Today’s post is about the Rookie of the Year.  And the post is going to begin by covering some very familiar territory.

Blake Griffin was a unanimous choice by the media for Rookie-of-the-Year in 2011. This was not a surprising choice.  As the following table illustrates, Griffin scored more than 700 points than John Wall, who finished second in voting for this award.

As is often noted, scoring dominates player evaluating in the NBA.  And this award illustrates this observation.  Every player who received votes scored at least 750 points in 2010-11.  And all the players who did not receive votes scored fewer than 750 points.

Such a vote leads one to wonder (okay, led me to wonder), what would this award look like if we focused on all that a player did via Wins Produced?  When we look at these players via WP, we see that Griffin is easily the most productive player.  Wall, though, was only the 5^th most productive rookie.  And DeMarcus Cousins – whose WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] was in the negative range — was only the 46^th most productive rookie.

If we look at the top 5 in WP – in the following table – we see that Landry Fields, Greg Monroe, and Ed Davis might have received a bit more attention from voters.

All of this is a familiar story.  Once again, Wins Produced is not completely consistent with popular perception.

Rather than spend more time on that story today, I thought I would focus on something that has not been explored in the past.  The Rookie of the Year is the only award that looks at how players compare to other players with the same level of experience.  So what would happen if we looked at the top players in 2010-11 at each level of experience?

The following table reports the top 5 players who — at the conclusion of the 2010-11 season — had played 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, and 6 years in the NBA.

If we look at Sophomores, the top player is Serge Ibaka.  Tyreke Evans – the Rookie of the Year in 2010 – only ranked 17^th (of course, Evans was hurt this past year).

The class of players with three years of experience should be led by Derrick Rose.  After all, Rose was the number one pick in 2008.   And the media declared he was the Most Valuable Player in 2010-11.  Although Rose is a “good” player, he is not nearly as productive as Kevin Love (Rose, though, does have much better teammates than Love).

Rose was not the only player taken first in the draft to fail to reach the top of these rankings.  In fact, when we look at experience levels from 7 years to 13 years, we see that Dwight Howard and LeBron James are the only former number one picks who also appear at the top of their respective experience rankings.

So what do we learn in looking at these rankings?

• As noted, the first players chosen in the draft isn’t always the most productive NBA player in that draft class.  This is not only true when you take a snapshot of a single season.  It is also true when you look at career-performance (something we discuss in Stumbling on Wins).  So if you follow a team that didn’t make the playoffs this year, it is not the end of the world if that team doesn’t get the first pick in the 2011 draft.
• There is also a significant drop-off as we move from the productivity of the first person listed at each experience level down to the 5^th player listed.  This result reflects the observation that most wins in the NBA are produced by a small number of players.  And that also tells us that most players taken in the draft are not going to help much (a story you will not hear told on draft night).
• And finally, these results reveal that each level of experience didn’t have the same level of productivity in 2010-11.  Players in the 2^nd and 11^th season in 2010-11 failed to produce one player who produced more than 10 wins this past season.   Players in their 5^th year, 9^th year, and 13^th year only had one player produce more than 10 wins.  In contrast, 7^th year and 10^th year players had four such players.

So the top pick isn’t always the best.  Every players isn’t going to help.  And every draft class isn’t equal.

Let me close by noting that I suspect these stories are the same if we focus overall career performance or performance on a per-minute basis.  But I think I have made enough tables for one day.

- DJ

The following is from Mosi Platt (with an assist from Andres Alvarez):

If it’s the weekend, then it’s time for another Wages of Wins Network podcast. You can listen to the podcast three different ways:

• By downloading it from nerdnumbers.com,
• Subscribing to the RSS feed or
• Going to iTunes.

The Cast

• Andres Alvarez from nerdnumbers.com
• Arturo Galletti from Arturo’s Silly Little Stats
• David Berri from the Wages of Wins Journal
• Mosi Platt from the Miami Heat Index

The Synopsis

WoW Network bloggers spent an hour discussing overrated scorers, the NFL draft, competitive balance, as well as the NBA lockout and playoffs.

Who are the Overrated Scorers in the NBA?

• Dwight Howard is a dominant scorer? On a previous podcast with Alvarez, Platt said, “No.” And this list supports that argument. Of course, scoring efficiency is a different argument, as Galletti illustrated in this article.
• Is the perception of Derrick Rose and Carlos Boozer driven by Rose’s incentives? Or is it driven by the Dead Basketball Poets Society as Berri illustrated in this article?
• A bit of a stretch but Dre pointed out that cheaters’ overestimate their abilities and compared this to scorers being told they were good even if their stats were contrary.

The NFL Draft and Competitive Balance

• On last week’s podcast, Berri critiqued NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The critique continued this week with insight into the history of the drafts in professional sports and their impact on competitive balance in the NFL, NBA and MLB.
• Galletti noted that ESPN.com’s Truehoop blog reported uncertain outcomes (from competitive balance) increase television ratings. Berri provided his critique of that analysis and made the point that people watch the NFL because they really like football. Platt noted that the highest rated NBA Finals weren’t that competitive.

Mixed Messages on the NBA Lockout

• Alvarez and Platt debated Michael Heisley’s decision to re-sign Zach Randolph (despite trying to skimp on Xavier Henry’s rookie contract last summer) in the context of NBA Commissioner David Sterns recent comments.
• Do NBA owners know what they’re doing? Berri checked in with his opinion.
• Are NBA franchises a hobby or a business? Platt and Berri discussed the difference between Jay-Z’s opinion and David Stern’s.
• Who’s dumber – the owners and front offices of a pro sports franchise or its fans?

The podcast ended where it began – with a brief discussion of Dwight Howard and the Orlando Magic and forecasts for the rest of the playoffs.

- Mosi Platt

Teachers (and professors) often assign papers to their students.  And in general, the day the assignments are made is different from the day the assignments are due.

If you work in the media, though, it is a very different story.  On Wednesday night, the Chicago Bulls defeated the Atlanta Hawks.  Within hours of the completion of the game, Michael Wilbon wrote an article detailing Derrick Rose’s contribution to Chicago’s success.

Before we get to what Wilbon said, let’s review some background on the game. Before the game started, Rose received the Most Valuable Player award.  He then proceeded to do the following in the game:

• Field Goal Attempts: 27
• Made Field Goals: 10
• Missed Field Goals: 17
• Free Throws Made: 4
• Free Throws Attempted: 6
• Missed Free Throws: 2
• Points Scored: 25
• Rebounds: 6
• Turnovers: 8
• Steals: 0
• Blocked Shots: 2
• Assists: 10
• Personal Fouls: 0
• Win Score: -1.5

When we look at these numbers, Rose did not have a good game.

And Wilbon notes this:

You can look at Rose’s 10-for-27 shooting and his eight turnovers and say it was a subpar night for a player who accepted, to complete adoration, the league’s MVP award from commissioner David Stern before Wednesday’s 86-73 win over the Hawks in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference semifinals.

But then Wilbon notes the following:

Those obsessed with metrics and statistical analysis will do just that. People who know the history of great players in the NBA, however, will take Wednesday’s game for what it was: the most important performance in the most important game in Derrick Rose’s professional career. Had his team lost Game 2 to Atlanta, its season would have been perilously close to over and done.

If you’re looking for style points wait for figure skating or gymnastics. In 43 minutes on a bad wheel, Rose did what MVPs do. He carried his team, even on one leg, to a victory the Bulls simply had to have.

Even with the team he played for at a Hall of Fame level losing to the Bulls, Dominique Wilkins, now a broadcaster, said immediately following the game, “Derrick Rose deserves so much credit. He’s injured. I know what he says, but the fact is he’s injured. But when you’re the best player on the team, you play, period. Something about the playoffs enables you to overcome the injuries. More important than that, it’s your job. If you’re ‘The Guy’ you cannot let your teammates see you sweat. You can’t afford to let them see a cloud hanging over you. You can’t let the fans down. The pressure is a beast. And if Derrick doesn’t score big, they can’t win. I know people will look at the stats and say, ‘Well, that’s a sub-par night.’ Look, I played playoff games with an ankle so badly sprained I had to wear a boot over my sock. I played playoff games with three fractured fingers. The Game 7 in Boston against Bird?Had a dislocated thumb. Look at it; still can’t straighten it out. It doesn’t matter that he was 10-for-27 or had turnovers or that Jeff Teague played him really, really well, which he did. What mattered is Rose’s presence.”

In other words, Rose of course has had better games, dozens of them. But he’s never been more valuable.

The absolute unwillingness to even acknowledge the ankle, preventing him from doing his acrobatic thing, is part of the reason why Rose is the MVP and why the Bulls finished with the NBA’s best record in the regular season.

So let me summarize those two sections of this article.

1. Rose did not play well.  Both Wilbon and Wilkins agree with this observation.

2. Rose was still the most valuable player on the court because he was willing to play with injury.

Of course. Carlos Boozer also played with injury.  And Wilbon and Wilkins don’t say anything about Boozer.

Wilbon does note this about the Bulls:

The Bulls aren’t going to lead the league in anything glamorous. You want artistic? Miami’s your team. The Bulls, at their best, have to settle for tough, for defense and rebounding and grinding.

Okay, the Bulls win because of defense and rebounding.  Against the Hawks, the Bulls did grab 19 more rebounds.  And of the 58 rebound grabbed by Chicago, 37 were taken by Boozer, Luol Deng, and Joakim Noah.

So one would think that if you thought rebounding was a key factor in the game, then the players who grabbed the rebounds would be considered important.  These players, though, are not mentioned by Wilbon.  His article focuses on why Rose should be thought of as MVP, despite not actually playing well. And his argument rests entirely on the fact Rose played hurt (again, much like Boozer).

All of this strikes me as follows:  Wilbon knows that Rose did not play well.   But he wants to heap praise on the NBA’s MVP (who maybe Wilbon voted for?).  After all, we “know” scorers are the “best” players, and Rose is the leading scorer on the Bulls (primarily – as I have noted in the past – because Rose chooses to take the most shots on the Bulls).  So he constructs an argument that doesn’t even stand up to scrutiny when your read all that Wilbon has to say.

Maybe this is why we give our students more than a few hours to complete a writing assignment.

More on Derrick Rose and the Bulls

Back in April, I noted the following:  Rose has improved over what we saw last year.  But as the following table notes, the Bulls as a team played about as well as we would expect, given the performance of the players the team employed.  In other words, it is not clear that coaching played a significant role in this team’s success.  It looks like Chicago simply chose more productive players.

One should also note that one could argue that Rose was MVP – or at least, the Most Productive Player – on the Bulls.  But he was not – as Dan Wetzel argued at Yahoo! – the “best” player in the league (at least, not if “best” is defined as Most Productive).

The above table also highlights a point Andres Alvarez noted last March.  Specifically, one key for the Bulls was the lack of unproductive players on the roster.

Stats and the MVP vote

One last point… the media will often argue – as Wilbon does above — that you have to look past statistics in evaluating players.  But let’s look at two “stats” with respect to the top six players in voting for this award:

• Derrick Rose: 25.0 points per game, 62 team wins
• Dwight Howard: 22.9 points per game, 52 team wins
• LeBron James: 26.7 points per game, 58 team wins
• Kobe Bryant: 25.3 points per game, 57 team wins
• Kevin Durant: 27.7 points per game, 55 team wins
• Dirk Nowitzki: 23.0 points per game, 57 team wins

Can you see the pattern?  The sports media seems to choose the leading scorers on the best NBA teams for the MVP award (a result consistent with a paper Aju Fenn and I presented a few years ago).  So the media does consider stats.  But the menu of stats is dominated by two big items: points scored per game and team wins.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on the numbers.  In fact, I think that is what the media is actually doing with this award.  All I would suggest is that the media look at more numbers in making their player evaluations.  If they took this step, maybe we could avoid confusing columns like the one offered by Michael Wilbon.

- DJ

First mad props to http://www.bouncex3.com, who inspired this article.

The following is from Andres Alvarez.

Here’s a twitter conversation that lead to today’s post

Bouncex3 J. O. Applegate

Before the season everyone would say someone like Horford, but Z-Bo is (was) by far the most underrated player in the league.

NerdNumbers Andres Alvarez

@Bouncex3 I’d say Z-Bo is more surprising. He went from ave->good->great.

Bouncex3 J. O. Applegate

@NerdNumbers Last 5 years really. Not in the playoffs of course, but still.

Bouncex3 J. O. Applegate

@NerdNumbers But he had the same numbers last year too, no?

And from that a story was born. It’s not as if people haven’t seen Memphis coming (and by people I mean Arturo of Arturo’s Silly Little Stats). The question is how did Memphis go from a laughing stock (from trading Pau Gasol) to being considered contenders?

Quick refresher, here were the Grizzlies this season.

Table 1: 2011 Memphis Grizzlies

The basic break down is Zach Randolph played very well and had a good collection of talent next to him, including Conley, Gay, Gasol, Allen and Battier (who was hired as a replacement when Gay got injured). That’s fine but what’s happened in the playoffs?

Table 2: 2011 Playoff Memphis Grizzlies

(Through Game 1 of the Second Round)

A much more comprehensive write up can be found here, done by none-other than the prognosticator himself: Arturo!

First, let’s make a quick reality check. Despite dispatching the Spurs and stealing home court from OKC, the Memphis numbers in the playoffs aren’t at the same levels of teams like the Heat. They are still playing top basketball, though, and that is linked to three players: Shane Battier, Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol.

Shane Battier is older, and playing well above his normal levels. Call it being hot at the right time. Grizzlies’ fans can hope it will last. Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol tell a much more interesting tale. Let’s start with Pau’s “replacement” Zach Randolph.

Table 3: Zach Randolph’s Career. 2002-2010

Handcrafted Numbers, 2011 Automated Numbers

Zach Randolph’s career has been fascinating. Let’s do a quick recap of his trip to Memphis.

• 2002 – As a rookie played limited minutes (below average)
• 2003, 2004 – Given more minutes, as veterans get older and traded (average – good)
• 2005 – Injured mid season (below average)
• 2006 – Plays terribly while recovering from injury (terrible)
• 2007 – Recovers from injury (good)
• 2008 – Portland sick of off court issues ships to Isiah Thomas, who loves scorers. Plays alright as out of position Center (average)
• 2009 – Traded to the Clippers by New York to make cap room for LeBron James (above average)

So going into 2010, Randolph had been at his best a good power forward with both on and off court issues. What’s more these issues were enough to get him kicked off of such terrible franchises as the Knicks and Clippers! I would not have been thrilled to hear he was the new face of the franchise, especially after watching Pau make the finals on the 08 Lakers.

However, Randolph turned a corner by upping his shooting efficiency and rebounding, and turned into a star in his first year in Memphis. This year he’s improved even more, and now he is a super star. In short, Memphis gambled on a player with “attitude” issues and lucked out.

Now let’s look at the Memphis’s current playoff MVP: Marc Gasol.

Table 4: Marc Gasol Career Numbers.

09-10 Handcrafted, 11 Automated

In his first year in the league Marc was an above average center. In his second year he upped his game and played very well, but in this season he seemed to regress. Yet his playoff numbers are spectacular. There’s one more important tool to use, Arturo’s season gadget (http://nerdnumbers.com/gadgets)

2011 Month by Month Performance for Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph. 0.100 is average, 0.200 is "Star" and 0.300 is "Superstar"

Marc Gasol started the season close to his last season’s numbers, which were good. He slowly played worse and worse until he bottomed out in February, when he was not good at all. However, he rebounded from his fall rather well, and was played at star level entering the playoffs. Marc Gasol is right around the age players peak and it is possible we are seeing the levels he is capable of keeping. It is also possible he is simple hot at the right time. Regardless going into the playoffs the Grizzlies had two top big men playing hot, and that has been key to their success.

To sum up:

• The Grizzlies lucked out with Randolph, who had up until Memphis been at best a good power forward with many issues and an expensive contract.
• Marc Gasol is a young player who may very well be hitting his peak as a star player (we’ll have to wait another few years to be sure)
• The Grizzlies were lucky on their timing to have the Spurs play poorly and Shane Battier play very well

While still underdogs, the fact is the playoffs are a small sample size and it’s entirely possible the Grizzlies could make the finals. After all, other “Contender” teams out West have been having their fair share of issues this postseason.

-Dre

Now that we know that the Memphis Grizzlies are the greatest team ever, there probably isn’t any point to discussing the rest of the teams who are still participating in the 2011 NBA playoffs.  But just in case Memphis falters… here are the four teams that begin playing in the second round on Monday.

Chicago vs. Atlanta

First we have Chicago and Atlanta.  The Bulls finished the regular season with the second best efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) in the NBA (the Heat led the NBA with a 7.96 mark).  Chicago’s mark of 7.81 was actually the 5^th best mark in franchise history.  Only the following Chicago teams bested what we saw in 2010-11.

• 1995-96: 13.00
• 1996-97: 11.61
• 1991-92: 10.64
• 1990-91: 9.20

All of these teams led the NBA in efficiency differential.  And all of these teams won an NBA title.

The Atlanta Hawks have not had the same level of success in the playoffs.  And entering the 2011 playoffs, it didn’t look like that would change.  The Hawks’ differential was -0.89, the second worst mark of any playoff team (only the Pacers had a lower mark).  When we look at franchise history since 1973-74 (the first year we can calculate efficiency differential), we see 18 different Atlanta teams that posted a higher differential than the Hawks team seen in 2010-11.  None of these 18 teams ever made it out of the second round of the playoffs.  Will Atlanta’s team make it to the Conference Finals this year?

When we look at efficiency differential, that seems unlikely. The Bulls are much better than the Hawks.  Furthermore, Chicago has home court advantage.

On Sunday, though, I noted we need to look past efficiency differential in the regular season and consider which players are actually playing in the post-season. When we take that step with respect to this series, though, our story stays the same.

The following table reports Wins Produced for each player in the regular season.  It also reports what each player’s Wins Produced would be in the regular season given the allocation of minutes and positions in the playoffs.

When we consider these two allocations, we see that although Chicago and Atlanta both look better in the playoffs, the gap between these two teams is still quite large.  Consequently, I am looking for Chicago to win this series in five games.

LA Lakers vs. Dallas

It is a somewhat different story when we consider the last second round match-up.  Regular season efficiency differential suggests the Lakers should be the clear favorite.  The Lakers mark of 6.48 led the Western Conference while the Mavericks mark of 4.53 was bested by seven other teams in the NBA playoffs.

When we turn to how minutes are allocated in the playoffs, though, this series looks much closer.

The above table reveals that given the regular season performance of the Lakers’ players and the minutes allocated in the post-season, the Lakers look like a 64.7 win team (the key is the additional minutes given to Andrew Bynum).  The Mavericks, though, now look like a 62.5 win team.  The primary keys for Dallas are the additions of Peja Stojakovic and the additional minutes given to Dirk Nowitzki and Tyson Chandler.

These changes close the gap between the Lakers and Mavericks.  But LA still has home court advantage.  And they are slightly better.  So I am picking the Lakers to win in seven.

Even More from Arturo

For those who want even more playoff coverage, let me point you to Arturo’s Amazing Stats.  Arturo Galletti had developed a more extensive playoff model.  As he noted on Sunday, this model did quite well forecasting the first round of the playoffs (it even had Memphis winning against San Antonio).   If his numbers were in the TrueHoop Smackdown, these numbers would currently be tied for first.  In other words, his more extensive model is currently ahead of my simple model.  Of course, the difference is only four points (and let’s remember, I already won this contest before, so I am clearly resting on my past accomplishments :)

Beyond detailing these amazing numbers, Arturo’s post also notes the following about the Magic-Hawks series: How do you outscore your opponent by almost two points a game with the best player on the court and still lose a series? Ask the Magic, they just did it.

Here is another question from the Magic series:  Should Orlando change their roster in response to these six games?  I am not asking if they should make changes based on the regular season.  Should the playoffs factors into their decision-making?  I think teams often react too strongly to the small samples we see in the playoffs.  And although I think Orlando might consider some changes, it isn’t their experience in the playoffs that should motivate these moves.  Sometime this summer I will offer a more detailed post on the Magic.

- DJ