A Familiar Story Plays Out in Los Angeles

Patrick Minton usually writes on his blog over at The NBA Geek.  Today he brings us a familiar story about how NBA Decision makers think.

Last week, the Los Angeles Lakers attempted to trade Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol for Chris Paul (a third team was involved, but this was the trade from the Laker’s viewpoint).  Since that trade was vetoed, the  ”other” Los Angeles team has reportedly been trying to acquire Chris Paul. The trade has (again, reportedly) reached an impasse because the Clippers are willing to part with only two of the following three pieces/players: Eric Gordon, Eric Bledsoe and/or Minnesota’s first round pick.

In these two stories, we’re seeing the classic story play out.  It’s a story we repeat on the Wages of Wins a lot:

  • Decision makers consistently undervalue efficient scoring and net possessions (i.e. rebounding and “not turning the ball over”)
  • Decision makers overvalue scoring totals
  • Decision makers overvalue draft picks
  • Decision makers tend to ignore the short supply of tall people (or perhaps they just wish it didn’t exist, so they pretend it’s not a problem)

The last point is particularly important.  One generally has to be about 6’8″ or taller to be able to play power forward or center in the NBA.  What most people don’t seem to be aware of is how exceedingly rare this is.  The average American male is about 5’10″.  A person 6’8″ tall is somewhere between 3 and 4 standard deviations from the mean.  What this means is that there are probably less than 100,000 6’8″ men in the entire US, and with each inch this decreases exponentially; there are probably only about 3-4,000 American men that are at least 6’10″, and fewer than 50 are 7’0″ or taller (statistics quoted here).  And I don’t need to explain that only a tiny fraction of those men have the athletic skill necessary to play basketball at all, and an even tinier fraction will have enough skill to play professional ball.  There is a reason that NBA scouts love to say that “You can’t teach a guy how to be tall.”

The upshot of this is that finding a 6’4″ player that shoots the ball very efficiently and doesn’t turn the ball over may not be easy, but it is vastly more difficult to find a 6’10″ person that fits that description, and finding a 7’0″ player that skilled is (statistically speaking) a once-in-a-lifetime event.  Dre brought this up last weak, but these numbers demonstrate that trading both Odom and Gasol for Chris Paul was probably not a “fair deal” for the Lakers (and yes, this means that Dan Gilbert’s whine about the unfairness of it all is unintentionally ironic).

The reverse of this, of course, is that the Clippers are being highly irrational by balking at trading two guards and a draft pick for Chris Paul.  There are three reasons that this confuses me.  First, neither player is tall.  There are plenty of wing players on the free agency market (or available for trade) every year.  It makes no sense to treat either player as a precious commodity.  Second, Eric Gordon is probably going to get paid a lot of money soon.  And that leads me to my third point:  neither player is a particularly good player.

The following table shows the production of Eric Gordon and Eric Bledsoe, along with the average players at their position in 2010-11 (note, all stats are per 48 minutes, and are from the comparison engine at my site The NBA Geek, with the exception of WP48, which I took from the Wins Produced 2011 section of this blog, because my site hasn’t updated the formula yet, but you can read up on it here!):

WP48 PTS REB AST TO BLK STL PF
Bledsoe .006 14.2 5.8 7.5 5.1 0.7 2.4 3.4
Average PG .100 19.8 4.6 8.6 3.5 0.2 1.6 3.3
Gordon .110 28.3 3.7 5.5 3.4 0.4 1.6 2.6
Average SG .100 21.1 5.1 4.0 2.3 0.4 1.5 3.2
FG% 2FG% 3FG% FT% eFG% TS% FTA
Bledsoe 42.4% 47.0% 27.6% 74.4% 45.7% 49.9% 3.5
Average PG 43.2% 47.7% 35.6% 82.5% 47.8% 53.2% 4.8
Gordon 45.0% 48.8% 36.4% 82.5% 50.6% 56.6% 7.9
Average SG 44.0% 48.2% 36.3% 80.1% 49.4% 54.5% 4.6

As we can see, Gordon was above average in assists, personal fouls, getting to the line (which is a consequence of the fact that he shoots a lot), and scoring points (and again, this was not because of his efficiency, which was average, but because he shoots a lot).  He was below average in rebounding and turnovers.  Bledsoe was below average in shooting efficiency, getting to the line, assists, turnovers (badly so) and scoring points (this latter is actually a good thing, if he shot more at this efficiency he’d be even worse).  He was above average only in steals, rebounds and blocks, but didn’t excel in any of them.  Thus, neither player posted an exceptional WP48, and Bledsoe was nowhere near average.

Now let’s take a look at Chris Paul:

WP48 PTS REB AST TO BLK STL PF
Paul .375 21.1 5.4 13.0 2.9 0.1 3.1 3.3
Average PG .100 19.8 4.6 8.6 3.5 0.2 1.6 3.3

Shooting comparison

FG% 2FG% 3FG% FT% eFG% TS% FTA
Paul 46.3% 48.2% 38.8% 87.8% 50.2% 57.8% 6.4
Average PG 43.2% 47.7% 35.6% 82.5% 47.8% 53.2% 4.8

In contrast to Eric Gordon, my opinion of Chris Paul won’t surprise any readers: he was really, really good.  He was above average in every category but blocks and fouls, in many spectacularly so (assists, steals, turnovers).  He is, quite simply, one of the top 5 players in the league.

Finally, there’s the draft pick.  Arturo has broken down the draft before. Benjamin Morris has also written great stuff.  The upshot is that if it isn’t the overall #1 pick, it’s a bit of a crapshoot.   And although Minnesota was terrible, and likely to be so again, it would be foolish to rely on the pick becoming the #1 pick in the draft.  As such, holding on to it as if it were a precious commodity is foolish; one assembles draft picks precisely so that one can use them to nab superstar players!  Why does it matter if you draft the superstar or you trade the pick for one?  It’s the proverbial “two in the bush” fallacy to cling to this pick.

So revisiting: the Clippers don’t want to trade Bledsoe, Gordon, and Minnesota’s first pick (and filler) for Chris Paul (who is a superstar), because Bledsoe “might become a star” and that pick “might become a star”. And presumably because Gordon scores a lot (but just about any NBA guard who takes 17 shots a game would, too).  A better solution might be to trade for Paul and be happy with winning. If the Clippers want higher scoring totals they could just try having Chris Paul and Blake Griffin shoot more.

-Patrick

Rip Hamilton is not the answer in Chicago

Rip Hamilton was once a decent player. The Bulls are thinking of acquiring him in an effort to correct their “problems” at the shooting guard. Unfortunately for the Bulls this will likely hurt them in their quest for a title. The truth is Hamilton has never been that great of a player. The Bulls actually already have a very strong team with few weaknesses. Adding Hamilton will only hurt them.

Rip had two skills: shooting and getting a decent number of defensive rebounds for a shooting guard. In recent years Rip’s shooting ability has declined. This is not surprising. He is on the wrong side of 30 and players age like milk, not wine. The defensive rebounds are actually a problem.

In the offseason while other analysts were learning contract rules for the new CBA Dave decided to update the Wins Produced formula. You can read a brief recap here and the full rundown here. An important variation the Wins Produced formula has now adjusted for is the diminishing returns for defensive rebounds. Essentially if a player gets a high percentage of their team’s rebounds they are penalized slightly. This is not good for Hamilton.

If the Bulls acquire Hamilton they will be getting a player that was once a good shooter but no longer is. He doesn’t contribute much else either and even his overvalued defensive rebounds will not be much good to the Bulls.

There’s one final problem with acquiring Rip Hamilton to solve the problems at shooting guard for the Bulls. The truth is the Bulls were fine at shooting guard last season. In fact here’s a brief comparison of Rip Hamilton with the Bulls’ shooting guards from last season

Rip Hamilton vs. 2011 Bulls Shooting Guards.
Player MP POS WP48 WP
 Ronnie Brewer 1781 2.0 0.245 9.11
 Keith Bogans 1461 2.0 0.146 4.44
 Kyle Korver 1649 2.7 0.098 3.37
 Richard Hamilton 1498 2.4 0.009 0.28

The Bulls are actually overloaded with good shooting guards! Rather than persue Rip Hamilton the Bulls should just keep the shooting guards they have. All of them are under contract and significantly better than Hamilton. All Hamilton can do is take minutes from younger, more talented and more deserving players.

The Bulls may be falling into a dangerous trap. Last season they had the best record in the league and went far in the playoffs. Rather than view this as a good thing they are instead viewing their loss in the playoffs as a major problem. By acquiring Hamilton they acquire a seasoned veteran that knows how to win. At least that’s the story. The issue is that Hamilton’s winning came by playing next to talented players. What’s more his winning days are long behind him. It’s a boring strategy but rather than gamble on an overrated scorer the Bulls could instead stand pat, hope for healthy and wait for their opponents to sign terrible players instead.

-Dre

Is Dallas better than last year?

Thanks to the shortened free agency period inflicted by the lockout we are being overwhelmed by NBA news. Many franchises are in a mad dash to make their teams worse (we’ll post on that, don’t worry!) but a surprise story is that the defending champions may have in fact secretly improved themselves in several ways.

Here’s a brief rundown of the Mavericks offseason thus far (2011 Numbers can be found here):

Last season Tyson Chandler was very good. The New York Knicks clearly noticed and offered him a contract worth roughly $15 million a year. The Los Angeles Clippers did not get the memo that Caron Butler has been steadily declining and offered him a contract worth roughly $8 million a year. The Los Angeles Lakers managed to fleece Lamar Odom into a terrible contract. He will make roughly $8.5 million over his next two seasons. Additionally only this season is guaranteed.

Losing Chandler definitely hurts. Losing Butler is not a problem at all, especially with Shawn Marion to pick up the minutes. However these two players had an open market value of over $20 million a season. The Mavericks have managed to replace their lost production for 1/3 the cost. What’s more, losing Lamar will definitely hurt the Lakers, who are a competitor with the Mavericks. There are definite concerns the Mavericks will have to address. They still need a center. Additionally their core of great players (Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitzki and Lamar Odom) are all over 32 this season. It’s doubtful such a team can continue to play top basketball for many years. That said, this off-season the Mavericks are doing well. One or two other good moves and the Mavericks may very well see the Heat in the finals again.

-Dre

Wins Produced comes back better and stronger!

Editor’s Note (i.e. Dre): The following is from Dave Berri, who is now too lazy to post his own stuff.

A New Wins Produced and A New Win Score
Find the new Wins Produced numbers at Wins Produced, which you’ll notice is on the navigation bar right above you!

Wins Produced was introduced and explained (not “more or less” explained, but explained in detail in the text and many tedious little end notes) in The Wages of Wins in 2006.  It was then discussed (with more math) in an article published in 2008, as well as in Stumbling on Wins (and in other places as well).

Both books argued that inefficient scorers in the NBA are overvalued and players that help in ways other than scoring are under-valued.  In other words, many players people think are great (or not great) are really not helping (or really are helping quite a bit).

Such an attack on “conventional wisdom” – a term introduced by the late John Kenneth Galbraith – didn’t make everyone happy.*  As Galbraith once noted, “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.”

The “proof” some people constructed focused on the value of rebounds.  Because Wins Produced argues that non-scorers who grab many rebounds are quite valuable – and conventional wisdom argues that non-scorers are simply not that valuable – it must be the case that Wins Produced overvalues rebounds.

A variety of arguments have been offered in response to this critique.  Many of these were detailed in the Frequently Asked Question page. For example, it was noted that

  • although diminishing returns – as detailed in Stumbling on Wins — certainly exists for defensive rebounds (but not for offensive rebounds), the size of the effect is “small”.
  • to illustrate, when the impact of diminishing returns with respect to defensive rebounds is accounted for, the ranking of the players doesn’t seem to change much (a point made on the FAQ page).

As a consequence, Wins Produced has historically ignored this issue.

As the lockout dragged on and on, though, I began to think that maybe it might be better to just incorporate this effect into the measure we post at the WoW Journal.  After all, the effect has been measured and it can be included. So why not just make the adjustment and therefore remove the argument “Wins Produced overvalues rebounds” from the discussion.

So that is what I have done.  The specific calculations – which are somewhat more complicated than what was posted before — are detailed at the new “Calculating Wins Produced” website.

In addition, the measurements from 1999-00 to 2010-11 have also been posted.  Again, the results are quite similar.  There is a 0.98 correlation between Wins Produced as it was calculated before and the new measure that adjusts for what we see with respect to defensive rebounds.  In other words, the players who ranked towards the top of the league before still rank towards the top now.  And the same story is seen for the players ranked at the bottom.

To illustrated, here are the top 25 players once we adjust for the impact of defensive rebounds.

Rank Name Team Position Adj.P48 WP48 Wins
Produced
Rank
Classic
WP48
Classic
Wins
Produced
Classic
1 Chris Paul New Orleans 1.00 0.401 0.309 18.4 3 0.335 20.0
2 Dwight Howard Orlando 5.00 0.498 0.301 18.4 2 0.374 22.9
3 Kevin Love Minnesota 4.22 0.500 0.335 18.2 1 0.457 24.9
4 LeBron James Miami 3.19 0.370 0.270 17.2 4 0.307 19.6
5 Dwyane Wade Miami 2.00 0.311 0.253 14.9 5 0.278 16.3
6 Pau Gasol LA Lakers 4.79 0.422 0.234 14.8 7 0.243 15.4
7 Steve Nash Phoenix 1.00 0.336 0.244 12.7 11 0.265 13.8
8 Landry Fields New York 2.00 0.295 0.237 12.5 6 0.304 16.1
9 Rajon Rondo Boston 1.00 0.327 0.235 12.4 18 0.243 12.8
10 Ray Allen Boston 2.00 0.263 0.204 12.3 22 0.185 11.2
11 Zach Randolph Memphis 4.31 0.381 0.212 12.1 9 0.263 14.9
12 Jason Kidd Dallas 1.00 0.305 0.213 11.8 14 0.247 13.6
13 Lamar Odom LA Lakers 4.00 0.368 0.212 11.6 13 0.249 13.7
14 Tyson Chandler Dallas 5.00 0.465 0.268 11.5 15 0.311 13.3
15 Al Horford Atlanta 4.75 0.390 0.203 11.4 16 0.230 12.9
16 Paul Pierce Boston 3.13 0.290 0.195 11.3 19 0.212 12.2
17 Kris Humphries New Jersey 4.00 0.411 0.254 10.9 8 0.353 15.1
18 Andre Iguodala Philadelphia 3.00 0.298 0.212 10.9 20 0.232 12.0
19 Kevin Garnett Boston 4.00 0.382 0.226 10.4 10 0.302 14.0
20 Manu Ginobili San Antonio 2.62 0.280 0.204 10.3 25 0.202 10.2
21 Derrick Rose Chicago 1.00 0.253 0.161 10.2 31 0.151 9.5
22 Nene Hilario Denver 5.00 0.405 0.208 9.9 28 0.208 9.9
23 Gerald Wallace Charlotte-Portland 3.00 0.263 0.177 9.9 17 0.230 12.9
24 Kevin Durant Oklahoma City 3.08 0.247 0.155 9.8 21 0.182 11.5
25 Blake Griffin LA Clippers 4.30 0.317 0.148 9.6 12 0.212 13.7

Previously the top player according to Wins Produced was Kevin Love.  Once we consider the defensive rebounds we estimate Love took from his teammates, Love is now ranked 3rd in the NBA.  Again, the two evaluations have a 0.98 correlation.  So although there is indeed a difference in the rankings, the difference isn’t very large.

Once this adjustment is made, though, we do need a new Win Score.  Previously each defensive rebound had the same value as a point, steal, offensive rebound, etc… .  Because we are taking into account how a player will take some defensive rebounds from teammates, the value of a defensive rebound will now be lower.  To ascertain how much lower, a model was estimated where a player’s WP48 was regressed on the following per 48 minute statistics (adjusted for position played): Points, Offensive Rebounds, Defensive Rebounds, Steals, Blocked Shots, Assists, Turnovers, Personal Fouls, Field Goal Attempts, and Free Throw Attempts.  From this regression we see that 98% of the variation in WP48 was explained by these statistics.**  Furthermore, the estimated weights yield the following Win Score model.

Win Score =             PTS + STL + ORB + 0.5*DRB + 0.5*AST + 0.5*BLK – TOV – FGA –                             0.5*FTA – 0.5*PF

Yes, the only real change is the value of defensive rebounds.  For 2010-11, the position averages for Win Score per 48 minutes are as follows:

  • Centers: 7.846
  • Power Forwards: 6.956
  • Small Forwards: 4.835
  • Shooting Guards: 4.104
  • Point Guards: 4.851
  • Overall Average: 5.729

If you wish to estimate WP48 for a player – and you don’t want to go through all the steps noted above (which are a bit more complicated than they were before) – one can take the following steps:

  • Calculate Win Score per 48 minutes for the player.
  • Subtract the position average noted above and add back in 5.729 (the overall average).  This gives you Relative Win Score per 48 minutes.
  • Estimate WP48 with the following formula: -0.07898 + 0.031888*Relative Win Score per 48 minutes

Of course, these steps aren’t necessary if you make it a point to keep visiting the Wages of Wins Journal.  Once the season starts we plan to have continuously updated values of Wins Produced and WP48 for each player.

- DJ

* – One should note that the argument that conventional wisdom in the NBA is incorrect is not unique to Wins Produced. As I argued four years ago, Win Shares and Adjusted Plus-Minus also argue that some scorers are overrated.  Not sure I recall anyone being that troubled by this aspect of Win Shares and Adjusted Plus-Minus.  One suspects that this is because the on-line stats community doesn’t devote much effort critiquing the models generated by members of the on-line stats community.

** – Using data from 2009-10, Win Shares per 48 minute was regressed on per minute values of Points, Offensive Rebounds, Defensive Rebounds, Steals, Blocked Shots, Assists, Turnovers, Personal Fouls, Field Goal Attempts, and Free Throw Attempts.  This regression revealed that 86% of the variation in Win Shares per 48 minutes was explained by the player statistics. That tells us that Win Shares has a much larger adjustment for team statistics.  Again, not sure I have ever seen anyone troubled by this feature of Win Shares.  Again, one suspects that this is because the on-line stats community doesn’t devote much effort critiquing the models generated by members of the on-line stats community.

In the offseason the Wages of Wins Network becomes Bulls fans

Dave’s been busy. He’ll be telling you why shortly. He was excited and passed along this message

Can we re-post this?  I think what Patrick says is great.

We told you competitive balance rherotic was bull | The NBA Geek

I’ll let you read the full article but Patrick kindly takes us down memory lane to remind us that this subject has come up a few times before

This article might take me longer than usual because it’s going to take me a while to track down all the times we brought this up.

I also had my own favorite post from yesteryday

Five Bullshit Things About David Stern’s Bullshit Veto Of The Chris Paul Trade | Deadspin

Dave has been saying paying players what they are worth ala the MLB is not a bad idea. Many view this as bad to small market teams. Deadspin actually provides a great counter point.

Once bullshit max contracts were the rule, the less appealing franchises couldn’t spend extra to attract or retain players, leaving Cleveland to compete with Miami head to head, as a destination. This encouraged stars to make decisions for more than money. If LeBron James or Chris Paul is going to get roughly the same deal wherever he goes, why not go to a city he likes where he can play basketball with talented friends and win a lot of games? Maybe you think that’s bullshit, but that’s exactly what stars are incentivized to do under the max-contract regime, which, as I say, is the real bullshit here.

I know we added a bit more profanity than normal to our links. With all the NBA’s crazy owner action in the last week though I’m not too upset with fans for swearing even a little.

I’m happy the NBA is back and great writers are writing great posts about the NBA. I’m sad the NBA is still making bad decisions but not surprised in the least.

-Dre