The Big Fundamental Outlier And The NBA At The Twenty Percent Mark

[duncan228]

The Big Fundamental Outlier and the NBA at the Twenty Percent Mark (http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/the-big-fundamental-outlier-and-the-nba-at-the-twenty-percent-mark/)
The Wages of Wins Journal

On Saturday night the NBA completed 20% of the regular season. Teams have now played 246 regular season games. Just 984 more games and the 2009 playoffs can begin. Although the NBA still has 80% of the regular season to complete, I think we can now start to form some ideas about how this season will end. And those ideas start with Table One.

Table One: NBA Efficiency Differential After 20% of the 2008-09 Season (http://www.wagesofwins.com/EffDif20per0809.html)

Table One reports each team’s Efficiency Differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) at the 20% mark. In addition, for each team I have projected the final winning percentage the team’s efficiency differential suggests.

The Struggling Spurs

Before we go over the numbers it’s important to note that no effort has been made to adjust for injuries. For example, currently the San Antonio Spurs have the 9th best differential in the Western Conference. Given this result, the Spurs are right now looking at the lottery, not the post-season.

But the Spurs have played most of the season without Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili. And since these two players have been very important to this team’s past success (http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/will-the-spurs-win-in-2009/), it’s not surprising the Spurs have struggled without each of these players in the line-up. For the rest of the season, though, Parker and Ginobili - if they stay healthy - will play. So San Antonio will probably win more than 43 games this season and fans of this team can expect to see playoff basketball.

The Spurs early struggles, though, have led me to wonder about the perception of Tim Duncan. Since Jordan left the Bulls in 1998, people have debated the identity of the best player in the game. One player that has to be part of this discussion is Tim Duncan. Across the past ten seasons, the Big Fundamental has consistently been the leading scorer on a team that has won four championships.

Duncan, though, didn’t win these titles by himself. Yes Duncan is very productive, but his teammates matter. The initial 20% of this the 2008-09 season tells us that if Duncan was forced to play with the cast of players employed by the Spurs this year, Duncan would not have hoisted those championship trophies. And if Duncan was not on four championship teams, would he still be considered an all-time great?

For an answer, consider the career of Kevin Garnett before he arrived in Boston. As I have noted in the past, Garnett has offered just a bit more than Duncan (http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/speeding-up-time-for-bill-simmons/). But KG was consistently playing with less talented players in Minnesota. Consequently, many people believe Duncan has consistently been the better player.

The story of Duncan and Garnett appears to be quite consistent with the argument Malcolm Gladwell offers in Outliers (http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/index.html). As I noted in my last post (http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/drew-brees-and-outliers/), “in this book Gladwell examines the source of a person’s success. We tend to think that an individual’s success is all about the individual. But Gladwell argues convincingly that success is often about a person’s particular circumstance.” Applying this argument to Garnett and Duncan… it appears our perceptions of a person’s abilities depend upon the people around the person.

By the way - again, just as I noted in my last post — I was hoping to post a complete review of Gladwell’s latest, but I have not had the time. I did read the book and thought it was his best so far. For a review that appears to be consistent with my assessment, I recommend what David Leonhardt had to say in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/books/review/Leonhardt-t.html?_r=2&ref=books).

Other Stories at the 20% Mark

Beyond the struggling Spurs, what else have we learned at this point in the 2008-09 season? Here are a few quick observations:

* The Lakers are the best team in the NBA. And if their efficiency differential holds up (not saying it will, just saying if), the Lakers in 2008-09 will be the best team in NBA history.

* The Cleveland Cavaliers have improved the most since last season. As I noted a few days ago (http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/lebron-losing-his-desire-to-leave/), this is primarily because Ben Wallace, Anderson Varejao, and Delonte West have returned to form.

* The Celtics have slipped. Yes, they are still very good. But the team is not what it was last year. And after a quick glance at the numbers, I think we can blame the aforementioned Garnett. KG’s WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] is only 0.200 this season. This is still far above average, but not nearly the level of productivity Garnett offered in the past.

* The Pistons have really slipped and are on pace to suffer the biggest decline. I am afraid this change can be tied to the loss of Chauncey Billups and the acquisition of Allen Iverson (http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/are-we-just-talking-about-practice/). Yes, once again, “the Answer” is really not the answer.

* The Houston Rockets and Toronto Raptors both made major acquisitions in the off-season. In both cases, these moves were made so that these franchises could seriously contend in their respective conferences. So far, though, both teams are posting an efficiency differential that is less than the differential observed last season. So it appears that Ron Artest (in Houston) and Jermaine O’Neal (in Toronto) have something in common with Iverson. None of these players appear to be the answer.

* The three best teams in the NBA are the Lakers, Cavaliers, and Celtics. At number four we have the Orlando Magic. Dwight Howard is having an amazing season, and the return of Tony Battie has also helped.

* And the fifth best team is the Portland Trail Blazers. Although I have not looked at all rookies, Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez look to be on pace to be the primary contenders for Most Productive Rookie award. Currently Fernandez has produced more wins. Oden, though, has the higher WP48 and should eventually have a higher Wins Produced (if he stays healthy). I should note that Oden’s productivity has been obscured by the outstanding play of Joel Przybilla. And I should also note that Portland employs six players with WP48 marks that are above average. None of these, though, are named LaMarcus Aldridge

Those are just a few stories in this season. It’s important to remember that most of the season remains to be played. That being said, I would be surprised if the identity of the top teams - and the teams at the very bottom - is going to change much as the season progresses. Yes, it’s beginning to look like LeBron vs. Kobe could be the story next June.

[Dex]

The initial 20% of this the 2008-09 season tells us that if Duncan was forced to play with the cast of players employed by the Spurs this year, Duncan would not have hoisted those championship trophies. And if Duncan was not on four championship teams, would he still be considered an all-time great?

So Tim's efficiency is less impressive because he can't carry a team of nobodies to the title?

Jordan had help in Chicago, too. We all saw what happened when the "Best Basketball Player Ever" ended up with a bunch of benchies in Washington.

This is a self-serving statement. Of course Timmy wouldn't be considered as great if he hadn't won as much; winning is the one thing that separates him from all the hype.

And I thought it was supposed to be the most important thing in a sport.

[z0sa]

If he was not consistently the best player on at least three of these championship teams, why did he win those Finals MVPs?

And if you're consistently the best player on a title-toting squad ... this guy has no argument. Jordan had teammates who came up big too, its just that simple.

[benefactor]

Portland at the 2nd seed....:lmao

Somebody reads too many Hollinger articles.

[1Parker1]

Magic as the 4th best team in the league through 20 games? Hard to believe.....

[Texas_Ranger]

This guy should go fuck himself!

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the argument that has always held sway with me is the notion that it seems inconceivable that a team with Tim Duncan would actually miss the playoffs, no matter who his teammates were (assuming they were actually players qualified to play at the NBA level). I actually think that the brief glimpse at the time between Parker's injury and Manu's return -- a stretch during which the depleted Spurs went 5-2 -- demonstrates that: (1) Duncan and his diminished crew had righted the ship and moved themselves back into the playoff picture and beaten quality teams; and (2) Duncan probably played some role in elevating the play of the less-than-stellar guys around him.

I'm biased, of course, but no more so than those who have been seeking (for years) to find ways to justify a claim that the more approachable Garnett was a better player than the more aloof Duncan. And Berri's argument strikes me as one of those.

[ambchang]

Another guy trying to rewrite history again. This time, s/he actually bases it on incorrect and incomplete statistics.

First, Duncan carried the Spurs to a 5-2 mark without Ginobili or Parker, and was 1-4 (or 2-5) with Parker.

Second, projecting the season based on a 20-game stretch is idiotic at best, as teams employ different strategies throughout the season. Some teams go full-out, some teams ramp up the intensity as the season goes. The Spurs did try out new defensive schemes in the first 5 games, resulting in 4 losses.

Third, Garnett had great teammates throughout his career, and he failed to get past the 1st round in a majority of those seasons. The only two times he got past the 1st round was with two all-star caliber players by his side.

In 2005, when Garnett 1st missed the playoffs, he had Szczerbiak, Sprewell, Cassell, and Hudson as his teammates. The team was a mess because Garnett never stepped up as a leader. Garnett proceed to "lead" the Wolves to two more missed playoffs before being traded to a team with Pierce and Allen and rode his way to a championship. His 4th quarter disappearing acts continued to be a joke, the only difference is that there is Finals MVP Paul Pierce to bail him out.

Duncan led the Spurs to a championship with one all star caliber player in 99, one with zero all-star caliber players in 03, and in 05 and 07, two all-star caliber players. Garnett was the one being led.

[Anti.Hero]

lmao.

Duncan gets to relax during reg season b/c of the other two.

What a moron.

[Vito Corleone]

Instead of reading that book let me give you what it says.

We are at the 20% mark of the season

Multiply the 20% mark by 5 and you have the whole season.

Wow what a concept

I guess the lakers are on a path to having 5 losses for the season making them the greatest ever.

This guy is a moron.

Gee maybe basketball is a team sport, maybe part of the perception about Tim and Garnett came from 2 or 3 straight playoff meetings where Tim abused Kevin in every series.

Maybe it also explains why Shaq didn't win a single playoff series until he got Penny and later kobe.

Where would Karl malone be without Stockton
Magic didn't win jack after Kareem retired
Jordan had Pippen and Grant/Rodman

What the hell has kobe done since Shaq left and before he got Gasol? NOTHING


Really do people actually get paid to put out crap like this?

[Anti.Hero]

lmao.

Duncan gets to relax during reg season b/c of the other two.

What a moron.

Because he isn't....................a STAT WHORE. lmao

Let's all knock The 4 time franchise champion because he isn't a stat whore ladies and gentlemen. The NBA, where phony plastic fan happens.

[BigVee]

Of course a team's schedule means nothing too. The Lakers played 11 of their first 15 games at Staples.

[tlongII]

No way you can rank Orlando above Portland. We gave them a beat-down in Orlando and we didn't even have Greg.

[K-State Spur]

If anything, KG's first title cemented Duncan as the better player.

KG is one of the best players in the game, no doubt.

But one guy has repeatedly made plays in crunch time over the years (including a memorable 3 last year), the other consistently defers in the 4th quarter of meaningful games.

[Warlord23]

This is idiotic.

Duncan won in 2003 with S-Jax as his second option, an aging D-Rob, a wet-behind-the-ears Parker, Manu playing bench minutes. That Spurs team had several nice complementary pieces, but Duncan's contribution was far, far greater than anyone else.

For his 3 other titles (1999, 2005, 2007) the other players' contributions (D-Rob in 1999, Manu & Tony in 2005, 2007) was significant, but Duncan was still the centerpiece albeit by a much smaller margin

KG on the other hand was reduced to a choking bitch and a role-player who complemented Paul Pierce. Pierce was clearly the man on that team, with KG as his #2 option.

The moron who wrote this piece should spend more time watching the actual games than fabricating idiotic theories.

[kace]

If he was not consistently the best player on at least three of these championship teams, why did he win those Finals MVPs?

he was the best player in every PO the spurs played since he's here. even in 2007 and even if TP deserved to be the finals MVP.



First, Duncan carried the Spurs to a 5-2 mark without Ginobili or Parker, and was 1-4 (or 2-5) with Parker.

Second, projecting the season based on a 20-game stretch is idiotic at best

so basically you take a stat on a 7-games strech to say that Tim is great just to add the next sentence that a 20-game strech stat means nothing ??
i think you're right in the second one. You can make stats say almost everything if you're biased, especially when you consider a short period (i.e : spurs better without TP).


Duncan led the Spurs to a championship with one all star caliber player in 99, one with zero all-star caliber players in 03, and in 05 and 07, two all-star caliber players. Garnett was the one being led.

OK for 99, 03. not sure manu played like an allstar in the PO 2007 and certainly not TP in 2005. they were "only" good teamates.


Tim is better than KG. It's just so obvious that it doesn't need any stat. And to be worse than Tim let you a lot of room to be still a good player, like KG.

[my2sons]

I'll take a crappy tim duncan and four rings over shock the world any day of the week

[ambchang]

so basically you take a stat on a 7-games strech to say that Tim is great just to add the next sentence that a 20-game strech stat means nothing ??
i think you're right in the second one. You can make stats say almost everything if you're biased, especially when you consider a short period (i.e : spurs better without TP).

It's saying that within that 20 game stretch that he used, there were obvious stats that contradicted with his/her own theories.

The writer mentioned that the Spurs played poorly in the first 20% of the games because Parker and Ginobili wasn’t around, and yet Duncan was 5-2 without either one of them. This is just a contradiction to what was said.


OK for 99, 03. not sure manu played like an allstar in the PO 2007 and certainly not TP in 2005. they were "only" good teamates.

TP had a lot of holes in his game in 05, but he was playing as an all-star caliber player. Ginobili did alright in 07 PO.


Tim is better than KG. It's just so obvious that it doesn't need any stat. And to be worse than Tim let you a lot of room to be still a good player, like KG.

There is just no question, I am not sure how people can still make a point otherwise.

[tp2021]

I hate how these guys are always sucking KG's dick. It's probably because Timmy's is huge, and KG's is easier to fit in their mouths.

Fuck Oklahoma.

[lrrr]

Take 20 million worth of players off any team and see how well they perform.

(except the knicks, then they actually get BETTER!)

[Tully365]

For years, I've heard some say that KG was better than Tim because his stats were sometimes slightly better. Then, last year, his stats were slightly lower than Duncan's and those same people claimed that Garnett winning the championship proved that he was better. It makes no sense. One of the main reason Minnesota never had a shot was because Garnett had such a huge contract and they never had any extra money to use for better role players. Garnett's a good player, no question, but he hasn't come close to replicating what Tim has done, and as others have pointed out, it is almost inconceivable that a Tim Duncan team doesn't make the playoffs... the same was not always true for Garnett.

[michaelwcho]

Man, there are some homerific posts here... :flag:

The logic seems to be:
Duncan is way better than Garnett, because Duncan is obviously way better than Duncan. (therefore berri is an idiot)

If you read what he said, and what he has said in the past, he considers them approximately equal in production. Who knows how Garnett would perform as the best player with the best teammates in the playoffs--well, besides last year, that is.

Berri's basic theory is that each player has an efficiency rating, and if you add up all those ratings, including bench players, you more or less get how good the team is. This doesn't jibe with the NBA marketing angle that it's really all up to the "gods", the Jordans and Duncans, and nothing else matters.

According to his stats, Duncan and Garnett have been the best players of the last decade, comfortably, but apparently even mentioning the two in the same sentence is sacriledge!

His predictions have been pretty good--he said the Celtics and the Lakers were the two best teams last year, and he said the Lakers would be scary once they got Bynum back. He also said Barry was a very important part of our team.

[ajh18]

I would rather compare Garnett to David Robinson. David made the playoffs every year(albeit in a weaker west), with less talented teams than many of KG's wolves squads. He also put up nastier stats. And yet David virtually never gets compared favorably to Duncan... and that's ok, because Duncan has the rings. But it irks me to hear Garnett get that love when Admiral doesnt.

Put Robinson in his prime on any of KG's Wolves teams, and I'm willing to bet they NEVER miss the playoffs.

[mystargtr34]

D Rob was 10 times the player KG is.

Bigger, quicker, stronger, better jump shot and a better defender.

[kobe_bryant]

duncan in his prime would never allow minny to miss playoffs

[m33p0]

The author also conveniently failed to mention that this was practically a new team with Mason and Hill and that the Spurs also didn't start the season with Hill (thumb injury).

KD may or may not offer more to the table than Duncan except for one major thing, clutch.

[ShoogarBear]

Hoopswor . . . uh, I mean, . . . Hollinger.

[ambchang]

Man, there are some homerific posts here... :flag:

The logic seems to be:
Duncan is way better than Garnett, because Duncan is obviously way better than Duncan. (therefore berri is an idiot)

If you read what he said, and what he has said in the past, he considers them approximately equal in production. Who knows how Garnett would perform as the best player with the best teammates in the playoffs--well, besides last year, that is.

The way I read it, the author suggests that Garnett is slightly better than Duncan, and the proof is that Garnett has a lead in win shares.

We do know how Garnett produces with great teammates in the playoffs, he took a backseat. It happened with Sota with Sprewell and Cassell, and it happened last year with Pierce.


Berri's basic theory is that each player has an efficiency rating, and if you add up all those ratings, including bench players, you more or less get how good the team is. This doesn't jibe with the NBA marketing angle that it's really all up to the "gods", the Jordans and Duncans, and nothing else matters.

Of course the ratings that was used (win shares), which actually had Bob McAdoo perform better in a season than Duncan and Garnett, T-Mac, Dirk, Gilmore and Chris Paul ranking above Hakeem ever did (these are per season numbers, and I chose the best season for each player).


According to his stats, Duncan and Garnett have been the best players of the last decade, comfortably, but apparently even mentioning the two in the same sentence is sacriledge!

His predictions have been pretty good--he said the Celtics and the Lakers were the two best teams last year, and he said the Lakers would be scary once they got Bynum back. He also said Barry was a very important part of our team.

Everyone said the Celtics and the Lakers were the two best teams last year (well, except Spurs and Pistons fans), everyone new that Bynum would help the Lakers, and is Barry that important to the Spurs?