Video: How good was Alonzo Gee at Summer League?

bduran
August 1st, 2010 at 8:42 am

I haven’t gotten as into the “wages of wins” stuff nearly as much as you have. I haven’t looked into exactly how you’re getting your data, or how you’re making your calculations in terms of coming up with “team” wins accounted for by players ranked one through six, etc.

I wanted to take a minute to manually compile some data that I though might provide just a snapshot about what’s going on here. I don’t have the data sets or appropriate software to look at too many playoff teams, or to go over many years, thus I just zoomed in on last year’s semifinalists, and I threw in last years Spurs team, a second round loser, for comparison.

I looked at a few data points as it pertained to to groups of players: (1) top-three players, *generally* defined in order of STARTER mpg; and (2) top-three bench players, also *generally* defined in the order of mpg. played.

RS = Regular Season
PS = Post Season

CELTICS:

Top Three: Rondo, Pierce, Garnett

Averages:

Age ……………MPG ………………..WP48
………………….RS/PS ………………RS/PS

30.0 …………33.5/37.6 ………. .228/.187

………………..UP 12.2% …….. DOWN - significantly

6, 7, 8 - Rotation: Wallace, Davis, Allen

Averages:

Age ……………MPG ………………..WP48
………………….RS/PS ………………RS/PS

29.3 ………….18.8/17.8 ………. .030/.043

……………… DOWN 5.3% ……… UP 43%

MAGIC:

Top Three: Howard, Lewis, Carter

Averages:

Age ……………MPG ………………..WP48
………………….RS/PS ………………RS/PS

29.0 ………….32.8/35.5 ………. .163/.132

…………………UP 8.2% ………….. DOWN

6, 7, 8 - Rotation: Pietrus, Reddick, Williams

Averages:

Age …………….MPG ………………..WP48
…………………..RS/PS ………………RS/PS

29.0 ………….21.8/17.7 ……….. .107/.087

…………….. DOWN 18.8%………. DOWN

SUNS:

Top Three: Amare, Nash, Richardson

Averages:

Age …………….MPG …………………WP48
…………………..RS/PS ……………….RS/PS

30.7 ………….32.9/34.5 ………… .205/.200

………………….UP 4.9% ………. DOWN marginally

6, 7, 8 - Rotation: Dudley, Dragic, Amundson

Averages:

Age …………….MPG ………………….WP48
…………………..RS/PS ………………..RS/PS

23.3 ………….19.1/16.8 ………….. .127/.137

……………….DOWN 12% ………….. UP 8%

LAKERS:

Top Three: Bryant, Gasol, Artest

Averages:

Age …………….MPG ………………….WP48
…………………..RS/PS ………………..RS/PS

30.0 …………36.5/38.8 …………. .179/.175

………………… UP 6.3% ………… DOWN marginally

6, 7, 8 - Rotation: Odom, Brown, Farmar

Averages:

Age …………….MPG ………………….WP48
…………………..RS/PS ………………..RS/PS

25.7 ………….23.4/18.7 ………….. .127/.049

………………. DOWN 20% …….. DOWN significantly

SPURS:

Top Three: Duncan, Ginobli, Parker

Averages:

Age …………….MPG ………………….WP48
…………………..RS/PS ………………..RS/PS

31.3 …………..30.3/35.3 ………… .222/.128

………………… UP 16.5% ……… DOWN - significantly

6, 7, 8 - Rotation: Hill, Blair, Bonner

Age …………….MPG ………………….WP48
…………………..RS/PS ………………..RS/PS

25 …………….21.8/20.3 …………. .156/.119

……………… DOWN 6.9% ………… DOWN

A few points to ponder:

— Minutes went up in all “top three” groups between the RS and the PS.

— Minutes went down in all “6, 7, 8 rotation” groups between the RS and the PS.

— WP48 went down in all “top three groups” between the RS and the PS.

— WP48 went down in two of the “6, 7, 8 rotation” groups between the RS and the PS, but went UP considerably (as a percentage improvement) in the other two groups.

— The oldest “top-three group” (the Spurs) had the 2nd biggest jump in PS mpg., and the largest drop in PS WP48.

— The second oldest “top-three group” (the Suns) had the smallest jump in PS mpg., had the smallest drop in PS WP48, and the Suns “6 to 8 rotation group” had the second highest PS gain in WP48, as well as the highest absolute WP48 (.137).

— The oldest player in the “top-three groups” usually had the biggest drop in PS WP48, except for Kobe & Nash. The same goes for the 30 yr. old+ “6-8 rotation groups”, sans Lamar Odom.

The following players of the “6-8 rotation groups” appeared to help their teams more per minute played than one or more players in the “top-three groups”:

Magic PS WP48:

Out of Top-Three …. “6-8 rotation”

Lewis: .072 ………….. Pietrus: .127
Carter: .036 …………. Redick: .085, Williams: .049

Suns PS WP48:

Out of Top-Three …. “6-8 rotation”

Amare: .032 …………. Amundson: .092
……………………………..Dudley: .223
……………………………..Dragic: .095

Lakers PS WP48:

Out of Top-Three …. “6-8 rotation”

Artest: .008 …………..Odom: .171, Farmar: .040

Spurs PS WP48:

Out of Top-Three …. “6-8 rotation”

Parker: .057 …………..Blair: .394

This is just a snap shot at last years semifinalists, and one 2nd round loser, but it seems that teams could actually be hurting themselves in the PS at times by playing top-three players too much at the expense of young, solid rotation players, particularly for teams whose top-three are on the “old” side. This appears to be true for the Spurs (e.g. Blair), Suns (e.g., Dudley, Amundson), Magic (Pietrus, Redick), and probably would be true of the Celtics, if they had a more talented & consistent bench.

Granted, the “top three” players are achieving a higher absolute PS WP48 than the “6-8″ players, but their efficiency appears to be hurt more by their increased minutes between the RS and the PS, than the “6-8″ players “could” be helped by their decrease in minutes between the RS and PS.

I’m not sure how you’re exactly coming up with “team wins” accounted for by players 1-6, etc., but I would suggest the calculations need to be more complex in order to come to any firm conclusions as to what particular team should increase the minutes of their top players in the PS, and by how much. Otherwise, I need to hear a satisfactory explanation of why the top-three players ALL had WP48 reductions in the PS (when averaging MORE mpg.) compared to the RS (when averaging LESS mpg.). Perhaps they account for more wins in the PS simply because they steal more minutes. The idea is to play your top-three as many minutes as you can without them achieving a larger drop in WP48 than the drop in the WP48 of their counterparts on the opposing team. And that is something that the Spurs were clearly losing the battle in, particularly against the Suns (and Lakers, if they played them).

By the way, apparently Riley wished he could have kept him:

http://www.clublakers.com/nba-discussion/pat-riley-says-heat-should-have-kept-jason-kapono-t83438.html

bduran
August 1st, 2010 at 6:44 pm

“It’s been noted before in Wages of Wins that in general WP48 goes down in the post season, most likely due to stiffer competition.”

“….most likely due to stiffer competition.”? That’s pure speculation, as far as I can tell. It’s simply not a sufficient explanation. Maybe it’s adequate as a hypothesis, but that’s about it. Increased minutes is just as likely, at least as a co-factor. For example, at least for 2010, how come the WP48 for the rotation players did better overall compared to the top-three guys? The rotation guys had overall stiffer competition too, didn’t they?

Any comments on this part of my post?:

“Perhaps they account for more wins in the PS simply because they steal more minutes. The idea is to play your top-three as many minutes as you can without them achieving a larger drop in WP48 than the drop in the WP48 of their counterparts on the opposing team. And that is something that the Spurs were clearly losing the battle in, particularly against the Suns (and Lakers, if they played them).”

High age/durability issues, and too much of an increase in minutes during the PS don’t appear to be a very good mix. This requires further investigation, in my view.

“Sure, but then they didn’t play him much the first year and then let him go after two. All I’m saying is there is no real evidence of how Pat Riley valued him either way.”

As I said, in year one Kapono was fairly inexperienced, just 24 years old, and they already had both Posey & Antoine Walker still in their prime years. They let him go because the financial geniuses in Toronto though he was worth 6 million per year (which is like 7 million+ in today’s market). They liked him fine, but the price was simply too steep to enter into another multi-year deal at the time.

Also, I guess the quote from Riley wasn’t good enough. Apparently Riley had some regrets, after the fact, that he didn’t re-sign Kapono, even for the high price.

“….there is no real evidence of how Pat Riley valued him either way.”

No “real evidence”? What do you need, a sworn confession from Riley? You need for him to overpay for him to prove that he valued him?

bduran
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:28 am

“It’s not clear whether or not our big 3′s WP48 would have gone up if they’d played fewer minutes.”

But I’ve only implied that that “might” be the case. The “battle” we clearly lost last year with our aging “top-three” is that their WP48 dropped more between the RS & PS than did any of the “top-three” of the semifinalists.

“You dismiss my suggestion as speculation and then go on to assume your own hypothesis.”

You’re “suggestion” was too declarative (e.g., “most likely”). I simply pointed that out. And I did not assume my hypothesis. I asserted the following fact:

“The “battle” we clearly lost last year with our aging “top-three” is that their WP48 dropped more between the RS & PS than did any of the “top-three” for the semifinalists.”

…..Which could be used to build a hypothesis for further testing. Something like: “Top-Three” players whose average age is greater than 30, and whose minutes jump by more than 15% between the RS & PS, will on average exhibit a greater drop in their WP48 between the RS and the PS compared to other “top-three” groups that do not meet such criteria.

bduran
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:37 am

“However, they were thinking somewhat the opposite, that experience may allow players to keep up their WP48 better in the post season.”

Age and experience up to what point? 31, 33, 35, 37?…

As I pointed out in a previous post, for last years semifinalist, & the Spurs, most of the oldest players had the biggest drop in their WP48 between the RS and the PS.

Garnett
Duncan
Ginobli
Carter
Williams
Wallace

All 32 and above. The other two, Pierce & McDyess, managed to eek out slim gains.

“TP was coming off an injury (also I think he always has a large drop), TD started playing worse before the start of the PS due to regular season grind. Manu had a broken nose and shot poorly.”

They all had drops in WP48 in the past 4 playoffs, except for TP’s, which went up last year. Manu’s last playoffs before this past year was in 2008, and he had a steep drop off on WP48 from the RS to the PS: .326 versus .107. Generally, TD has been more durable, and has aged a bit slower than Manu throughout his career. Thus, his WP48 slippage from the RS to the PS has been more gradual than Manu’s, until this year, with the knee, and at age 34.

“One thing the Lakers managed well was getting Kobe a lot of rest at the end of the season. I think the key for us is correct management of regular season minutes so that guys like TD and Manu can enter the PS healthy.”

I disagree. Kobe is just an unusually tough, durable, & resilient player. He averaged 38.8 mpg. during the RS, played through for the most part a number of relatively minor injuries, and was only bumped up to 40.1 mpg. during the PS; just a 3.3% increase. Duncan was rested quite a bit during the RS, averaging a career low of 31.3 mpg., but was then steeply bumped up to 37.3 mpg. during the PS (in line with his playoff average over the previous 5 seasons of 37.5 mpg.); which is a “top-three” increase of 19.2%, second onlt to Manu’s 22.6% increase. I would suggest that with TD’s age, and level of physical wear & tear, his playoff mpg. history could very well now be unsustainable, regardless of his rest during the regular season. In fact, his WP48 drop and playoff jump in mpg. suggests that his body may simply be unable to sustain and efficiently handle the ‘shock” to his system that the PS workload represents. And the same could be true for Manu.

Jim,

Now this is interesting.

http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/playoff-performers-in-the-nba/

Has a list of the best active playoff performers. Glancing at the top of list makes me think that rebounding is one of the things that translates the best is rebounding. Look at Ben Wallace. All the guy does is rebound and block shots, and that’s what he does in the PS. Same WP48 in both PS and RS.

I bet scoring efficiency takes the biggest hit. Certainly TPs lack of an appearance on the under 30 over .100 WP48 list fits this theory. His production is primarily from his efficient scoring.
Looking at basketball-refernce it looks like he takes a big hit in TS% and assists. It looks like he’s only been above average in the PS twice. Luckily those were 2008 and 2009 so we can hope he repeats that next year if he stays healthy.

bduran
August 2nd, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Interesting data-set.

“Has a list of the best active playoff performers. Glancing at the top of list makes me think that rebounding is one of the things that translates the best is rebounding. Look at Ben Wallace. All the guy does is rebound and block shots, and that’s what he does in the PS. Same WP48 in both PS and RS.”

Yeah, that makes sense to me. It seems like rebounding is one of the most best ways for a player to be consistently valuable to his team. As long as the rebounder is experienced, and somewhat limited in other aspects of his game (other than defense), as well as consistently aggressive and disciplined in his fundamentals, I see no reason why he should have a large variation in WP48 between the RS & the PS. Ben Wallace fits that model to a “T”.

I looked at the all-time list too. Magic kicked butt in the playoffs. But did you see the improvement for Jason Richardson between the RS & the PS? Wow! I think it is about a .140 jump.

So for 2010 I looked at the raw production for each position in the PS as compared to the RG and it’s different. So it looks like the numbers are being calculated with PS data only. This would, of course, make everyone’s numbers go down in general because the average player is so much better and that’s who players are being compared to. Go Jason Richardson.