Projecting the 09-10 Wizards Using the Current Roster and Win Shares
Editor's Note: Just fantastic statistical analysis here. Say what you want about the validity of win shares, but BWoods clearly did his homework here and provides some great fodder for thought. I highly recommend this piece. -PM
I think we can all agree that the premise for 09-10 is that 07-08 and 08-09 just don't count because of missing Agent Zero and then Zero + BH. So, what happens if we take the time machine back to the 06-07 Wizards (umm, without that whole Gil injury/first round playoff sweep part) and account for (1) who has been lost and gained since then and (2) what kind of difference in production we might see over the minutes that are to be allocated, while holding constant the Big 3 and Mr. Haywood (though we'll be making some adjustments on his production given his likely increase in minutes versus the bad/good old days).
I'll use 06-07 stats for players lost and 08-09 for new players, except for a couple of small adjustments. (I think it is fair to give Mike Miller the benefit of the doubt on his production last season and give more significance to 07-08.) Stats are from basketball-reference.com or directly derived from their stats.
First, let's take a little tour through 06-07. The Wiz finished 41-41, finishing second in a fairly poor SE division. Their pythagorean record was actually 1 game worse than that, as they allowed .6 ppg more than they scored. The team finished 3rd in the league in O-Rating and 28th in D-Rating. The Big Three were the Biggest Three around; the modified Princeton was the hottest dance in town; Bulletproof was basically in his delayed rookie season; James Lang briefly seemed like he had potential, if not tremendous well-hidden upside potential (hey now, the spurs liked him); arvis Hayes was doing his arvis things; Mike Hall, Donell Taylor, and Roger Mason had some opportunities; Antonio Daniels was going hard to the hoop and never ever losing the ball; Etan was getting big undersized center minutes while some folks refused to use the letter n at the end of BH's name, and we were still in the reign of terror of both Mr. Booth and Mr. Ruffin.
From that team we still have The Big Three, Mr. Haywod, DeShawn, and 'dray. I think, given the direction Ernie has taken and the passage of time, it is fair to consider DeShawn essentially replaced and that the Wiz have a 'dray now that is a functionally different player (at least statistically) than they did back then. So, I'm putting both of them in the replaced category.
Gilbert played 74 games (let's not think about why it wasn't 80 or more), AJ had 70, Caron 63, and Haywood 77. I think those, in aggregate, are a safe working assumption for 09-10. At least for the Big 3, even if they are healthier and play more games they *should* see somewhat reduced minutes in the games they do play.
The team win shares worked out rather neatly to 41.3. Here are the total minutes and (cumulative) win shares for the Dearly Departed for the 06-07 season:
Daniels 1,761 4.4
Deshawn 2,419 3.1
ET 1,246 2.8
Arvis 1,626 1.6
D-Song 700 1.2
Booooth 380 0.6
Bulletproof 682 0.5
Lang 55 0.1
Ruffin 271 0.0 (it felt like more minutes than that)
Mike Hall 13 0.0
Mason 492 -0.1
D Taylor 369 -0.2
So, these folks were "responsible" for 14 wins and used up just over 10,000 minutes (208 full position-games), or about half of the total available minutes, to do it. AD was The Man on that bench.
Here are the "new" players with their 08-09 minutes and win shares, except for Miller, for whom we'll use 07-08.
Vale 1,143 2.0
Dr.dray 1,703 1.4
McGuire 2,072 1.7
M Miller 2,474 5.2 (note that he actually peaked in 04-05 and 05-06, when he was around 7 wins per season, back before the Griz broke his spirits)
N Young 1,837 1.2
Foye 2,494 3.1
'avaris 1,130 0.0 (ouch, didn't realize it was that bad)
M James 1,575 -0.1
Now, to give a very simplified baseline, if we just strip out Young, Javaris, and James, the others give us just under 10,000 minutes and 13.4 Wins, which, oh no, is actually worse than what they are replacing versus 06-07. That was not what I was hoping or even expecting to find.
Ok, let's try to instead think about how the minutes might really be allocated to see if/how much that helps.
Roughly breaking down the minutes from 06-07 gives us the following to work with (I'm over-simplifying a little by putting all AD's minutes at PG even though he saw time with Arenas, all DeShawn's minutes in the SG-SF group, even though he ran some PG, etc., but I think it works well enough):
PG: 2,130
SG/SF: 4,550
PF/C: 3,334
Let's assume we get 08-09 Foye-level rate of production for all of the PG minutes.
Let's give Mike Miller 2,500 of those SG/SF minutes, but let's do it on his 04-06 level of production. We'll give another 1,000 each to McGuire and Young.
And, for the PF/C, let's be a little creative. Let's first give Haywood 400 more minutes (at 06-07 level, for consistency) to get him closer to starter-type minutes (he had only 1,740 in 06-07). For the other 2,900 minutes, let's do this: let's assume we can get the same rate of production for those minutes that McGee provided in his playing time last year. He produced, from a Win Shares perspective, at a much higher rate than Blatche. I think we need to assume that with the "palace of good play" a thing of the past and given the natural improvement one would hope to see from both McGee and Blatche, it should be reasonable to expect that McGee's rookie season productivity should set a baseline for the quality of those minutes.
This yields:
PG: 2.65
SG/SF: 9.12 (Miller is 7.65, McGuire is 0.82, and Young is 0.65)
PF/C: 5.87 (Haywood is 0.8 and McGee-level is 5.07)
Total: 17.64
So, if you buy all of that, it amounts to an upgrade of just over 3.5 wins over the 06-07 replaced players, given their time. That takes it to a roughly 45-win team.
There may still be a couple more places we can reasonably find some more wins within the existing roster. First, 07-08 Haywood was much more productive than 06-07. If you take the 2,140 minutes we were awarding him and instead of using 06-07, use his 07-08 productivity, he goes from 4.3 win shares in that time to nearly 6.4. Given the legitimate change in his role and improvement in FT shooting, it seems realistic to think that improvement should stick. That buys 2 more wins. That brings it to a 47 win team. Not too bad, but not a championship contender.
The wins get harder to find after that. Caron Butler had 1.6 more win shares in 07-08 than he did in 06-07, in somewhat fewer minutes, but then saw his rate crash last year. If we are willing to assume that the improvement to 07-08 was real and last year was a fluke of injuries and carrying too much of the load, we're at 48.5.
If you want this roster to get that last 1.5 wins to get this to a 50-win team, it will have to come from some combination of Arenas and Jamison playing more than they did in 06-07 at a comparable level of production (to crowd out some of those lower-production minutes), which is actually possible, as Arenas was actually more productive in 04-05 and Jamison has been at least as productive in more minutes since 06-07, and from improvement out of the Foye/McGuire/Young/Blatche/McGee group. I think it would be dangerous to assume Arenas/Jamison can really provide much more, meaning the young bench needs to provide more of a boost to break through that 50-win barrier. There is definitely some statistical basis for that, aside from their ages. It shouldn't be very difficult for Young/McGuire to improve on the 1.5 Wins in 2,000 minutes we're assuming from them. 3.0 might not be unrealistic there. And, McGuire and McGee both showed real improvement over last season (though arguably in less-meaningful game situations). Of course, we've already baked in some improvement from Blatche, but it would be good to think we can get even more from him and McGee.
On the whole, however, I'm going to give the caveat that this has all assumed a number of near-best-case breaks and has not taken into account how different the Eastern Conference landscape is now versus 3 years ago. While, therefore, the win shares analysis gives some room for optimism, it looks like this team is going to need a lot to go its way.
What hasn't been addressed is what impact Flip and Sam-I-Am might have versus Eddie Jordan in how the collective works. Unless/until someone can prove to me otherwise, I think I'll assume that is statistically unknowable. But, for a sequel to this, I might try to compare your apparent 09-10 Wizards with the parts of Flip's 07-08 Eastern Conference Finals Pistons to see what he has to work with. I'll have to see whether there is really anything interesting there first, though.
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
5 recs |
28 comments
|
Comments
Interesting analysis, but I can’t imagine how anyone would consider it to be a valid method for evaluating the Wizards 09-10 team. If you calculate win-shares for the 06-07 team then it’ll give a good indication of a team’s win-loss record during the 06-07 season, but that’s it. Statistics can be a wonderful thing but they’ve never been all that great at predicting the future.
by Johnnie Futbol on Jun 24, 2009 12:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let me start by saying that I take all statistical analysis, including my own, with several grains of salt. That said, we can’t just ignore the past. And do think stats have some predictive value if you are looking at the right ones. In the team context, I think Win Shares are about as good as you can do without making things fairly complicated. I like PER for player-to-player comparisons, but I would be very skeptical of team-collective predictions using nothing but that, especially because of its treatment of defense. I’m a big fan of the work that’s been done in adjusted +/-, but I think that would be pretty hard to crunch the numbers in this context. As for choosing 06-07 as a starting point—of course that isn’t the best information, in theory, and maybe it is a little silly, but since the whole organizational premise seems to be that the 06-07 team was a good idea and EG just wants to improve it around the edges, this seems to me a reasonable baseline.
I doubt if I’m going to convince you about how predictive Win Shares are, and I don’t really care whether I do—what I wrote was really mostly intended to be thought-provoking outside of the dialogue already taking place on the T-Wolves trade—but let me throw this out there:
Taking 07-08 Win Shares, if you knew generally how to assign the minutes for 08-09 (that the 08-09 Wiz would be essentially without Arenas and Haywood and that they would basically replace AD with Mike James), then just using 07-08 data, I get a back-of-the-envelope prediction of 25 wins. Coincidentally enough, if you go one step further and take away DeShawn’s predicted contribution and replace it with what he and his replacements actually did, that gets you to 21 wins—very nearly what the team did. Now, that projection obviously wouldn’t have known that McGee would be productive, or that Butler and Blatche would both fall short of prior year stats (which they did), and they definitely play the games for a reason, but I do think that’s close enough in aggregate to be interesting.
by bwoodsxyz on Jun 24, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(nods)
This was mostly to spur new discussion, not to provide the holy grail of answers.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Back to the Real World
I think my bottom-line takeaway from all of what I wrote is that Miller, if he bounces back from last year, is an important and probably necessary upgrade at SG and backup SF. I guess everyone knew that already. But the other piece is that it makes me worry that to be truly elite, this team probably needed to package either Jamison or Butler with the 5th pick to try to land a truly elite player. (This is something I’d opposed until looking at the numbers this way.) Maybe Amare would have been that guy. (I don’t think Bosh could have.) But, you just can’t really upgrade this roster THAT MUCH without messing with the Big 3. It is good to have more depth so that you don’t end up running a Mike James out there for meaningful minutes, but you really need a strong core to compete for a championship. All the same, I have hope for this team for the reasons I gave at the end of the post. I hope Javale blows up this year.
by bwoodsxyz on Jun 24, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll grant you win-shares have “some” predictive value and perhaps they’re “about as good as you can do,” but there are too many variables that it just can’t measure, injuries (or lack thereof) being just one that you alluded to. You mentioned the addition of Flip, how can we predict his influence on this particular set of basketball players? How can win-shares predict the development of young players – including even Arenas who presumably is a different person than he was when he was 25?
I would imagine such predictive measures are more valuable when there’s less change in the team from one year to the next. Throw in new players and new coaches and the mix becomes harder to evaluate.
Any idea how well win-shares could’ve predicted the 07-08 Celtics championship season?
Anyways I don’t mean to be too dismissive of your analysis, I just don’t give as much weight to statistical predictors as other people.
by Johnnie Futbol on Jun 24, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's Be The Celtics
Not sure if your Celtics question was a rhetorical one, but, looking back, it is intriguing. Very quick back-of-the-envelope using 06-07 Win Shares, I get a projected appx 51 wins for the 07-08 Celtics roster. Obviously, they really won 66 regular season games. The 15-win difference?
Some of it is Garnett bouncing back from a relatively (by his standards) weak 06-07. The rest is essentially Rondo, Perkins, and Powe taking HUGE steps forward (they got 17.5 Wins vs only 6.5 or so minutes-adjusted the prior year), while a couple role players (Posey and House) were a bit better than expected.
So, let’s all hope Arenas turns the clock back to 04-05, Foye and McGee double their production, and the other backups improve a bit, and 60 wins here we come!
by bwoodsxyz on Jun 24, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, let’s all hope Arenas turns the clock back to 04-05, Foye and McGee double their production, and the other backups improve a bit, and 60 wins here we come!
Now you’re talking!!
by Johnnie Futbol on Jun 24, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some of the increase for Rondo, Perkins and Powe
has to be the influence of Allen, Pierce and Garnett…. The big-3 for Boston carried the big load. The role players only needed to do their parts. You would expect players that are comfortable with their role, especially if that role is suited to them, to excel.
On the other hand, give a role player too much responsibility, especially a role that they are not suited for (ie: playing Songaila at Center, or expecting Stevenson to step up and be a major Offensive contributor, or giving players inconsistent minutes and rotations), and the opposite occurs.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jun 24, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Could Also Be Talking About
On the other hand, give a role player too much responsibility, especially a role that they are not suited for (ie: playing Songaila at Center, or expecting Stevenson to step up and be a major Offensive contributor, or giving players inconsistent minutes and rotations), and the opposite occurs.
This might apply to Mike Miller, which is why I think it was called for to use his 06-07 stats in this analysis.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jun 25, 2009 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
However, Miller WAS relied upon in Memphis to be a “go to” scorer… as the 2nd option. (Just as in Minnesota)…
I tend to think Miller’s problems in Minnesota had more to do with the Coaching, than with expectations or roles. I think the Coach there (McHale) wanted Miller to drive more, pass more, and shoot fewer long jumpers early in the shot clock. Unfortunately, that’s not Miller’s game.
Sure, he can drive – IF you play him too close. Sure he can pass… but he’s not a “pass first” guy… He took 4 fewer shots per game in Minnesota than his last year in Memphis… (almost 7 fewer than his best year in Memphis).
The guy is very capable of shooting over 50% from the field, and over 40% from the 3-point line – so I don’t understand why he was not shooting more. He’s had a couple of years where his True Shooting Percentage (TS%) was over 60% – that’s almost unheard of for a jump shooter. A guy like that should have the green light.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jun 25, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
If I’m reading this right…. Your statistical calculation and analysis says that the 2009-10 Wizards should be close to a 50 win team…. based on past productivity.
Hmmm… That’s just about exactly what I was thinking yesterday – about 49-50 wins – after hearing about the trade…. (without stats)…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jun 24, 2009 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
actually initially his prediction was 45 wins, then he used some best-case scenarios (like using Haywood and Butler’s 07-08 levels rather than those of the year before), he gets up to a 48.5 win season.
that said, using the industry-standard johnny foosball method of making predictions I declare the Wizards will win 51 games so clearly he’s wrong. : )
by Johnnie Futbol on Jun 24, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cliffs Notes Version?
This looks hard to read. Can someone sum up this whole thing in 3 sentences or less for me?
by se7en on Jun 24, 2009 5:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Wizards are better than they were....
by khrabb on Jun 24, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But not that much better
Marginally better, butt still barely a 50-win team if things break well. According to win shares at least, with some contextual adjustments.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not much better
Until part two of the deal drops. I am sure Ernie is smart and knows that this can’t be it.
by Unkle Wheez on Jun 24, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and
what if there is no part two? I think there has to be too. But everyone is counting on it, but it’s not guaranteed. And, if there is one, it’s not guaranteed we get a difference maker.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then
We can all jump off the bridge or start a riot or something. The time is not yet for that. Hold fast.
by Unkle Wheez on Jun 24, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woodrow Wilson
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jun 25, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking forward to the Pistons and Wizards comparison.
"Come on James Walker, making fun of Browns fans? That's like waiting outside a middle school for the short bus to arrive so you can try out some "new material."
by purpleonblack86 on Jun 24, 2009 7:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll take 45 wins
after last year. Although I did keep my girlfriend entertained last season with stories of how the Wizards were able to manufacture losses from impossibly good situations. I’d set it up by explaining how the Wiz were finally going to get the upper hand for sure, building an air-tight case, then finish off with an oh-by-the-way, they lost. She laughed every time, even after she got wise to the game.
I’m pretty excited for the current roster. We’ll be relevant again, if not contenders, and there are a LOT of young guys who could get much better (McGee, Young, Blatche, Crittendon, and Foye all still have at least an outside shot of becoming all-stars one day, and McGuire could still improve a lot as well). This isn’t a championship team unless several of those guys make a leap, but it’s going to be a fun team to follow.
by steadyhand on Jun 24, 2009 8:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll agree
to that. One guy not talked about on here aloot is Crittendon. I like him. He’s fast with the ball, which isn’t easy, and he is pass first. I also think he’s a pretty good on the ball defender. I’m hoping after being traded twice so early in his career that he has a chip on his shoulder, a la Gilbert. But Young needs to improve dramatically. Not as much his skillset (though that always needs work), but his consistency. He could be a 20 point scorer if he put the work in. While I’m still not happy about the trade, the one thinng I’ll say is, with Crittendon being more seasoned, and with Foye added to the mix, we will a lot better off if Arenas doesnt return to form. That’s the pink elephant in the room.
But you’re right, we’re not chamionship level yet. Hopefully ernie’s got something else up his sleeve that he’s able to pull off.
by CJHutch on Jun 25, 2009 5:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we going to need more talent in our front court if we want to compete with Cle & Orl …. no one will Deshawn by himself … i dont want to give up Young but he is one of the few guys we have that could make someone bite on Deshawn for a BIg …. i think Camby can still get like 7 or 8 boards off the bench for our lights out shooting squad
also having a Brian Skinner at the end of our bench aint bad
Nick Young
Mike James
DeShawn
for
Marcus Camby
Ricky Davis
we get rid Deshawn and improve our team for a all out push for a title in 2010 …plus we save some more money for the LLE this year
Brendan Haywood
Antawn Jamison
Marcus Camby
Andray Blatche
JaVale McGee
LLE Kurt Thomas
Gilbert Arenas
Caron Butler
Randy Foye
Mike Miller
Ricky Davis
Dominic McGuire
Javaris Crittenton
we could also throw in Javaris Crittenton for Brian Skinner and use the LLE for a 3rd PG of our choice
by eltacoman on Jun 27, 2009 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nick Young
Mike James
DeShawn
Crittenton
for
Marcus Camby
Ricky Davis
Brian Skinner
LLE for a vet PG to be our 3rd PG
by eltacoman on Jun 27, 2009 2:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't
touch Ricky Davis with a 10 foot pole. He’s not the kind of player we need on this team. He’s one of the most selfish players in the league, not only can’t he defend, he won’t. All he’s good for is quick scoring, which we have plenty of.
Don’t mind Camby, but I wouldn’t give up Young AND Crittendon.
by CJHutch on Jun 27, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















