. Scoring is overvalued by many NBA observers.   Top scorers do not always have the impact on wins that people imagine.  But no matter how often this story repeats, each time a scorer is lost we still see the same arguments offered by adherents to the conventional wisdom (for example, this week the Grizzlies insisted they would never dream of letting Gay depart).

Last week I looked at what we could expect to happen to each team in 2010-11 if their leading producer of wins departed and was replaced by an average player.  Today I want to examine what would happen to each team if their leading scorer departed.  In other words, are there other stories like Iverson, Melo, and Gay in our future?  Or on the flip side, how often do leading scorers really make a very big difference?

The answer to these questions starts with the following table. This table reports the leading scorer on each team (in terms of total points scored).  It also reports these players’ WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes], Wins Produced, the team’s Wins Produced, and the team’s Wins Produced if the leading scorer was replaced by a player who was average (average WP48 is 0.100).  The final column reports the change in Wins Produced if the leading scorer is replaced.

In reading the table, negative numbers in the last column indicate the team will be worse without their leading scorer.  For 19 teams, this is the outcome indicated by Wins Produced.  And for four teams – Memphis (Zach Randolph is the leading scorer), Miami, Orlando, and Minnesota – the decline if the leading scorer was replaced by an average player is more than ten games.

The exact opposite story is told for the Toronto Raptors.  If Andrea Bargnani was replaced by an average player, the Raptors would be expected to improve by more than ten wins.

Ten other teams could also expect to improve if their leading scorer was replaced by an average player.  After the Raptors, the teams that would improve the most are the Nets (Brook Lopez is the leading scorer) and the Sacramento Kings (DeMarcus Cousins was the leading scorer).

Here are the problems with each player:  Bargnani can score, but he can’t rebound.  Cousins can rebound, but so far he hasn’t scored efficiently.  And Lopez has problems rebounding and scoring efficiently.  But since all three can take shots – and accumulate points – one suspects that all three would be thought of as irreplaceable by their respective teams.

Let me close by noting a few other names on the list.  One suspects that Monta Ellis, Danny Granger, Amare Stoudemire, and Joe Johnson would also be mourned by their respective NBA fans if they departed.  But these four were below average last year.  And that means, all four could be replaced relatively easily.

- DJ