The Wages of Wins Journal

The following is from Stacey Brook (co-author of The Wages of Wins) and was originally posted at Hawkonomics:

You don’t hear a lot about it but the NCAA is currently being sued by former college football and basketball players over caps on scholarship amounts. The immediate concern is over possible antitrust damages to athletes in many NCAA sports since 2002. But the second concern is that, in the future, some teams would not be able to compete with higher scholarship costs. “It really comes down to competitive balance,” Matt Mitten, who heads Marquette’s National Sports Law Institute, told USA Today.

Plenty of research has been done on competitive balance in the NCAA (see, for example, Malcolm Gladwell’s summary of Jim Peach’s research). So, how competitively balanced is NCAA basketball? Here are the Noll-Scully measures of competitive balance from 1999 to 2007.

1999 2.021
2000 2.082
2001 2.006
2002 2.040
2003 2.007
2004 2.059
2005 2.003
2006 2.017
2007 2.055

These numbers show two things: first that NCAA basketball is quite unbalanced (a score of 1.0 would reflect perfect competitive balance); and second, that this lack of competitive balance isn’t getting any better. So, when the Collegiate Athletes Coalition maintains that the NCAA’s scholarship cap is “simply a cost containment mechanism that enables the NCAA and its member institutions to preserve more of the benefits of their enterprise for themselves,” the group would appear to have a point. If the NCAA were really so serious about competitive balance, shouldn’t it have done something about the problem over the last nine years? More likely, the NCAA’s rules on scholarships are designed to protect revenues, not competitive balance.

So don’t let the analysts (or lawyers) fool you. Capping scholarship awards or restricting compensation are simply mechanisms for the NCAA to extract rents from college athletes, college students, boosters, and ultimately taxpayers.

One could argue that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player ever.  So it was not a surprise when he was elected to the Hall-of-Fame.   His speech, though, was somewhat surprising to Adrian Wojnarowski; who emphasized the tone Jordan adopted in his acceptance speech.  Jordan’s speech revealed that he’s primarily motivated by every person who has ever slighted him.  In essence, MJ is motivated by spite.

Jordan defended his approach by noting his competitive spirit.  This spirit drove Jordan to succeed in basketball or any other sport or game he played.  Since his playing days ended, though, this drive has been hard to find.  As an executive with the Washington Wizards and Charlotte Bobcats, wins have been scarce.  And if you listened hard to Jordan’s speech you would have heard him reveal that he tried to play any game that would get him out of the classroom.  Yes, Jordan’s competitive desire didn’t extend to his school work either.

In essence, Jordan doesn’t appear to be much different from many people.  When Jordan thinks the chance of success is high, he’s quite competitive. In areas where excelling might be more difficult, he doesn’t seem to try very hard. Consequently, success as an NBA executive has been fleeting.

In 2009-10, though, Jordan’s record as an executive might begin to change.  Last season the Bobcats finished with 35 wins.  This mark was actually the best in franchise history.  And that tells us what we need to know about the short five-year history of the Bobcats.

The 2008-09 Story

If we delve a bit deeper into the numbers, though, Charlotte fans should begin to see some hope. Charlotte’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) suggests this team should have won 37.8 games.  Miami’s efficiency differential, the 5^th seed in the Eastern Conference last year, is consistent with a team that won 42.1 games.  So the Bobcats were not far from a playoff spot in 2008-09.

When we look at the individual players via Wins Produced, we can see who is responsible for this team’s success.

Table One: The Charlotte Bobcats in 2008-09

The names at the top of the list – Gerald Wallace and Emeka Okafor – are hardly a surprise.  This is what I said about this duo last December: For those who know Bobcat history, the story of the 2008-09 season is hardly new.  From 2004-05 to 2007-08, the Okafor-Wallace duo have combined to produce 69.4 wins (35.2 by Okafor, 34.2 by Wallace). The remainder of the roster only produced 46.5 victories across these four seasons (or less than 12 wins per year).  Of the players who played at least 2,000 minutes in a season, only Brevin Knight in 2005-06 and Jason Richardson in 2007-08 were above average players.  In sum, Charlotte has been Okafor, Wallace, and not much else since this franchise was created.

Although Okafor and Wallace once again led the Bobcats, help for this duo has appeared.  Raymond Felton, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, and D.J. Augustin combined to produce 15.6 wins last year.  And had Diaw and Bell been available the entire season this number would have been higher.  In sum, the combination of Okafor, Wallace, Felton, Diaw, Bell, and Augustin was productive enough to win more than 40 games last year.  

Playoff Contention in 2009-10?

Unfortunately, players like Adam Morrison, Nazr Mohammed, Alexis Ajinca, and eight others, combined to produce -6.6 wins.  The good news is that many of these players will not play for Charlotte in 2009-10.  The bad news is that Okafor will also be elsewhere.

Replacing Okafor is Tyson Chandler.  Last year Chandler only produced 2.3 wins – with a 0.078 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] – for the New Orleans Hornets.  Just comparing the 2008-09 versions of Okafor and Chandler suggests the Bobcats have lost about nine wins.

If we look as the past history of Tyson Chandler, though, prospects for the Bobcats look much better.  Here is what Chandler did from 2004-05 to 2007-08.

2004-05 (w/Chicago Bulls): 15.2 Wins Produced, 0.333 WP48

2005-06 (w/Chicago Bulls): 10.3 Wins Produced, 0.234 WP48

2006-07 (w/Hornets): 15.8 Wins Produced, 0.301 WP48

2007-08 (w/Hornets): 14.1 Wins Produced, 0.244 WP48

Across these four seasons, Chandler produced 55.5 wins and posted a 0.277 WP48.  In contrast, Okafor – across these same seasons – only produced 33.8 wins and posted a 0.190 WP48.  So if Chandler can return to form, then the Bobcats are better off after this trade (contrary to what John Hollinger argued – as I noted in July — when the trade was made).

If the Bobcats ultimately re-sign Felton, Charlotte’s first and second string (according to ESPN.com) will be as follows (2008-09 WP48 numbers reported):

First String

PG: Raymond Felton [0.092 WP48]

SG: Raja Bell [0.063 WP48, for entire season]

SF: Gerald Wallace [0.283 WP48]

PF: Boris Diaw [0.065 WP48, for entire season]

C: Tyson Chandler [0.078 WP48, 0.277 WP48 previous four seasons]

Second String

PG: D.J. Augustin [0.075 WP48]

SG: Gerald Henderson (rookie)

SF: Vladimir Radmanovic [0.031 WP48]

PF: Derrick Brown (rookie)

C: DeSagana Diop [0.013 WP48, 0.137 WP48 previous three seasons]

Keeping with Bobcat tradition, this roster only has two above average players.  But the below average veterans, though, don’t wander into the negative range.  And Diop can offer much more. From 2005-06 to 2007-08, Diop’s WP48 ranged from 0.134 to 0.140 (in other words, he was very consistent). This suggests he is capable of being an above average center.

Putting it all together, if Chandler is healthy and Felton is signed, this team can win more than 40 games.  This means the Bobcats might make the playoffs for the first time in franchise history.

Let me close by noting that the list of playoff contenders in the East seems to expand with each Eastern Conference team examined.  The Cavaliers, Magic, and Celtics are clearly the best teams in the East.   Last year the fourth seed was the Atlanta Hawks.  At this point, it doesn’t look like the Hawks are moving up.  It does appear, though, that the Wizards, Bucks, Bulls, and Bobcats are capable of challenging Atlanta.  And I haven’t offered a complete examination of Toronto, Indiana, and Miami.  In sum, forecasting the playoffs in the East – after the top three seeds – looks difficult this year.

It does appear at this point, though, that the Bobcats – if Chandler is healthy and Felton re-signed — have to be on the list of playoff contenders.  And returning to the observation offered at the onset, this means that MJ’s reputation as an executive might be on the upswing.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

Yes, much of this post is a re-run. 

But I am posting this story again because last week, 53 ESPN.com experts were asked to pick the top team in the Western Conference.  The overwhelming favorite – with 41 votes – was the LA Lakers.  Ten votes went to San Antonio Spurs while the Mavericks and Nuggets each received one vote.  And the Portland Trail Blazers – the team that finished second in the Western Conference last year in efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) – did not receive a single vote.  Yes, even Henry Abbott – a long-time fan of the Trail Blazers – did not give his beloved Blazers a vote.

Matthew Yglesias – who is better known for his political insights than for his sports coverage – argued a few days ago that Portland is the “only team that could beat the Lakers in the Western Conference.”  Although I am not sure that’s true, I do concur – as I noted a month ago — with the sentiment that the Blazers can challenge the Lakers. 

This argument begins with what happened last year.  The Blazers finished last year with a 5.9 efficiency differential.  This was the second best mark in the Western Conference, eclipsing what was seen from the Spurs (4.1 differential) and the Nuggets (3.5 differential).

Wins Produced allows us to connect efficiency differential to the individual players.  Table One reports the Wins Produced for each player the Blazers employed last year.

Table One: The Portland Trail Blazers in 2008-09

Topping the list is Brandon Roy.  Last year Roy produced 15.3 wins with a 0.253 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] mark.  To put that mark in perspective, Kobe Bryant produced 15.0 wins with a 0.244 WP48 in 2008-09.  Yes, Roy is just as productive as Kobe.  So if you think Kobe is what separates the Lakers from everyone else, well…the Blazers have a shooting guard like that (at least in terms of overall production).

Unfortunately, Roy’s teammates only produced 39.9 wins last year; while Kobe’s teammates produced 46.1 wins.  Because Kobe’s teammates were better, the Lakers won more games than the Blazers.

In the off-season – as I noted last month – the gap between these teams got much smaller. And to make this easier, let me just repeat what I said (yes, as noted, I am going into re-runs).

Portland Misses?

Portland’s objective this summer was to close the gap between them and the Lakers.  It appears, though, that this gap has actually gotten bigger. The Lakers were essentially able to exchange a Trevor Ariza (a former second round pick of the Knicks) for All-Star Ron Artest (yes, he did make an appearance in this game in 2004).  Meanwhile, the Blazers made every effort to sign Hedo Turkoglu, only to have Turkoglu sign with Toronto at the last moment.  Then the Blazers turned to Paul Millsap, only to see the Utah Jazz match Portland’s offer.  Finally, in an apparent act of desperation, the Blazers finally got Andre Miller to accept their money.  This sequence of events had led Ken Berger of CBS Sportline to list the Blazers as one of the NBA’s losers in the 2009 off-season. 

But did the Blazers really fail this summer? 

To answer this question, let’s start with where the Lakers and Blazers finished the 2008-09 regular season. 

The Lakers in 2008-09

Here are the top 10 players – in minutes played – for the Lakers last season (WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes):

Pau Gasol: 2,999 min., 15.6 Wins Produced, 0.250 WP48

Kobe Bryant: 2,960 min., 15.0 Wins Produced, 0.244 WP48

Derek Fisher: 2,441 min., 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48

Lamar Odom: 2,316 min., 10.6 Wins Produced, 0.220 WP48

Trevor Ariza: 1,998 min., 8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48

Andrew Bynum: 1,446 min., 4.8 Wins Produced, 0.158 WP48

Sasha Vujacic: 1,293 min., 2.7 Wins Produced, 0.099 WP48

Jordan Farmer: 1,192 min., -0.9 Wins Produced, -0.035 WP48

Luke Walton: 1,166 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.091 WP48

Vladimir Radmanovic: 771 min., 1.5 Wins Produced, 0.094 WP48

Totals for Top 10: 18,582 min., 62.2 Wins Produced, 0.161 WP48

The Lakers won 65 games.  But their efficiency differential of 7.8 (and correspondingly, the team’s Wins Produced) was consistent with a team that won 61 games (wins that can essentially be connected to the ten players listed above).  So the Lakers were not quite as good as their won-loss record indicated.

The Blazers in 2008-09

LaMarcus Aldridge: 3,004 min., 6.7 Wins Produced, 0.107 WP48

Brandon Roy: 2,903 min., 15.3 Wins Produced, 0.253 WP48

Travis Outlaw: 2,246 min., 2.6 Wins Produced, 0.055 WP48

Steve Blake: 2,188 min., 5.3 Wins Produced, 0.117 WP48

Rudy Fernandez: 1,993 min., 6.9 Wins Produced, 0.167 WP48

Joel Przybilla: 1,952 min., 11.7 Wins Produced, 0.288 WP48

Nicolas Batum: 1,454 min., 3.7 Wins Produced, 0.123 WP48

Greg Oden: 1,314 min., 4.2 Wins Produced, 0.154 WP48

Sergio Rodriguez: 1,225 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48

Channing Frye: 746 min., -2.3 Wins Produced, -0.146 WP48

Totals for Top 10: 19,025 min., 56.4 Wins Produced, 0.142 WP48

Again, Portland’s Wins Produced for the entire team was 55.1; so the Blazers were about six wins off the pace set by the Lakers.

Evaluating the Changes

Now let’s consider the changes made to each team’s top 10. 

First the Lakers:

The Lakers lose…

Trevor Ariza: 1,998 min., 8.0 Wins Produced, 0.192 WP48

Vladimir Radmanovic: 771 min., 1.5 Wins Produced, 0.094 WP48

Total Loss: 2,769 min., 9.5 Wins Produced, 0.162 WP48

The Lakers add to their top 10…

Ron Artest: 2,452 min., 4.6 Wins Produced, 0.089 WP48

Josh Powell: 703 min., -0.6 Wins Produced, -0.040 WP48 or

Didier Ilunga-Mbenga: 181 min., -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.066 WP48

Total Gain: 3,155 min., 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.060 WP48 (with Artest and Powell)

Overall Direction: The Lakers appear to be worse.  Artest is simply not as productive as Ariza.  And whether Powell or Mbenga takes the 10^th slot, the team is really not helped.

Now the Blazers:

The Blazers lose:

Sergio Rodriguez: 1,225 min., 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.087 WP48

Channing Frye: 746 min., -2.3 Wins Produced, -0.146 WP48

Total Loss: 1,971 min., -0.1 Wins Produced, -0.001 WP48

The Blazers gain:

Andre Miller: 2,976 min., 11.1 Wins Produced, 0.178 WP48

Jerryd Bayless: 655 min., -1.4 Wins Produced, -0.104 WP48

Total Gain: 3,631 min., 9.6 Wins Produced, 0.127 WP48

Overall Direction: The Blazers appear to be better. Miller is clearly an upgrade over Sergio Rodriguez at point guard.  It also helps that Channing Frye went away.

Once again…when we compare each team’s efficiency differential (and Wins Produced), it appeared the Lakers were only about six wins better than the Blazers in 2008-09.  With the moves each team has made, this gap appears to be closed.  In sum, if all we look at is what the veteran players on each team did last year, the Blazers are at least as good as the Lakers.

On the other hand…

Of course, all good economists have “the other hand” to look at.

It’s important to note that the Lakers did not have services of Andrew Bynum for much of the 2008-09 season.  If Bynum is healthy, he could substantially improve the Lakers. 

On the other hand… the same story could be told about Greg Oden. 

Then again, on the other hand… Phil Jackson does appear to be one of those coaches who can change a player’s productivity. Maybe he can make Ron Artest better.

Then again, on the other hand…. Artest will be 30 years of age in November, so his production is probably going to slip. 

Then again, on the other hand… Andre Miller is already 33 years of age. So how many more years can he be productive? 

Then again, on the other hand… we are completely ignoring the changes made by the Mavericks, Spurs, and Nuggets. These teams, like the Blazers, might also be better.

Wow, that’s quite a few hands.  Let me try and summarize.  Contrary to what Berger argued, I think the moves the Lakers and Blazers have made have actually closed the gap between the two teams.  The Lakers were clearly the best team in the West last year.  It doesn’t appear to me, though, that the Lakers are clearly the best in 2009-10.  So although I can’t guarantee the Blazers will make it to the NBA Finals in 2010 (remember what we found on the other hands), I think Portland fans shouldn’t think their team ranked among the losers this summer.  As for fans of the Lakers… well, Phil Jackson really is a good coach so maybe it will still work out.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

The Chicago Bulls finished the 2008-09 season by taking the Boston Celtics – the defending NBA champions — to seven games in the first round of the playoffs.  Such a performance likely gave fans of the Bulls hope for the future.

Since the Chicago-Boston series ended, though, little has happened.  In the draft Chicago added James Johnson and Taj Gibson. Both Johnson and Gibson appear to play power forward, or the same position as Tyrus Thomas (and perhaps Joakim Noah).  So it’s unclear how much either rookie will play (or if they are an upgrade over what the Bulls currently have).

Gordon vs. Pargo

The only other move the Bulls made was the signing of Jannero Pargo, a move made at the same time Ben Gordon signed with the Detroit Pistons.  Both Gordon and Pargo are undersized shooting guards who like to launch shots from beyond the arc.  There are, though, substantial differences.   On the positive side, Pargo is far cheaper.  Unfortunately, the Bulls are getting what they pay for.  In terms of on-court productivity, Pargo is very much a downgrade.

As has been noted in the past in this forum (and also in The Wages of Wins), Gordon – relative to an average shooting guard – is not very good.  In fact, Gordon has never posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] mark that was above average.  WP48, though, compares a player to the average at his position.  If Gordon could be compared to Pargo, he would be a superstar.

Table One reports the productivity of each player the Chicago Bulls employed last season.  As one can see, Gordon’s WP48 was 0.097 last season.  Pargo didn’t play in the NBA last season, but his career WP48 is -0.018.  So Gordon was 0.115 better than Pargo’s career average; or if Pargo was an average player [WP48 of 0.100], Gordon would have a 0.215 WP48 [i.e. Gordon would be a star]. 

Table One: The Chicago Bulls in 2008-09

To put these numbers in perspective, Gordon produced 6.1 wins for the Bulls last year.  Pargo’s career mark indicates he would have produced -1.1 wins in Gordon’s minutes.  So replacing Gordon with Pargo would have cost the Bulls 7.2 wins and their opening round match-up with the Celtics.

Looking for Hope

The comparison between Gordon and Pargo suggests the Bulls are going to decline in 2009-10.  When we consider the team’s current depth chart (taken from ESPN.com), though, there is reason for optimism (2008-09 WP48 reported)

First String

PG: Derrick Rose, 0.084 WP48

SG: John Salmons, 0.098 WP48 (for entire 2008-09 season)

SF: Luol Deng, 0.121 WP48

PF: Joakim Noah, 0.208 WP48

C: Brad Miller, 0.122 WP48 (for entire 2008-09 season)

Second String

PG: Kirk Hinrich, 0.104 WP48

SG: Jannero Pargo, –0.043 WP48 in 2007-08

PF: Tyrus Thomas, 0.120 WP48

Looking at these numbers we see that five players who will be part of the rotation next year were above average in 2008-09.  And Salmons and Rose were very close to average.  So Pargo is the only weak link on the team.  It appears, though, that Salmons is the primary replacement for Gordon; so Pargo’s negative impact will be mitigated.

Looking at just these numbers – and assuming the remaining roster is not a detriment to the team (the team will employ more than the eight players listed above) – this team is capable of winning at least half their games.  It’s possible, though, for the Bulls to do better.

For example, Luol Deng posted the following numbers prior to this season.

2004-05: 5.0 Wins Produced, 0.148 WP48

2005-06: 10.7 Wins Produced, 0.198 WP48

2006-07: 14.7 Wins Produced, 0.230 WP48

2007-08: 5.9 Wins Produced, 0.133 WP48

The first three years of Deng’s career we see the standard pattern in young players.  Each year Deng got better.  In 2006-07, though, Deng missed 2o games and his per-minute performance declined.  Deng also missed games last year.   If Deng could be healthy and productive, though, the Bulls could expect about five additional wins.

And then there is the case of Derrick Rose.  The media and coaches stated that Rose was the top rookie last season.  The Wins Produced story, though, suggests Rose was only average.   If Rose continues as an average player (and Deng doesn’t return to form), the Bulls will probably be close to an average team.  But what if Rose follows the career path of LeBron James and Kevin Durant?  Both LeBron and Durant struggled their first year and then developed into above average performers.  If Rose follows the same path, then the prospects of the Bulls improve dramatically. 

To illustrate, Rose produced about five wins last season as an essentially average point guard and the team won 41 games.  Here is what happens if Rose plays better:

WP48 = 0.150, Wins Produced are about 9.0, Bulls win about 45 games

WP48 = 0.200, Wins Produced are about 12.0, Bulls win about 48 games

WP48 = 0.250, Wins Produced are about 15.0, Bulls win about 51 games

WP48 = 0.300, Wins Produced are about 18.0, Bulls win about 54 games

In sum, if Rose becomes the player people think he was last year, the Bulls can be above average.  If Deng returns to form, the team is even better.  And if the Bulls sign Dwyane Wade in 2010 (a rumor I have seen), the Chicago Bulls could be a title contender in 2011.

Of course, all these “ifs” might not happen.  But contrary to what I said last March, it’s possible (not a guarantee, just a possibility) that Barack Obama can legitimately invite the Bulls to the White House before his first term ends.  And the signing of Pargo is not enough to derail this hope.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

The Milwaukee Bucks finished with a 50-32 mark in Don Nelson’s final season as head coach.  That season marked the 7^th consecutive season the Bucks finished with at least 50 wins.  One suspects that Nelson takes some credit for this record.  And although Wins Produced mostly credits Sidney Moncrief for Milwaukee’s success in the 1980s (a point made a few days ago), Nelson’s perspective is bolstered by the fact that Bucks have only have only reached 50 wins once in the 22 years since he left town. 

This past season was consistent with the post-Nelson era.  The Bucks finished with only 34 wins, a record that ranked 11^th in the Eastern Conference.  The team’s efficiency (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency), though, was -1.1; a mark that tied the Pacers for 9^th in the conference.  Translating this number into Wins Produced shows us that the Bucks should have expected to win 38 games, or just one game less than the Detroit Pistons.  In sum, the Bucks were nearly a playoff team last season.

Turning to the individual players – reported in Table One – one can see who was responsible for these wins.  Leading the way was Ramon Sessions, who finished the 2008-09 season with 9.0 Wins Produced and a 0.198 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  Sessions was not the only above average talent.  An average player posts a 0.100 WP48; and Luc Mbah a Moute, Andrew Bogut, Luke Ridnour, and Michael Redd all played more than 500 minutes and posted a WP48 mark that was above par.

Table One: Milwaukee Bucks in 2008-09

Bogut and Redd, though, played fewer than half the team’s games.  One suspects that if Bogut and Redd had been available the entire year, Milwaukee could have been a playoff team.  No, the Bucks may not have won 50 games.  But certainly they could have challenged the Hawks – a team with only 44.9 Wins Produced last year (or just seven more than the injured Bucks) — for the fourth seed in the East.

Of course, the injuries did happen and the Bucks missed the playoffs. In the off-season the team’s two leading scorers (in terms of total points scored) – Richard Jefferson and Charlie Villanueva – went elsewhere.  And now Ramon Sessions has signed an offer sheet with the Minnesota Timberwolves.  If Sessions leaves, a significant number of Wins Produced also departs.  Given these departures, we shouldn’t be surprised that the experts at ESPN expect the Bucks to finish the 2009-10 season ranked 14^th (out of 15 teams) in the Eastern Conference.

Then again, the Bucks haven’t just lost players.  A few new faces have also come to town.  And some of the new faces have actually been productive players in the past.  In fact, when we actually look at the team’s current depth chart (a depth chart from ESPN.com that ignores Hakim Warrick) there’s reason for hope in Milwaukee.

First String

PG: Luke Ridnour, 0.106 WP48

SG: Michael Redd, 0.133 WP48

SF: Luc Mbah a Moute, 0.116 WP48 [at PF; 0.194 WP48 if he played SF]

PF: Hakim Warrick, 0.082 WP48

C: Andrew Bogut, 0.204 WP48

Second String

PG: Brandon Jennings (rookie)

SG: Charlie Bell, 0.037 WP48

SF: Carlos Delfino, 0.180 WP48 [at SG in 2007-08; 0.141 if he played SF]

PF: Kurt Thomas, 0.191 WP48

C: Francisco Elson, 0.011 WP48

Of these ten players, six are above average performers.  If these players maintain this production, then the Bucks will not be one of these worst teams in the Eastern Conference in 2009-10.  In fact, it’s possible this team will challenge the Hawks and Wizards for the fourth seed.  In other words, the Bucks could actually reach the second round of the playoffs (where they will probably get blown out by the Cavaliers, Magic, or Celtics).

Before Milwaukee fans get too excited, there are a few bumps on the road to this vision. For all this to happen…

• Bogut and Redd need to be healthy. 
• Joe Alexander – the team’s lottery choice in 2008 – needs to stay on the bench (or get much better).
• Unless Jennings can come in and be above average as a rookie (not a common occurrence), Ridnour has to continue as the team’s starting point guard.
• Delfino has to play and be productive as a small forward (where ESPN.com currently lists him on the depth chart).

In sum, there are some issues that need to be resolved.  But if these issues are resolved the Bucks will be better than expected.  And if that happens, Scott Skiles – the team’s head coach – might be Coach of the Year; an honor not given to a Milwaukee coach since Don Nelson coached Sidney Moncrief. 

Let me close with another persepctive on the Bucks. Ty Willihnganz of Bucks Diary [mvn.com/bucksdiary] also expects Milwaukee to be in playoff contention in 2009-10.  Here is how he summarizes Milwaukee’s prospects:

All in all, I think 40 wins is the STARTING POINT as far as what to expect from the Bucks in 2009-10, based upon each player’s career norms.  And remember, NO ONE has ever accused me of being in the tank for the Bucks.  If anything, I bend over in an attempt to err on the side of caution and pessimism.  The bottom line is, I think, that the people who are projecting the Bucks among the worst in the NBA are Know-Nothing Pinheads who, like most analysts, wildly overvalue the contributions made by below average to average players like Charlie Villanueva and Richard Jefferson.  The truth is, there is simply no credible evidence to support the notion of a dramatic Bucks collapse… in fact, everything points to improvement (Skiles is loving it… he’s going to look like the overachieving hero).  So cheer up Bucks fans.  We are nowhere near championship ground yet, but the team ought to show improvement, ought to play respectable defense, and frankly, ought to make the playoffs in 2009-10.   Get your 10 packs ordered!

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

Although it may not be obvious, most columns posted here have a coherent theme.  Today, though, I thought I would just comment on a few stories I have seen this past week.

Immigration Policy and Competitive Balance

Chris Cook of Financial Times makes an interesting connection – see Top clubs triumph on an uneven pitch — between immigration policy in Great Britain and competitive balance in the English Premier League.   Specifically, Cook argues that immigration restrictions in England have harmful effects in soccer.  The argument draws upon research we noted in The Wages of Wins. 

The Cook article also mentions the new book by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski. The book – Soccernomics – will be released in the U.S. in October.  It’s already a big hit in England (where it was released last month).

Attractive Quarterbacks Again

About a year ago I published a short article in Play Magazine (from the New York Times) detailing how the physical attractiveness of a quarterback was related to his pay.  Research I conducted – with Jennifer VanGilder, Rob Simmons, and Lisle O’Neill – suggested that the symmetry of a quarterback’s face (as noted in our academic paper, we use a measure of attractiveness from Symmeter) has a statistically significant link to a quarterback’s compensation. 

This story has once again been noted in the media.  Reed Albergotti of the Wall Street Journal asked us to update our analysis. These updates are noted in Cute Quarterbacks? There’s a Stat for That, Too. Katie Leslie of Atlanta Journal Constitution also comments on the story (see Matt Ryan: The NFL’s face of ‘perfection’?).

My Childhood with Ernie Harwell

This past week we all learned that Ernie Harwell has incurable cancer.  Harwell was the Tigers announcer for about forty years and his voice is a fond memory from my childhood.  About the first twelve years of my life were spent in Michigan, primarily in the city of Detroit.  When I was four or five years old, the family’s black and white television set broke.  My father decided not to replace the TV, so for the next seven years we had no TV (yes, it was a tragedy).  So as my attention turned to sports, it was via the radio that I primarily followed my favorite teams.  This means that I spent quite a bit of time listening – like “the house by the side of the road” (here is a list of Harwell’s catchphrases) – to Ernie Harwell.  Although I enjoy listening  — via the Internet – to Jim Price and Dan Dickerson today, when I think of the Detroit Tigers on the radio I will always think of Harwell (and of course, Paul Carey).   So I was very sorry to hear about his illness.

Forecasting the Lions

And now for some more sad news (although not nearly as serious).

Next week the Detroit Lions will begin their 46^th season with William Clay Ford as sole owner of the team (and 49^th since Ford became team president).    Prior to Ford taking over, the Lions won NFL titles in 1935, 1952, 1953, and 1957.  The team came to Detroit in 1934, so in 27 years without Ford involved the Lions won four titles.  With Ford in charge, the team has won only one playoff game and last year finished 0-16.

A new season, though, is upon us and in football, hope springs eternal before the games begin.   In 2007 the Falcons and Dolphins combined to win five games.  Last season these two teams – led by new coaches — each finished with eleven wins and made the playoffs. 

The Lions enter this season with a new coach and coaching staff.  In addition, of the 25 players listed on the team’s offense at the moment, thirteen were not on the team last year (including five new starters). On defense there are even more new faces.  Of the 25 players on defense, sixteen are new to Detroit.   And at least eight of the eleven starters were not with the Lions last year.

Despite all the new faces, forecasts for the Lions seem quite low.  No one seems to think this team has any chance of being good in 2009.  It’s almost as if people think the clothes worn in Detroit lose games.  After all, the coaches have changed.  Many of the players have changed.  One would think, then, that at least some of the forecasts would change also.  But that hasn’t happened.  Every forecast I have seen expects the Lions to be losers in 2009.

At this point I would like to say that there is some statistical model that contradicts the conventional wisdom.  But it doesn’t seem to me that any such model exists.  In basketball we have data on every player that is somewhat consistent from season to season.  Even with such data, surprises still happen.  In football, no such data exists for players.  Consequently, forecasting football seems quite difficult.

Brian Burke – of Advanced NFL Statistics – has recently had some fun with this point.  His Koko Fantasy Ranking highlights how difficult it is to construct a winner in fantasy football.

Phil Taylor at Sports Illustrated also comes clean on this point.  His column in the latest issue of Sports Illustrated captures the truth of NFL Forecasts: Trust Us: We’re Wrong.

The words of Burke and Taylor should give some hope to fans of the Lions.  There is a possibility the Lions will be good this year.  How much of a possibility, though, is unclear to me.  And I suspect, everyone else as well.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Andre Miller came to the Philadelphia 76ers –via the Allen Iverson trade — in December of 2006.  At the time of the trade, the Sixers were 5-19. With “the Answer” departing Philadelphia, the future looked bleak in Philadelphia. Across the remainder of the season, though, the Sixers were 30-28 (a mark predicted in this forum).

The next season – as E. James Beale noted in the Philadelphia City Paper – the media expected the Sixers to be very bad.  After all, Iverson had left.  Sure the team managed to play 0.500 ball without Iverson.  But such evidence, prior to the 2007-08 season, was ignored.

When the 2007-08 season ended, though, the Sixers were once again average (40-42 final record).  Yes, that isn’t good.  But it isn’t “historically bad” (as Beale quoted people saying) either.

During the summer of 2008 the Sixers added Elton Brand.  In the past, Brand has been very good.  But he only played 29 games last year and consequently didn’t make much of a contribution.  Despite Brand’s inability to contribute, though, the Sixers were once again average (record of 41-41).

The Impact of Miller

When we look back at the last three editions of the Sixers, we see the same three names leading the team in Wins Produced.  In 2006-07, 27.9 of the team’s 35 wins could be traced to Andre Iguodola, Samuel Dalembert, and Andre Miller.  In 2007-08, 30.4 of the team’s 40 win were linked to these players.  And last year – as Table One indicates – 31.1 of the team’s 41 wins were linked to Iguodala, Dalembert, and Miller. 

Table One: The Philadelphia 76ers in 2008-09

The rest of the roster, though, only produced 10 wins last season.  And a similar story is told for 2006-07 and 2007-08.  Across the past three seasons, players not named Iguodala, Dalembert, and Miller have only produced 26.6 wins for the Sixers (or about nine wins per season).

 Miller will be 33 years old before the next season ends.  So he is rapidly approaching “ancient” for an NBA guard.  Given his age, the Sixers decided to allow him to depart for Portland.  Assuming Miller’s production doesn’t decline dramatically, this move really helps Portland.  But Philadelphia has a problem.  Eleven wins have left the team, and if this team is going to maintain its “average” status someone is going to have step-up and produce.

Forecasting Philly

The experts at ESPN apparently believe the Sixers can easily replace Miller.  This week the consensus forecasted 39 wins for Philadelphia.  In other words, losing Miller only costs this team about two wins. Oddly enough, these same experts think adding Miller will cost Portland two victories. Obviously, just as we saw when he joined the Sixers, Andre Miller is under-valued by the experts (a perspective that is probably due to the fact Miller has only averaged 14.0 points per game in his career).  Nevertheless, past history suggests Miller does help quite a bit and the Sixers will need to replace his contribution if Philadelphia is going to return to the playoffs.

To see how they can do this, let’s consider the current depth chart in Philadelphia (stats from 2008-09; WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes):

First String

PG: Jrue Holiday (rookie)

SG: Willie Green [-0.3 Wins Produced, -0.008 WP48]

SF: Andre Iguodala [13.1 Wins Produced, 0.193 WP48]

PF: Elton Brand [1.5 Wins Produced, 0.081 WP48]

C: Samuel Dalembert [6.9 Wins Produced, 0.162 WP48]

Second String

PG: Royal Ivey [-0.7 Wins Produced, -0.037 WP48]

SG: Louis Williams [1.8 Wins Produced, 0.046 WP48]

SF: Jason Kapono [-1.7 Wins Produced, -0.045 WP48]

PF: Thaddeus Young [2.2 Wins Produced, 0.040 WP48]

C: Marreese Speights [0.6 Wins Produced, 0.023 WP48]

The Sixers also have Jason Smith [-1.5 Wins Produced, -0.067 WP48 as a rookie in 2007-08] and Primoz Brezec [career -0.002 WP48, but who posted a 0.088 WP48 in 2004-05].

When we look at the entire roster we only see two players – Iguodala and Dalembert – who were above average last season.  And these players only produced 20 wins last year.  For this team to get to average status, someone else is going to have to produce 20 more wins.  The remaining veterans on the team, though, only produced 3.5 wins last season.  And after Elton Brand (who we will discuss in a moment) the highest WP48 from last year was the 0.046 mark posted by Louis Williams.  Such numbers tells us that this roster doesn’t have an abundance of productive problems. 

It does, though, have Elton Brand. From 2001-02 to 2006-07, Brand averaged 14.5 Wins Produced per season. In 2007, though, Brand was hurt.  Since this injury, Brand has only played 37 games and produced 1.8 wins.  And he is now 30 years old.  So although it is possible Brand can return to form, there is evidence that this won’t happen. But if Brand does return to form, the Sixers can get back to “average” status. 

After Brand, the picture does look bleak.  Again, most of the players on the roster have never been productive NBA players.  It’s possible that some might look to the one player without prior NBA experience.  The player ESPN.com lists as the starting point guard – Jrue Holiday – is a rookie.  Of the 47 players drafted out of a college last year, Holiday was ranked 30^th in Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes (PAWS40).  Right after Holiday was selected, the Denver Nuggets chose Ty Lawson; who was ranked 3^rd in PAWS40.   Those numbers suggest the Sixers made the wrong choice, and Philadelphia is not going to Miller-like production from the point guard spot.  Of course, that’s just a suggestion. College numbers do not project perfectly to the NBA (although there is a correlation).

Best Case vs. Worst Case

Okay, so what can fans of the Sixers expect?  The Best Case scenario is that Brand returns to what we saw two years ago and Iguodala and Dalembert remain productive (and maybe Holiday is not as bad as his college numbers suggest).  If that happens, the Sixers will get about 35 wins from their top three players and the team might make the playoffs.  The Worst Case scenario, though, is that Brand doesn’t return to form.  Given what’s left on this roster, the Sixers will then struggle to get past 30 wins. 

If the worst case scenario occurs, I suspect some people will blame Eddie Jordan (the team’s new coach).  And I suspect others will argue that the team misses Allen Iverson.  For the first argument I would note that coaches do not generally change player performance in the NBA.  As for the second argument we can talk about Wins Produced.  But also consider the following:  The Sixers were 111-111 with Andre Miller.  From 2003-04 to 2005-06 (or the last three full seasons Iverson played in Philadelphia), the Sixers were 114-132.  Yes, the Sixers did reach the NBA Finals with Iverson.  But the team’s record with the Answer (throughout his career in Philly) was actually below 0.500 (really, it was).  So Iverson – as Wins Produced suggests – was never really “the Answer”.  

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

Stephen Jackson stated the following a few days ago: “It’s just things are in the air right now. I really can’t get too much into it right now, but I’m just looking to go somewhere where I can go and win a championship.”

Translation: Jackson doesn’t think the Golden State Warriors are very good and he wants to be traded to a contender.

Evaluating Jackson

Jackson averaged 20.7 points per game last year, a mark that led Golden State.  If all one cared about was scoring, then Jackson would be considered a very good player.

Of course, there are other aspects to the game of basketball.  If we look at Jackson’s stats (at Basketball-Reference.com) a few deficiencies stand out.  An average small forward has a 48.2% adjusted (or effective) field goal percentage. Jackson’s career mark is 47.5% and last year he only shot 46.6%.  With respect to rebounds, net possessions (rebounds + steals – turnovers), and blocked shots, Jackson is also below average.  Yes, he can get assists and steals.  But his deficiencies overwhelm his few advantages.

As a consequence, although he has played 19,470 minutes in his career he has only produced 15.1 wins.  His career WP48 is 0.037, well below the average mark of 0.100.  In fact, in nine seasons Jackson has yet to be above average.

Last season the Warriors won 29 games.  The team’s Wins Produced of 31.2 indicates Golden State was a slightly better than their record indicated.  Looking at the players – reported in Table One – we can see who was responsible for these wins.  Or in the case of Jackson, who was not really responsible. Last year Jackson was paid $6.6 million and only produced 2.4 wins.

Table One: Golden State Warriors in 2008-09

Beyond a relatively low level of productivity, Jackson is also old and expensive.  Before the next season ends, Jackson will be 31 years of age.  He is also scheduled to receive $35 million across the next four seasons.

Jackson on a Better Team 

When we consider the entire Jackson picture, it seems a contender wouldn’t be helped much if they acquired his services.  It’s also apparent that the Warriors shouldn’t care much if he departs.  As it stands now, Jackson is going to get $10 million dollars in 2013-14.  Given the age profile of NBA players, at that point he will be a very unproductive 35-year old player.  So if the Warriors do find a contender that wants Jackson, now is the time to make a deal. 

Let me close by noting the other argument made by Jackson.  As noted a few weeks ago,  the Warriors could improve next season. In other words, it’s possible that Jackson will get to play on a better team if he just stays where he is.  Jackson is not likely to be the major reason the team improves, but he can still enjoy the additional wins.

Of course, I made this statement before the Warriors signed Mikki Moore.  As I have noted in the past, Moore is not a very productive NBA player. And if Moore takes minutes from Andris Biedrins, Anthony Randolph, or Brandan Wright; Golden State’s attempt to turn this team around will not be helped.  Nevertheless – despite the signing of Moore and the comments of Jackson – the Warriors could be much better next season.  All it would take is a few different decisions (and yes, that does make it sound far easier than it is).

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

The Memphis Grizzlies, as I have told Chip Crain of 3 Shades of Blue, are the Detroit Lions of the NBA.  Like the NFL team I follow, the Grizzlies have an owner that tells the fans that winning is important.  At the same time, though, this same owner takes actions (or inactions) that contradict the stated desire to field a winner. Consequently, the results in Memphis and Detroit are quite similar.

The Grizzlies completed their 14^th season in 2008-09.  In all but three of these seasons, the Grizzlies have failed to win 30 games.  Even when the team had a winning record, it failed to surpass 50 regular season victories and the Grizzlies are still waiting to win their first post-season game.

The 2008-09 season was quite consistent with this history. Memphis finished with 24 wins, 24 games behind the 8^th seed in the playoffs.  When we look at the how the team’s players performed, we can see who was responsible for this outcome (other than the owner, of course):

Table One: The Memphis Grizzlies in 2008-09

An average NBA player posts a 0.100 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  Last season Memphis employed three above average players: Mike Conley [0.135 WP48], Kyle Lowry [0.114 WP48], and Hamed Haddadi [0.270 WP48].  Lowry finished the season in Houston and Haddadi was on the bench for all but 120 minutes.  This means the Grizzlies finished the season with only one above average player who actually played on a regular basis. And Conley was not very far beyond average. 

Looking at the history of the players Memphis employed on 2008-09 reveals that the final results were unsurprising.  Of all the players who played 1,000 minutes or more in Memphis last season, Lowry was the only player who had ever posted an above average mark in his career prior to last season.  And once again, Lowry wasn’t with Memphis when the season ended.

With the end of each season, though, hope springs eternal.  The Grizzlies have once again been granted an entire summer to build a winner.  And now that September is about to begin, it seems like a good time to evaluate this team’s progress.  As of right now, here is the depth chart in Memphis (WP48 from 2008-09 at the position listed reported):

First String

PG:  Mike Conley (0.135)

SG: O.J. Mayo (0.054)

SF: Rudy Gay (0.049)

PF: Zach Randolph (0.163)

C: Marc Gasol (0.093)

Second String

PG: Marcus Williams [0.067 WP48 in 2007-08]

SG: Marko Jaric (-0.005)

SF: DeMarre Carroll (rookie)

PF: Darrel Arthur (0.032)

C: Hasheem Thabeet (rookie)

When we look at this depth chart we see that the population of above average Grizzlies has at least doubled.  That’s progress, but probably not enough.  In the Western Conference this team shouldn’t expect to make the playoffs.  But it might win more than 30 games. 

To make this happen it would help if Thabeet could be an above average performer.  Of the players selected out of college on draft night, Thabeet was one of the most productive players last season.  So it’s possible that he will be a productive NBA player his first season. If that happens, the Grizzles have potentially three above average players (Randolph, Gasol, and Thabeet) in the frontcourt. Not only could these players help with their own production, they also might push Rudy Gay permanently into the small forward slot.  Gay is not a great small forward, but he’s a very poor power forward.  So keeping him out of the four spot is a plus.

Looking at the backcourt… the starters are Conley and Mayo.  Conley led the team in Wins Produced last season and he has a chance of repeating that ranking this next season (by itself, not a good sign).  Mayo was selected by the coaches to the First Team All-Rookie team.  His productivity, though, was inconsistent with that ranking.  Nevertheless, young players can get better so it’s possible Mayo will do more next season.

There is talk of adding Allen Iverson to the back-court mix.  Some have suggested that Iverson can substantially boost ticket sales.  As I noted in July, I am skeptical of this story.  If Iverson is going to help the Grizzlies he is going to have to produce on the court.  But last season Iverson’s WP48 was only 0.037.   So although he does a bit more than Marko Jaric, Iverson doesn’t appear to be an upgrade over Marcus Williams.  At least, Williams did more when he got semi-regular minutes in 2007-08. 

If we put all this together – with or without Iverson – this is not a playoff team and it’s unlikely this team will win 40 games.  But it’s possible the Grizzlies could surpass the 30 win mark.  Yes, that doesn’t sound like much.  But this team has only reached that mark three times in its entire history.  So for Memphis, 30 wins is an achievement.

So the Memphis Lions will continue in 2009-10.  Let me close by noting, though, that there is one big difference between the Grizzlies and Lions. When we look at the players that will be employed by Memphis this next season it seems pretty clear that post-season basketball is not going to happen in Memphis in 2010.  For the Lions, though, hope remains.  The Lions have changed at least half their starting line-up from last season.  Plus they have a host of new reserves and an entirely new coaching staff.  Because football performance is so hard to predict, fans of the Lions can continue to hope for a few more days.  Of course, a week from Sunday the Lions go to New Orleans and reality will begin to be established.  And at that point, the Detroit Grizzlies may indeed appear. 

Then again…. last season, Drew Brees and the Saints scored a touchdown the first six times they got the ball against Detroit.  This year, it’s possible the Lions new defense can stop the Saints once or twice.  And maybe Matthew Stafford (or Daunte Culpepper) will hook up with Calvin Johnson for two or three (or four or five) touchdowns and Kevin Smith will run wild.  And then maybe, the Lions can keep this close and maybe….

Okay, football may be hard to predict but even I am having trouble maintaining this much hope. Still, I think the Lions are on the right path.  As for the Grizzlies… well, the team is on a path.  I am not sure, though, that this path is going to the playoffs any time soon.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

Although the summer is not quite over, Chris Mannix of CNNSI.com has decided to rank the teams in the NBA right now.  And coming in at the #8 spot is…. the Washington Wizards?

Last season the Wizards won 19 games and finished with a -7.9 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).  This differential ranked 28^th in the league and 0nly the Sacramento Kings and LA Clippers finished lower.

Looking at the top of the 2008-09 differential rankings we see that the 8^th best team was the Denver Nuggets, a team that posted a 3.5 differential and won 54 games.  The Wizards franchise has not fielded a team that was this good since 1978-79.  At that time the team was named the Bullets and Washington was competing in the NBA Finals.  Since that season, the best finish by a Washington team came in 2005-06 when the Wizards posted a 1.9 differential and won 42 games.*  In sum, it looks like Mannix will only be correct if this is the best Washington team in 30 years.

Again, last year this team was very bad.  And when we look at the players on this team, we can see why.

Table One: The Washington Wizards in 2008-09

An average player will post a 0.100 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].  Last season the Wizards employed only four players – Antawn Jamison, Caron Butler, Dominic McGuire, and Gilbert Arenas – who were above average.  And Arenas only played 63 minutes.  Of the thirteen remaining players employed, eight were producing in the negative range.  Consequently, we should not be surprised this team played so poorly.

What would it take for this team to play as well as the Nuggets last season?  Again, the Nuggets won 54 games and posted a 3.5 differential.  This means the Wizards would have to win 35 more games and improve its differential by 11.4.  To put this improvement in perspective, here is the list of all teams since 1973-74 who have improved by 30 wins.

• Boston (2007-08): 42 more wins, 14.5 increase in differential
• San Antonio (1997-98): 36 more wins, 13.1 increase in differential
• San Antonio (1989-90): 35 more wins, 10.1 increase in differential
• Phoenix (2004-05): 33 more wins, 11.1 increase in differential
• Boston (1979-80): 32 more wins, 11.9 increase in differential

What do these five teams have in common?  All of these teams added a very productive player.  The Celtics added Larry Bird in 1979 and Kevin Garnett in 2007.  The Spurs added David Robinson in 1989 and Tim Duncan in 1997.  And the Suns added Steve Nash in 2004.

The Wizards traded away their lottery pick for Mike Miller and Randy Foye.  Yes, Gilbert Arenas is coming back from injury.  But even with a healthy Gilbert Arenas in the past, this team didn’t win 50 games.  So what is Mannix thinking?

Well, maybe he looked at everyone who was expected to play for Washington in 2009-10.  Here is the expected first and second string for Washington (WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes):

First String

PG – Gilbert Arenas [2006-07]: 39.8 minutes per game, 10.7 Wins Produced, 0.174 WP48

SG – Mike Miller: 32.3 minutes per game, 13.9 Wins Produced, 0.282 WP48

SF – Caron Butler: 38.6 minutes per game, 8.1 Wins Produced, 0.150 WP48

PF – Antawn Jamison: 38.2 minutes per game, 10.1 Wins Produced, 0.157 WP48

C – Brendan Haywood [2007-08]: 27.9 minutes per game, 5.4 Wins Produced, 0.116 WP48

Second String

PG – Randy Foye: 35.6 minutes per game, 1.3 Wins Produced, 0.026 WP48

SG – Nick Young: 22.4 minutes per game, -1.2 Wins Produced, -0.032 WP48

SF – Dominic McGuire: 26.2 minutes per game, 7.5 Wins Produced, 0.174 WP48

PF – Andray Blatche: 24.0 minutes per game, -1.5 Wins Produced, -0.042 WP48

C – JaVale McGee: 15.2 minutes per game, 0.6 Wins Produced, 0.025 WP48

Adding together the Wins Produced of these players we get 54.8 wins.  The minutes of these players, though, summed to 22,456.  For these minutes to be played, the Wizards would have to average about 274 minutes per game.  Assuming the Wizards are not playing a large number of overtime games, someone is going to have to play fewer minutes, and therefore, 54 wins is not quite right (assuming these players offer the same level of production).  Nevertheless, it does look like these ten players can win between 45 and 50 games.  And with a bit of improvement here and there, maybe this edition of the Wizards can indeed post numbers similar to what the Nuggets did last year.

Of course, we are assuming

• Arenas returns to what he was two years ago.
• Haywood returns to what he was a year ago.
• Miller maintains the productivity we saw last year in Minnesota

So we are assuming quite a bit and therefore, there is no guarantee that the Wizards will approach 50 wins.

That being said, it does look like what Mannix argued – as unbelievable as it appeared at first glance – is at least possible.   Without adding a future Hall-of-Fame player, the Wizards might improve by 30 games in the standings.  And Washington fans might see a team that is better than any edition of this franchise since Jimmy Carter was president. 

*- the Wizards did win 45 games in 2004-05 but the team’s differential was only -0.3.

- DJ

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.