Thoughts of the day: Lowry, Brooks, WP48, Brad Miller…

  • The Rockets moved quickly yesterday to match the offer extended to guard Kyle Lowry by the Cleveland Cavaliers.  I explained yesterday, chided along the way in the comments for my dubious use of the term ‘impact’, that Lowry’s effect on the team and relative productivity made the decision a no-brainer.

  • Is trading guard Aaron Brooks the the natural, logical extension to extending Lowry?  While I think that avenue will certainly be explored, I wouldn’t necessarily jump to that conclusion.  If Brooks can be retained at ~$8million, it very well could be that the team’s expected aggregate production with he and Lowry at the ’1′ exceeds expected output from the team with his return in a trade.
  • The team’s approach to Brooks will be interesting.  Might they look to extend early in-season?  They would relinquish flexibility but also avoid any unexpected surprises that the market may bear.  The team’s decision could indicate its opinion on Brooks: if they allow things to play out, there could be an expectation of reduced production and a belief that much of last year’s was usage-inflated; if they move quickly, they might expect continued improvement regardless of the circumstances.
  • Wanted to get to this yesterday.  Great discussion in the comments on Tuesday.

Following up on a previous diagnosis, a reader, Blake, explains:

“Wins Produced is based on regression analysis determining which box-score stats are important to wins. It can be difficult to calculate without a spreadsheet. There is a simpler metric devised by the same group called Win Score (which can be converted to WP48) which I will use to explain the statistic.


Win Score = PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST
– FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF

This does not produce the same numbers as WP48, but the philosophy is the same. This metric does not award value for creating a shot and is commonly criticized for overvaluing rebounds. Possessions and points are the most important outcomes in a game using this metric. Allen Iverson, for instance, rates poorly using this method, because of inefficient shooting and low rebounding numbers–he squanders possessions he uses and does not generate many for his team.

Wins Produced is not a panacea. WP48 does not take into account individual defense. It also assigns credit for a rebound only to the rebounder, disregarding any team defense that led to a missed shot. Players like Bruce Bowen and Shane Battier are likely undervalued. But as a whole, it’s an interesting tool.

WP48 is a number that represents the chance of winning a player adds to a team. A team of average players (.100 WP48) have a 50% chance to win each game and will win around 41 games. A team of stars (.200 WP48) should win every game.

Hopefully this explains Wins Produced a little better to those of you unfamiliar with it. In closing, here are the Rockets’ career WP48 numbers, for anyone interested:

PG: Aaron Brooks: .034 | Kyle Lowry: .143 (.173 in Houston)
Wings: Kevin Martin: .178 | Trevor Ariza: .157 | Shane Battier: .146 | Chase Budinger: .155
Big Men: Luis Scola: .179 | Yao Ming: .226 | Chuck Hayes: .174 | Jordan Hill: .171 (.235 in Houston)
Bench: Jermaine Taylor: .027 | Jared Jeffries: -.023″

To which an anonymous reader responds:

“Just to point out, Blake’s formula is used to calculate Win Score, as he said, not WP48. Speculating as to why Aaron Brooks has a low WP48 based on the Win Score formula can lead you quickly astray. Granted, the listed WP48 for Aaron Brooks is low and correct, but it’s just not calculated using this formula (Win Score = PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST– FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF).

WP48 adjustments are also typically made to account for minutes and positions played to accurately account for an issue like the one Randy brought up. (Relationship between guards and assists and ultimate win contribution.) Assists, using WP48, do not carry the same weight for guards and centers in the WP48 world.

Here’s a complete explanation of WP48: http://www.wagesofwins.com/CalculatingWinsProdu…

Yao’s WP48 of .226 is valid when he plays, which isn’t as often as we need to actually contend. This is the main issue with Blake’s post (nothing wrong, just feel like the point has to be driven home). Win contributions should be calculated using the following formula ((WP48/48) * Minutes Played). To simply take a WP48 statistic and extrapolate wins without completely weighing the possibility of injury will inflate the numbers. Yao’s WP48 of .226 translates to roughly (.226/48)*2558 =12.185 wins. If Yao plays 82 games (using his 33.6 MPG average in 08-09), wins turns into 12.67. Yao, however, has only averaged 2246 minutes/season so far over his career. Even using his .226 WP48 from 08-09, an average season (in terms of minutes played) only leads to 10.57 wins. When you look further down the Rockets roster at players like Martin and and Ariza (for example), you can easily see how the 60 win prediction seems lofty (it assumes no injuries).

I’m not a statistician, so I apologize if I did anything incorrectly. While 60 wins next season doesn’t seem likely, it seems about as probable as an injury-free season.

Nice job Blake, just wanted to say, like you said, WP48 is a number that represents the chance of winning a player adds to a team. If he doesn’t play that often, the impact is limited.”

Blake clarifies:

“Anonymous, my point is that our team average WP48 could be greater than .150 even considering minutes played by the stars. The aggregate of Wins Produced becomes spread across a larger number of quality players, leaving less need for a true star. This raises the question of whether a superstar like Lebron’s .441 last year is such a necessity for a team to win games. Rahat often speaks of recreating the aggregate. This metric is one that easily lends itself to how it could be done.”

  • The above discussion raises interesting questions perhaps far too theoretical in nature for the majority’s taste.  To what extent can aggregate production be relied upon?  Outright dependence would render the traditional basketball ‘role’ obsolete.  For instance, could a team of positional ‘Battiers’ with career .150 numbers but no playmaking skills overcome a team of players fitting the traditional roles (star + role players)?  The hope would be for the former to overwhelm the latter through the aggregate effect in quarters 1-3 and falling back on the lead in quarter 4.  I think circumstances change too greatly in the later stages of games to rely upon the standard measures for combined output, but I do suspect this difference is accounted for at the Rockets’ offices.
  • This is the point in today’s column where the other 96% of you can stop scrolling down and resume reading.  The Rockets have made an offer to center Brad Miller.  As they expect to project above the tax, they must be fairly high on his abilities at this stage as his actual price will be double of what he signs for.  With that said, while Daryl Morey’s trade and drafting track record are as close to impeccable as anyone in this league, his history with veterans in free agency leaves something to be desired.  Steve Francis can be overlooked as a marketing move made at Les Alexander’s behest but Brent Barry was indubitably a flop, albeit a low-cost one.  However, if Miller signs for just 1 year, the risk is low with the only drawback affecting Les’ wallet.  Had the team signed Bosh, I would have been all-in on Miller.  As we stand though, with little to no chance at contention for the year, I would prefer to play things out with Jordan Hill getting the bulk of the minutes.  Having said that, I’m sure the Rockets do not have as pessimistic of an outlook or could be hoping for a trade later on to push the team into the thick of things.  (I suspect many of you will take issue with my prognosis on the team’s chances.)
  • D.J Foster, writing in TrueHoop, had thoughts on Chase Budinger.
  • Much talk at the moment of an interview with David Kahn by Chris Webber.  Google it yourself as I don’t feel like finding a link but I didn’t find it as humorous as hyped.  Note that I’m grumpy at this time of the day and might return later for a second viewing – don’t let my opinion deter you.
  • Michael Jordan recently opined on camera that out of Bryant and James, the former was the superior player of the two.  The clip is making the rounds as some sort of end-all smoking gun for the classic debate.  Amusing considering MJ’s well-documented struggles with talent evaluation (see: Brown, Kwame; also see: emphatic objection to Oakley-Cartwright trade.)
  • Tracy McGrady appears to have received an offer from the Los Angeles Clippers.  Who has the most game left at the moment out of McGrady, Steve Francis, and former Rocket guard Cuttino Mobley?  Answer: Juwan Howard who is actually still in the league and good for six hard fouls.
This entry was posted in The Adventures of Huq's Pen. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Love Football Manager! All about Oldham!

Aaron Brooks is a staight baller. Arguably the best point guard ever from Seattle. http://seattleballers.com/aaronbrooks/

Jason - No worries at all. That was said tongue-in-cheek, appreciatively. I'm a fan of some linguistics discourse here and there.

"Et tu, Brute?" This reflects the spirit of the impact-as-verb comment.

I am sorry that I seemed to chide you; that was not my intention. I love your blog -- the style and substance. But I did not expect to find here the active noun scheme that is so en vogue elsewhere (eg. impact, debut, finalize, etc). I guess it's my own hangup (now who's flouting the language?) Please continue the admirable work.

There are stats for 3pt % at the end of close games, you know ;). And I dispute that Brooks can drop 30 against anyone - PGs with long wingspans like Rose and Westbrook give him plenty of trouble, even with his speed. He only averaged 12 ppg against OKC on 34% shooting, you know. Similarly 14.5 ppg against CHI on 30% shooting (although small sample size there - only two games to go on).

agreed, although i'd say that lowry and brooks are similar in value, lowry being better at lots more things, but brooks homing continental 3-point range is just so good for post threats like Yao Ming. As well, AB may become a decent closer, but Lowry probably won't.. I haven't seen a closer without a jumpshot.

that WP 48 stuff is all real interesting and can have a lot of merit but those stat tests can only tell so much about certain players. I don't care how low Aaron Brooks tests out. That stat test doesn't depict "it factor" or measure ability to take over a game or hit a huge 3 pointer with the game on the line. Sure AB doesn't do a lot of things well. He's never gonna be a pure point guard and is practically inferior to lowry in everything but scoring. But AB is much more valuable because he can drop 30 on any team in any city on any night. Period. End of Story.

There are no numbers for hustle plays, help defense, setting and reacting off picks, blocking someone out to enable a rebound from a teammate, average travel time from one end of the floor to the other, there may be one for defensive shot clock pressure/success (within 3 sec.) and countless other intangibles that all impact(?) the outcome of the game.

This is absolutely true. The problem with intangibles, though, is exactly that--they are not quantifiable. One goal of the quant movement in sports is to reduce reliance on the naked eye, to reduce mistakes that can be made in player evaluation due to aesthetic appeal or lack thereof. But it is not a complete replacement for, say, watching the games :)

I would imagine this is already done in a variety of sports simulation games. If you look at the Football Manager franchise (soccer for you guys), for example, you'll see a remarkably realistic prediction engines that take into account a wide variety of factors, including mental attributes like coachability etc. Now obviously for a game like that there's probably a fair degree of guesswork involved, but with inside knowledge of how players behave in the lockerroom it should be possible to correct for it.

This actually raises an interesting question: in evaluating players, is it better to use a simulating model, in which you create a probabilistic model and then run a series of simulations of say, each game of the season and collect the results) or a deterministic model, in which you don't tie your thinking to specific outcomes, but instead try to apply your formula to each player or combination of players and make a judgement that way? I can see the merits in both - the former gives a more direct translation to the goal (winning games), but is far harder to develop and make accurate, whereas the latter is easier and can be tailored to generate a wide variety of information, but in a more piecemeal fashion that doesn't necessarily translate into winning.

I would suggest that most teams probably don't go down the simulation route due to the effort involved to do it well. Having said that, I seem to remember that ESPN had "Accuscore" predictions on its website for each game a while back that were based on the simulation approach, so there are methods out there. I don't know if they're any good though.

I would happily accept a signing of Brad Miller. He is a solid back up, provides and good pick and roll option and he shoots a very good percentage from the free throw line. The only downside would be his awful facial hair, Brad and David Anderson together makes for one bad Gillette commercial.

Statistical analysis has a place. Among the different sports, baketball is likely the most complicated because of the different aspects of the game. Because the statisticians have gotten very specific about the stats they keep we can now analyze things such as how does a player perform in the league in a pick & roll, shooting open jumpers etc.

In the era of market efficiency you have to buy what the market isn't buying. Most teams know something about metrics like PER and others, so things like chemistry, locker room behaviour, preventing an offensive rebound event are not being sought after. Battier is good because the people around him are better when he's in the game. Maybe he does that by 'sitting on Gasol's knees' every time a shot goes up. What's that worth? Its not a glamorous job but someone's gotta do it.

One thing that's not talked about is that Stat analysis probably highlights the importance of the fundamentals of the game. Things that are talked about alot here, like pass the ball to an open man, don't be a ball hog, play defense etc. The analysis may only be useful in certain places -- like a very glamorous PG (the smallest guy on the court) and looks like he's taking over the game. But is he really that valuable? How would you compare him to a center, PF etc. And it allows you to make comparisons where you otherwise would have to resort to that pro/con list and use your heart...

I think the Heat in the coming season will provide an interesting case for the statisticians. Will these guys perform as billed and will a team still be able to win? How much of the statistical dominance of these guys is because of usage and other people 'deferring' their usage.

Regarding Brad Miller. My guess is the reason the Rockets want Miller is to reduce the wear and tear on Yao. This protects an investment in Yao. Perhaps the Rockets thinking is that maybe they don't want to rely TOO much on Jordan Hill as perhaps he just isn't up to the task and they know this. Perhaps they don't want to "expose" him too much to keep his trade value high as an "unknown with high upside." Just a thought. ;)

I find it funny that so many people come up with devices to try and predict the outcome of sports through some magic mathematical formula. While you can derive alot about a player's value from staitistics, there is so much that is unquantifiable. There are no numbers for hustle plays, help defense, setting and reacting off picks, blocking someone out to enable a rebound from a teammate, average travel time from one end of the floor to the other, there may be one for defensive shot clock pressure/success (within 3 sec.) and countless other intangibles that all impact(?) the outcome of the game. If it was as easy to predict as plugging in some numbers, it'd be boring as hell (who watches math championships?). That being said, and knowing Morey puts alot into his math team, I would think that the "feeling" a scout gets about a player based on visual reports and probably verbal from teammates and coaches, and his mathematical value stand apart and are taken into consideration separately.

Of course you know I take issue with your prognosis of our ability to contend, but I'm hardheaded that way. If the team did make an offer with Miller, it tells me they take issue too. The energy and chemistry exhibited from our undermanned team last season was unlike any I've ever seen before(or very rarely anyway) in pro sports, our guys played hard, with heart, and together. You can't quantify a teams attitude and willingness to cooperate with each other or coaching staff. If that same attitude carries over, our young guys improve and so does the roster, I find it difficult to count us out.

What was thesource on the Miller offer? I can't seem to find it.

I think they're just too busy doing their thing to refute naysayers of either stats/intangibles. They know full well both are important, and yes it would be interesting if they have a formal process incorporating both. I'd think they're just all talking points when they meet and evaluate players, I doubt they truly combine them into a single metric, which isn't necessary.

There should be two buttons under every post - 'like' and 'reply'. If you click reply, it nests your response directly under that post.

They won't disclose what they place emphasis upon in their formulas and justifiably so - makes the market more efficient and takes away their advantages (I found this out the hard way earlier last month.) I was very grateful that Sam was willing to share even what he did in the RGV piece regarding the draft.

It would be easy enough to reduce the other stat analysis by a percentage and then add a specific number rating for those intangibles. They probably already do that.... Since they will never disclose proprietary info, we'll probably never know any specifics. However, they might disclose that it is a part of the formula... Why not ask them? You are positioned to...

(couldn't get this to post as a reply to you rahat, is there a trick to replying?)

What if you could quantify heart/intangibles? Obviously it would be purely subjective, but let's say you could put a number on each prospect's overall coachability/desire to improve/smarts/desire to win etc and then plugged that number into the formula with the other stats...

Would be interesting to see how much weight would be given to all of that. For everything that is said about the Rockets being stat-oriented, with the Patterson pick, we see that so much of what they do is based on maintaining the character in the lockerroom. Makes you wonder if they do somehow factor it in as a number or if its just separate to the evaluation.

Your mind is pretty fertile this morning rahat. Lots of thoughts to consider which generate a few responses.

Brooks and Lowry both play best when rested some, they burn so much energy with their playing styles. Both stay the year for that reason unless someone makes us a crazy offer. (Ish Smith was extended an invite to open camp with us, an interesting addition to the possible mix)

Looks like RA feels like Brad Miller can accomplish a lot in limited minutes behind Yao. There is no basis to consider him mistaken on that...

Regarding Blake's analytical formulas: Stats are interesting and probably serve us well as players are evaluatede, but games are always won on the court, not by computer analysis. There is an inherent danger in placing too much emphasis on stats because team attitude and heart cannot be analyzed by any computer, or individual for that matter.

Budinger really stood out in yesterday's final summer league game. I'm looking for one hell of a year from him unless coaching does something to damage his confidence. What an upside he seems to have. Jordan Hill had his moments in these games while Taylor stills looks a bit green to me... He needs to fight the temptation to dribble the air out of the ball and move it to the open man more often. Despite that tendency, he can fill up the basket...

  •  
  • About the author

    the author-ESPN Houston Rockets Affiliate-

    Rahat Huq - founder, editor
    email: rahathuq@red94.net
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • "IF mchale played adrien last night knowing he was going to be cut, that's a very kind gesture. rewarding a guy for working hard"
    "jeff adrien waived to make room for greg smith. my breakdown of what he might have brought to the rockets: http://t.co/oSOjvv0h"
    "@chuck_grubb the big announcement is the all-star game"

  •  
  • Categories

  •  
  • Archives

    • 2012 (101)
    • 2011 (428)
    • 2010 (461)
    • 2009 (49)
  • All-time Keepers

    A collection of our best from over the years.
  •