Which one was better?

As I have noted in the past, I was born in Detroit and grew up a Pistons fan. And since sports allegiance doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) change as you age, I remain a Pistons fan.

My memory of the Pistons extends all the way back to the days of Bob Lanier (I can still remember when he was traded to the Milwaukee Bucks). But I truly began to follow the Pistons when Isiah Thomas was drafted (in 1981 when I was eleven). The story I believed growing up was that Isiah put the Pistons on the map, and it was Isiah who led the Detroit to the team’s first two championships.

As I noted last summer, the story I grew up believing is not told by Wins Produced (see Looking Back at the Bad Boys). Wins Produced indicates that The Bad Boys were led by Dennis Rodman and Bill Laimbeer (not Isiah Thomas).

After Rodman and Laimbeer moved on, the Pistons became quite a bit worse. The Grant Hill era saw some success, but it wasn’t until another productive big man - Ben Wallace - came on the scene that the Pistons once again contended for the title.

Which backcourt dynamic duo was greater?

Discussing Chauncey and Isiah on Pistonscast

Unlike what we saw with Rodman and Laimbeer, though, when Big Ben left the Pistons didn’t fall apart. Since Wallace departed in 2006 the Pistons have had two +50 win seasons. And the leading producer of wins on each team has been Chauncey Billups.

Table One: The Detroit Pistons in 2006-07 and 2005-06

Table Two: The Detroit Pistons in 2007-08

All of this serves as a background to a recent conversation I had with John W. Davis and Deven Khrucell. John and Deven are the hosts of Pistonscast, “the number one podcast for die-hard Pistons fans.” As I remember, last spring I was a guest on the program and the subject of Allen Iverson came up. As I often note, “the Answer” is not quite as productive as many believe. And I noted at the time, I think Isiah was a more productive player than Iverson.

Such a statement may make Iverson fans unhappy, but is not exactly disputed by “die-hard Pistons fans.” But as I often do, I could not leave well enough alone. I also indicated last spring that Chauncey Billups - the current point guard in Detroit - is more productive than the one considered the greatest player in team history.

When I noted that Billups offers more today than Isiah did in the 1980s, Deven expressed some unhappiness. As a result, I was asked to return to the show to debate Deven on the relative merits of Chauncey and Isiah.

This debate is now posted at Pistonscast. The specific podcasts you need to hear - if you are interested in this discussion - are Episodes 62 and 63. Episode 62 is the first half of our discussion. We begin on the topic of Kwame Brown, but after awhile move into the discussion of Billups and Thomas. This debate is then continued in episode 63.

Essentially, Deven’s perspective is that the numbers are not enough to tell us that Chauncey is worth more than Isiah. Of course, I disagree. The numbers in basketball do explain wins. And those numbers go back to the individuals. Furthermore, it’s not clear to me how we could ever objectively test the propositions put forward by the non-numbers crowd. At least, I can’t see how we can test such propositions without numbers.

If Iverson was the Answer, Was Isiah the Question?

More on Billups, Isiah, and Iverson

For those who wish to see more numbers on this subject, here is a comparison of the career numbers of Billups, Thomas, and Iverson.

Table Three: Comparing Chauncey Billups, Isiah Thomas, and Allen Iverson

As Table Three indicates, the key stats are shooting efficiency and turnovers. Unlike Isiah and Iverson - who are both below average with respect to shots from the field and turnovers - Billups excels with respect to each of these stats. Consequently, Billups has a bigger impact on team wins.

If we turn to Wins Produced, we see the following career marks [in Wins Produced and Wins Produced per 48 minutes]:

Chauncey Billups: 90.9 Wins Produced, 0.181 WP48

Isiah Thomas: 97.4 Wins Produced, 0.132 WP48

Allen Iverson: 64.8 Wins Produced, 0.090 WP48

And if we look at each player’s career best marks [in WP48], again we see Billups coming out on top:

Chauncey Billups: 16.0 Wins Produced, 0.304 WP48 [2007-08]

Isiah Thomas: 18.6 Wins Produced, 0.289 WP48 [1984-85]

Allen Iverson: 10.0 Wins Produced, 0.152 WP48 [2004-05]

So those are the numbers. My sense is that Deven will not be convinced. And hopefully as you listen, you will hear that it’s okay if we don’t all agree. The conversation, by itself, is still quite fun (and hopefully interesting).

One More Interview

Last Thursday I was also a guest on the Jack Warkenthein’s Show - Where Wall Street Meets Main Street - on the Biz Radio Network. If you turn to the Podcasts for Jack’s show you can listen to my two segments on August 21 (part two and three). One should keep in mind, though, that this interview was done at 7:20am Central Time (the show is broadcast in Texas). This is 6:20am at my home in Utah. You are listening to me speak just minutes after I woke up that morning. So I don’t guarantee that I am entirely coherent (which probably makes the whole conversation even more interesting).

Still, I do think I offered some reasonable comments on Olympic basketball, the Rockets acquisition of Ron Artest, and the Mavericks acquisition of Jason Kidd. I think I also said something about why high oil prices could be good news. Again, the whole conversation was pretty early in the morning.

- DJ

www.dberri.wordpress.com

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.

The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score

Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:

Simple Models of Player Performance

Wins Produced vs. Win Score

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics

Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.

I’ve been thinking about your whole Isiah Thomas / Chauncey Billups debate.  As much as I love Chauncey, you can’t say that he’s better than Zeke.  No way.  And I know D. Berri is gonna show us some stats that prove this and that.

But I was in Geography class the other day, and my teacher told us (I know Deven is gonna love this); ‘There are lies, damn lies and stats’.

To some extent I think it’s true, you can prove anything with stats.  However when Isiah twisted/snapped/dislocated his ankle or whatever.  He went out for 3 minutes and then came back in and took over the Lakers.  I’m not sure if there is a ‘Heart’ statistic, but Zeke would be the All-Time
Leader.  Period.

Some things just don’t show up in the stat columns.  Why is Michael Jordan the greatest player ever? Not because he has the highest Point Per Game average for a career.  Its because of those games in which he displayed heart! The Flu game.. because of those games he won. 

Players like Zeke and Mike carried their team when they needed it.  That’s why they’re great players.  They showed heart, hustle, pride and determination, not the Highest Assist to Turnover ratio or the best Wins produced stat.  Besides, there is only one stat that really matters; Winning.  And the truly great players do whatever it takes to win.

That’s just how i feel.

Conor Faulker

VERSUS

The Pistons Close the Gap

Does all this mean that the Pistons have closed the gap?  In the regular season the Pistons had an efficiency differential of 8.17.  In the post-season this differential has declined to 5.10.  Yes, the Celtics still boast a better differential even when we compare just the post-season performance of each team.

One should note, though, that the Pistons have faced better competition than Boston.  So one could argue that the Pistons have closed the gap.  Certainly as a Pistons fan I hope this is the case.

Had the Pistons maintained their regular season performance we would not have to discuss strength of competition.  If that were the case the Pistons would have thus far surpassed the Celtics.  Why were the Pistons unable to maintain what we saw in the regular season? One answer, as detailed in The Wages of Wins, is that playoff performance tends to be worse than the regular season (due to improved competition).  One Piston, though, has decline a bit more than we would expect.

Table Three: The Detroit Pistons after the First Two Rounds of the 2008 Playoffs

As Table Three reveals, virtually all of Detroit’s decline can be attributed to Rasheed Wallace.  In the regular season his WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] was 0.142. In the post-season his mark is only 0.031. 

Wallace is not the only one whose performance has changed.  Chauncey Billups is also offering less while Tayshaun Prince is now leading the team in Wins Produced.  If Wallace and Billups can return to form, and Prince keeps producing, the Pistons might just advance to the NBA Finals.  And if that happens, I think the Pistons might just win their fourth NBA title.  Or to put it another way, I think the winner of the Celtics-Pistons series should be favored over either the Lakers or Spurs.

Let me close by noting that fans of Boston and Detroit should look forward to a great series.  As I noted a few weeks ago, the current edition of each team is the best in each franchise’s history.  In sum, this should be real fun (and even more fun if the Pistons win).

David J. Berri
Associate Professor of Economics
California State University-Bakersfield

www.dberri.wordpress.com

      Here is my  Rodney Stuckey Analysis.

The first document is the Pistons after 80 games.  As you can see, the team is led by Chauncey Billups.  He is easily their most productive player.  Average WP48 is 0.100, and so you can see that Billups gets quite a bit of help.  Prince, McDyess, Wallace, Hamilton, Maxiell, and Johnson are all above average (Amir is second to Billups in WP48).

The rookies, Stuckey and Afflalo, are each below average.  But not by much.

Relative to other guards, each rookie looks pretty good.  I compared Stuckey to both point guards and shooting guards.  Among point guards, only Conley has a higher Win Score per 48 minute (this is not the same as WP48).  Win Score does not take into account team defense, and when that is considered (as it is in calculating WP48), Stuckey is the more productive player (in other words, Stuckey has the highest WP48 among point guards).  I would add that Stuckey is also more productive than Billups was his rookie season.

Turning to shooting guards… Durant and Afflalo have higher Win Scores.  But the difference is small. If you wanted to argue that Stuckey is the most productive guard, I think you would have a case.  For comparison sake I also consider Rip Hamilton’s rookie numbers.  Again, Stuckey is much better.

Looking at the individual stats, Stuckey is able to rebound and get steals.  He also gets some assists and is not too bad with respect to turnovers.  Where he has problems is in the area of shooting efficiency.  When he gets his shots to fall more consistently, Stuckey will be an above average guard.

Evaluating the First Round Shooting Guards

Below Average Numbers in Red

Points-per-shot = [PTS-FTM]/FGA

Adjusted Field Goal Percentage = PPS/2

Net Possessions = Rebounds + Steals - Turnovers

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

season almost complete