Rational Sports

NBA All-Star Reserves (and Deserves)

2009-01-29T15:57:00.000-08:00

The list is posted. Here are my thoughts based on their overall productivity.

West

Pau Gasol - acceptable pick.
David West - no way. slightly above average producer (but scores a lot of points).
Dirk Nowitzki - usually a given, this year he's still very good, but no all-star.
Tony Parker - one of his best seasons ever (but still not outstanding).
Chauncey Billups - absolutely.
Brandon Roy - acceptable.

East

Jameer Nelson - his best season yet.
Rashard Lewis - hmm. only acceptable as a small forward.
Paul Pierce - usually a given, having a down year though.
Joe Johnson - no way. average producer, prodigious shooter of the ball.
Chris Bosh - solid, but not exemplary, big man.
Devin Harris - best season yet.
Danny Granger - nope. see Joe Johnson. His primary problems are turnovers and poor rebounding (and average shooting efficiency).

Furthermore, the article gave mention to the following notable snubs:

East

Mo Williams - not even the most productive guard on his team (Delonte West). slightly above average producer for the same reasons as Granger.
Rajon Rondo - absolutely should have been a starter. most productive player on the Celtics so far this year. yes, i'm serious.
Ray Allen - eh. didn't deserve a spot, but he's productive.

West

Al Jefferson - he's playing just about as well as ever. very productive player, but there are others equally or more productive at his position (Gasol).
Steve Nash - has he really declined in production? looks like he has, but he's still more productive than some of the all-stars.

Production vs Skills

2009-01-10T13:22:00.000-08:00

Nice, I got a new one done. Sadly, I got hilariously cut off at the end - if I hadn't commented on the fact that I was running out of time I would have made it. Oh well.

This marks the first mention of Larry Hughes.

Just me doing my part to help player evaluation in the NBA - hopefully one day players won't get extra credit for abilities that, while impressive, do not help his team win.

1st video

2009-01-08T22:51:00.000-08:00

This is more of an introduction and 'test run' than anything else.

I have no idea what I'm saying half the time, but hey - it's all practice. I'll have specific things to discuss in the future.

Oh, and somehow I nailed the time limit! I got it right on the dot.

Yep

2009-01-08T19:24:00.000-08:00

Looks like I'm going to make this a video blog. I recorded the first one just now, only I need to upload it (but I'm heading out in a second). Hopefully Blogger will let me upload a ton of video, cause I got lots to talk about.

OJ Mayo is not the rookie of the year

2009-01-07T11:55:00.000-08:00

Not by a long shot. Off the top of my head I can think of four rookies who are producing at a greater rate than Mayo. If that's the case, why did Head 2 Head sports say yesterday, "Very few rookies in the history of the league have been as impressive as Mayo has been this season."

Simple. He scores more points per game than any other rookie. However, that stat is meaningless. Take more shots, score more points. What is important is how efficiently those points are scored.

In addition, there are many other factors other than scoring that affect the outcome of games. No, I'm not talking about "intangibles" (I hate that word). I'm talking about the box score.

Mayo shoots 45%. That's not good. Plus he takes a ton of shots, so that's not helping his team win, either. He's turnover prone and surprisingly doesn't generate many steals for a supposedly quick young guard. He rebounds relatively well, though.

All in all it adds up to merely average production for a SG (as calculated via Win Produced per 48 minutes). I should add that this is better than expected for Mayo, who was a below average performer in college. So perhaps he will become above average in future years.

I mentioned that there are at least four rookies with better production. Let's talk about one who was a second-round pick. Let's talk about Mario Chalmers.

A quick look at their efficiency stats (shooting) will show you that Mario is a worse shooter than Mayo (Chalmers is at 41%). However, Chalmers takes far fewer shots than Mayo, so ultimately he 'hurts his team less'.

Now let's move on to possession factors: rebounds, steals, blocks and turnovers. Chalmers lags a bit behind Mayo in rebounds per 48 minutes, but is a beast when it comes to steals (he's near the top of the league). Blocks are a wash, but Chalmers bests Mayo again in the turnover department, despite being a PG and thus, in theory, handling the ball more. (Even if he doesn't actually handle the ball more than Mayo, Chalmers still manages to get far more assists).

All told, Chalmers is a more valuable player in terms of gaining possessions for his team. He commits more fouls than Mayo, but this is more than offset by his superior assist total.

So, in non-scoring aspects Chalmers is much better than Mayo per 48 minutes. Mayo is the better shooter, but it's all relative - he's still not a great shooter, and Chalmers limits the damage caused by his inefficient shooting by not taking too many shots. In the end, Chalmers produces more wins per 48 minutes than Mayo.

Since the point of basketball is to wins games (not score points), I'd vote for Chalmers for MVP over Mayo any day.

I should also point out - Chalmers' production is not a surprise. Take a look at his college numbers. They were remarkably good, and consistent, for all three of his Kansas years. Due to his consistency I proclaimed him a sure bet in the NBA, and he has delivered (I wish I was doing this blog then, that would have been nice to have for posterity). So why was he taken in the second round?

Scoring. It's just plain overvalued. Enormously.

...and we're back

2009-01-07T11:49:00.000-08:00

Hmm. It's been a year since I posted here. I've been watching tons of basketball this season and I'm starting to get frustrated again. So the blog is back.

What I'd really like to do is make this a video blog of some sort. It would be awesome to find a way to get feeds of NBA games sans audio commentary, so I could do my own. I don't think that's possible. What is possible is me doing ghetto espn-style coverage of each day's games, all told through the lens of statistical analysis. Gone will be all pointless references to "points scored" and "(blanks) per game", replaced by "FG/FT%" and "(blanks) per 48 minutes".

My biggest beef right now... ok, I'll make this a separate post.

End of an Era

2008-02-28T11:35:00.000-08:00

Please, please click on the link over on the right to 'Hey Larry Hughes Please Stop Taking So Many Bad Shots'. The author has posted his final, well, post, and it's great. The highlight? A photo of Brian Fantana with the caption: "Larry Hughes' jumpshot; 33% of the time, it works every time."

There is a good chance that I'll print that out and hang it in my bedroom.

Ode to Larry

2008-02-21T15:21:00.001-08:00

This site is called Rational Sports, but allow me a moment of irrational exuberance. The Cavs just pulled off a mega trade with the Bulls and Sonics, and the trade is so far in the Cavs' favor that I wet myself when I heard the news.

Here are the players involved, along with their WP48 production through the first half of the season:

Cavs get:
Ben Wallace .162
Wally Szczerbiak .055
Delonte West .004
Joe Smith .065

Bulls get:
Larry Hughes (!!!) -.080
Drew Gooden .074
Cedric Simmons -.125
Shannon Brown -.186

Sonics get:
Ira Newble .097
Donyell Marshall -.214
Adrian Griffin .040

Now, on the surface this doesn't look like such a huge trade for the Cavs. However, there is a chance that the Cavs pulled off this deal at critical 'buy low' times for many of the players involved. Ben Wallace has historically posted a WP48 in excess of .300. In other words, he has been stellar. It's true that he's old now, but it's also true that he has been unhappy in Chicago. Still, he has been playing twice as well as Gooden, who also has traditionally been a much better player, in the .180 range. But I'm happy to take a player whose play, when they don't live up to expectations, equals that of a player when he does live up to expectations.

Both West and Szczerbiak have been slightly above average in the past as well. This year both have seen very inconsistent minutes, and it has been shown that a reduction in minutes does has a negative impact on a player's production. It is likely that West and Wally will become the starting PG and SG for the Cavs, or, if Boobie Gibson starts, one of them will be the sixth man. The increase in minutes should bode well for their play.

Last, but certainly not least, the Cavs have gotten rid of Larry Hughes. Ah, Larry. I cannot overemphasize how important this is to the Cavs. Even if Wally and West do not improve at all, the loss of Hughes, whose WP48 is in the negative range, means a dramatic increase in production for the Cavs. Let's put it this way: I, a rational sports fan, jumped up from my computer and ran and talked excitedly to a near-stranger at my workplace (who I knew was a basketball fan) after hearing about the trade. I am very sad, however, that the fantastic heylarryhughespleasestoptakingsomanybadshots.com may be dead. There really is no replacement for a site like that in one's daily web routine.

All in all, there is no doubt - none - that this is a very beneficial trade for the Cavs. The only real assets they gave up were Gooden (having a terrible year so far) and Newble, who sees very limited minutes because of the NBA's scoring bias.

I might purchase an NBA league pass for the rest of this year now. Unbelievable.

few posts

2008-02-14T14:59:00.000-08:00

I have been very busy at work lately, that is why there haven't been many posts lately. Well, that and because I am the only person who reads this thing.

LeBron vs Carmelo I

2008-02-11T11:53:00.000-08:00

One NBA player lords over LeBron James.

Carmelo Anthony rules Cleveland's hoops King.

"I know he hates losing to me," Anthony said with a laugh.

This is how the AP writeup of last night's Cavs-Nuggets game began. But let's see who should be laughing. True, the Nuggets destroyed the Cavs last night. It was ugly. But the Cavs were without many of their main rotation players: Gooden, Gibson and Varejao. The Nuggets were pretty much at full strength.

I find it hard to believe that some people still consider Carmelo a better player than LeBron, but apparently they're out there. So I calculated the WP48 (wins per 48 minutes) of each player (see the Wages of Wins link to the right if you don't know what this means).

LeBron: .166
Carmelo: .464

And what we find is that in this case, the AP writer is correct (didn't see that one coming, did you?). LeBron played a horrible game, highlighted by his 5 turnovers. Looks like he shouldn't have been the one to sit alone at the end of the bench in the 4th quarter.

Of course, this is just one game. So before we jump to conclusions here is each player's WP48 score after the first 41 games of the season:

LeBron: .331
Carmelo: .101

These numbers are representative of each player's entire career. LeBron has been a far more productive player than Carmelo. It's really not even close.

For fun, here is Darko's WP48 this season:

Darko: -.075

Yes, that's a minus sign.

Steve Kerr: Future Punch Line

2008-02-05T23:44:00.001-08:00

Let's get one thing straight - Steve Kerr sure seems like a good guy. Great player, good commentator, apparently horrid GM. According to ESPN, Kerr is on the verge of trading Shawn Marion for Shaq.

I use the metrics devised by Dave Berri (the Wages of Wins) to judge players on this site, but I don't care what you choose to use - there is no way to justify this trade statistically. Shaq is no longer the player he once was by any measure, while Marion is an absolute freak.

WP48 for each (through 41 games):

Shaq: .102 (.100 is an average player)
Marion .314

Steve Kerr was given one of the top 5 franchises in the league, easy, and within one year he is going to turn them into a top 15 team.

Mark my words - if this trade goes through Phoenix is officially out of the race. They're done. Stoudamire is the third banana to Nash and Marion, but once again the NBA's scoring bias has resulted in a terrible, terrible decision. Sorry Phoenix.

A Tale of Two Josh's

2008-02-05T13:18:00.000-08:00

Today's post is a bit personal. Josh Smith blew up yesterday and posted a very fantasy friendly line of 19 points (on 53.8% shooting), 6 reb, 9 ast, 4 stl, 5 turnovers and 9 (!) blocks. I say this post is personal because Smith is on the team of my opponent this week, and those 9 blocks really, really suck.

So the AP write up names Smith as the catalyst for the Hawks' defeat of the 76ers. But how does Win Score view this performance?

Smith shot efficiently, which is something he tends to have trouble with. His possession stats look utterly fantastic as well, until you consider the five turnovers. Those turnovers cancel out his four steals, plus a couple of those blocks. Still, though, 7 blocks and 6 rebounds result in favorable net possession score.

What about his teammates, though? Specifically, what about the 'other Josh' - a player who plays a similar position to Smith but who comes off the bench (yet he does get big minutes).

Josh Childress shot an amazing 9-11 from the field for 21 highly efficient points. His possession stats were much less astounding than Smith's, but he pulled down the same number of rebounds in 5 fewer minutes and only committed one turnover. This certainly mitigates the discrepancy.

Was Childress' amazing shooting efficiency enough to compensate for his worse (but still good) possession stats and result in him being the more productive Josh per minute in last night's game?

The answer is no, but barely. Here are their WP48:

Josh Smith: .507
Josh Childress: .459

So while Smith's gaudy stats compelled the AP to fixate on his play, Childress quietly put together an almost-as-fantastic night in 35 minutes off the bench.

(Note: Childress has consistently been the more productive of the two Josh's over the course of their careers).

The moral of this story? Well, usually the moral of my stories is that scoring is overvalued. In this case, though, the top scorer wasn't the top story, and in fact Smith was the most productive player on the Hawks last night. But Childress wasn't far behind at all. So the moral is that the relative values of each stat are incredibly important (blocks and steals always appear next to each other in the box score, but steals are actually twice as valuable).

Oh, and just as scoring is overvalued, turnovers are undervalued. Big time.

Grizzlies WTF?

2008-02-04T12:36:00.000-08:00

Seriously? So the Grizzlies traded Pau Gasol, a proven productive NBA player, to the Lakers for... what, exactly? There are no guarantees, just four #1 picks, essentially. That's it. Chris Wallace, what were you thinking? Those first rounders are going to be LATE first rounders. So you'll have cap space for free agents too, but who exactly are you gunning for now? Who wants to play for the Grizzlies? Without Pau's production you're going to be really, really terrible for a few years, if not butt-naked last. WTF?

I know this site is called Rational Sports, but perhaps I should have included the disclaimer "rationality not guaranteed when discussing teams I love or hate". I hate the Lakers. Hate them. And now they have, when healthy, perhaps the most productive team in the NBA.

I Agree With Charles Barkley

2008-02-01T10:13:00.000-08:00

Today we're going to do a little exercise. Consider the following numbers:

6.6
2.1
21.6
12.2
13.6

These are how many possessions, per 48 minutes, five different players in the NBA have generated this year. Remember, each possession generated gives his team an opportunity to score. Who would you rather have on your team?

I'll tell you this - the first two players are a small forward and point guard, respectively. The last three are all centers.

(By the way, this number is very simple to calculate. Rebounds + Steals + 1/2 Blocks - Turnovers. (The 1/2 blocks calculation has been documented at the Wages of Wins. It makes sense since a blocked shot does not always result in a possession for the defending team).)

I'm not going to tell you the first two players. I'll just say they're on the same team as the third player: Marcus Camby.

On his own, all by himself, Camby has generated 21+ possessions for the Nuggets per 48 minutes this season.

The Nuggets have shot 45% for the year so far. 27% of their shots have been threes. This means the Nuggets score 21.5 points per 48 minutes as a direct result of Camby's ability to rebound, gets steals and blocks, and not turn the ball over.

Let me state that again: Camby's Net Possessions alone result in 21.5 points per 48 minutes for the Nuggets.

The fourth player on the list is Chris Wilcox. He is a PF/C for the Sonics, and is a very, very average player. Despite playing virtually the same position as Camby he generates a little more than HALF of the possessions Camby generates, per 48.

The fifth player is interesting because he will be playing in the All-Star game. He is a center. Strangely, though, he doesn't appear to be much more valuable than Wilcox in terms of possessions.

One thing worth mentioning is that this person plays significantly more minutes than Wilcox does, so his per GAME possession stats are much better than Wilcox's. This is an easy mistake to make because of the way average stats are usually quoted in sports literature. Per MINUTE numbers put all players on an even footing. (Let's call this the Mikki Moore Corollary).

As you might have guessed, this fifth player scores a lot of points. And I must admit he does it very, very efficiently. In fact he scores much more efficiently than Camby.

However, Camby's extraordinary advantage in Net Possessions makes him TWICE as productive as Amare Stoudamire when all stats are taken into consideration via Win Score.

This is why I agree with Sir Charles (which doesn't often happen). Camby not making the All-Star game is disturbing. No other way to put it.

http://www.wagesofwins.com/AllPlayersMid0708.html

Also, Joe Johnson is getting the credit Al Horford deserves.

See link to the right

2008-01-31T16:51:00.000-08:00

Only have time for a brief post today about the Cavs game last night, vs the Trailblazers.

The Cavs came back to win in the 4th quarter, and the AP reports name LeBron as the deciding factor.

Well, in this case they're right. LeBron was a beast. But Zydrunas Ilgauskas had a big game, too. He didn't shoot very well, but more than made up for it in possession factors (13 boards, 2 steals and a block).

The WP48 for these two:

LeBron: .417
Z: .228

And just for the heck of it, Larry Hughes:

Larry: -.363

Yep, Larry's production virtually negated all of Ilgauskas'. Hughes played 10 less minutes than Z, so the actual amount of negative wins probably (ie the amount that Hughes HURT the Cavs' chances to win) was very close to Z's total contribution.

As the title of this post says, please visit the Larry Hughes fansite located in the links section to the right. Jesus.

On Possession

2008-01-30T15:32:00.000-08:00

Possession is an important, and overlooked, aspect of most sports. Maintaining possession in soccer is fundamental. American football coaches extol the virtues of quarterbacks who don't turn the ball over.

Basketball is no different - possessions, and what a team does with them, are important. Think about it: the only guaranteed way for a team to receive possession of the ball is if the other team makes a basket or commits an unforced turnover. A basketball team cannot expect other teams to consistently turn over the ball of their own accord, and a team is not going to win many games if they only receive possession because of opponents' made shots.

Since basketball is a possession game, the other ways teams can gain additional possessions are extremely important. Rebounds are one way. Steals are another. Blocks can lead to possessions, but are not guaranteed to (and so are somewhat less valuable than rebounds and steals).

It may seem like rebounds and steals are things that 'just happen' in NBA games, but they're not - some players consistently average more rebounds, steals, blocks and turnovers than others, regardless of what team they're on or who their teammates are. "And that," in the words of Champ Kind, "is a scientific fact."

A team CANNOT score points unless they have opportunities to shoot the ball. Therefore, a fantastic (ie: efficient) shooter who does very little else to gain possessions (like Jason Kopono) is completely reliant on his teammates to gain more possessions so that he can shoot. And if a team can employ a similarly efficient shooter, but one who also is also productive in terms of gaining possessions, that team will benefit.

Overvaluing shooters and scorers in basketball is the equivalent of overvaluing a quarterback in football. Fans tend to blame QBs for losses and credit them for wins. Yes, QBs touch the ball on every single offensive play (which is still only half the plays in a game), so they certainly do contribute a lot to a team's fortunes. But no QB has ever won or lost a game on his own.

In basketball, no shooter - like Kobe Bryant - has ever won a game on his own, either. Kobe takes an extremely high volume of shots at a respectable shooting percentage. He does many other things relatively well for a shooting guard, such as getting rebounds and assists, but he's not too special - on a per-minute basis - with regards to other possession factors, such as steals, block and turnovers.

My point is, many people consider Kobe the best player on the planet, hands down. As a matter of fact I heard two announcers mention it during the recent Lakers-Cavs game. What they mean, I think, is that Kobe is the most amazing shooter. He seems to have an uncanny knack in making difficult shots, he appears fearless on the offensive end, and he has tremendous 'hot streaks'.

These are all subjective factors. In other words, they are the antithesis of what this blog is all about. People appreciate what Kobe does as an art form. At times his physical grace is quite beautiful and frankly, rather amazing. However, the fact remains - while Kobe is an excellent all-around player, and a fairly efficient scorer, he is in no way the best player in the league if by 'best' you mean 'contributes the most to helping his team win'.

It's no secret that Kobe was reliant upon a certain player during the Laker's recent championship successes. Shaq was a possession force - he rebounded extremely well, blocked many, many shots and turned the ball over infrequently. His ability to gain possessions gave Kobe the opportunity to take many additional shots. But Shaq could shoot too (from close range), and since he was a center he shot at a much, much higher percentage than did Kobe.

I think I need to stop this post now. I'm starting to ramble. My point - really - is that possession factors are undervalued in the NBA, while scoring is overvalued. Think about it - if team A has more possessions than team B, and team A shoots a higher percentage than team B, is it even possible for team B to win the game?

The Better Line in Memphis (vs Dallas)

2008-01-29T14:35:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the Dallas Mavericks defeated the Memphis Grizzlies 103-84. The AP write up states that Memphis was "led by Rudy Gay with 18 points". Also, on the Yahoo Sports scoreboard page, Rudy's line of 18 pts, 4 reb and 1 ast is the only one shown for the Grizzlies.

However, Kyle Lowry's line was 17 pts, 5 reb and 4 ast in similar minutes (both were the only Memphis players with over 40 mins). Was this actually the better line?

It sure looks like it on the surface, but of course we need to dig deeper. For starters, Gay scored his 18 points on 7-14 shooting, while Lowry only connected on 5-14 shots. So now it looks like things swing back in Gay's favor.

But what really matters is the relative value of each of these stats. What also matters - a great deal - are the other stats recorded in the box score.

For instance, Gay recorded one steal, but had two turnovers. It's clear that a steal is basically the opposite of a turnover, so his net is one turnover. It's important to remember that that turnover lead to a Dallas possession that may have resulted in a shot and perhaps, points.

Lowry, on the other hand, recorded three steals and zero turnovers. In other words, he netted three extra possessions for his team that may have resulted in points.

Ok, we can go back and forth for a while longer, but it's clear that Gay had the better shooting night while Lowry performed better in regards to most everything else.

I calculated the WP48 for each player:

Lowry: .173
Gay: .023

Average is .100, so it's clear that Lowry did much more to help his team win than did Gay.

Important note: there is a position adjustment in their WP48 scores. In this case we are comparing a PG to a SF, which is sort of like comparing apples to oranges. PGs play a 'risky' position, because PGs turn the ball over more and shoot worse than the other positions on average. So Lowry is credited because he played better than the average PG in comparison to how well Gay played compared to an average SF. Gay actually slightly outperformed Lowry if you ignore the position adjustment.

In other words, the Grizzlies got more production out of the PG spot relative to an average PG than they got out of the SF relative to the average SF.

Dave Berri at the Wages of Wins has posted on each of these players' career averages. These are the WP48 for each player through 16 games this season:

Lowry: .185
Gay: .019

And these are their WP48 from all of last season:

Lowry: .292*
Gay: -.035

*Lowry only played 170 minutes last year.

So far, Lowry seems to be quite a productive point guard. Gay, on the other hand, has been a consistently unproductive small forward. Yesterday's game, despite being such a small sample, fell in line with the historical data.

Still, Gay was credited with 'leading' Memphis because he scored the most points.

First Post

2008-01-28T20:34:00.001-08:00

I'll write more regarding the mission statement of this blog, but for now I'll just mention that this blog will focus solely on sports news and insights that can be statistically validated.

Specifically, I will be using the Win Score metrics developed by Dave Berri et al, the writers of The Wages of Wins (Berri is the primary author of the WOW blog found in my 'links' section.

I have studied Win Score and compared it to various other statistical metrics, and find it to be a cut above the rest. If you disagree with some of the results of the metric, then I recommend biting your tongue until you have taken the time to understand it first.

Ok, on to the first post. It's a short one. Yesterday, the Cleveland Cavs (my team) defeated the LA Lakers 98-95. The AP write up of the game predictably focused on the duel between LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, the NBA's two leading scorers. This makes sense, since sportswriters are, ultimately, artists (or perhaps craftsmen), and they try to tell the most compelling story. In the words of the story: "LeBron James won his personal matchup with Kobe Bryant, the league's two leading scorers".

Well, LeBron certainly won the duel if all you do is focus on their scoring output. But there are many other aspects to a basketball game. It is widely accepted that 'Role Players' fulfill, well, necessary roles on the court (ie roles other than scoring). Consequently, 'Star Players' can contribute in the same ways as 'Role Players' in addition to their scoring, and the more they contribute in these areas the better they are, overall.

This is what the Win Score metric is all about. I have put together a somewhat simplified version of the metric - it's not exact, but it's very close. I won't get into the details now - you can visit the WOW site to find out everything you'll need.

What I have calculated is WP48, or Wins Per 48 minutes. So, if a player performs at a certain level for 48 minutes, they will produce a certain amount of wins. An average performance is a WP48 of .100.

As much as it pains me to say it, Kobe had the better game yesterday.

WP48
LeBron: .217
Kobe: .488

Both players shot the ball at close to a 50% rate, but Kobe had the edge in terms of rebounds, assists and turnovers. Rebounds and turnovers, in particular, are extremely undervalued in the mainstream sports press.

Thus ends the first post. I am not sure exactly what types of posts I will put on this blog, and it may take me a while to get going because I have another blog (the Lost on Purpose link - a music site), but I just might start posting my own version of 'Player of the Week' or 'Big Game of the Week', all based on the WOW metrics.

Then again, I might pick a game a day and do a more 'rational' write up than the one found in AP reports (or on Sportcenter).

I guess this wasn't such a short post after all.