Stats that matter: PF/C Defense

In the next few posts I will discuss some of the statistical components that translate into winning basketball.  Players who inhibit these characteristics are also fairly available and some players who may damage teams due to their inability to help contribute to any of the below could be overrated etc.

These are four main factors that attribute to a winning basketball team (in order):

1. PF/C combo has good help defense

2. High Rebound Rate

3. High Assist to Turnover Rate

4. High 3 point attempt rate

Now it is rare that any team excels in all of these attributes.  

Upon doing further research some of the better (or worse teams) in the league simply excel at the first two items and are just average on the bottom two.  Let's take the Boston Celtics for example with our first metric.

PF/C Defense 

This is the hardest metric of the four to measure simply because there's no exact stat that specifically tells you if players are indeed good defensively or not.  There are items like block, steals, or a combination of the two (CHG aka defensive plays include charges taken), but they still do not tell a complete story of one's defensive prowess.

The best tool available for such an item is plus-minus.  Using basketballvalue.com we can find these numbers for any team over the course of the season.  For defensive purposes, a telling sign is if someones Net defensive +/- (i.e. the team's defensive rating for a certain player that is on the court vs when he is off it) is negative.  This indicates that the team allows a decreased opponent offensive rating (points per 100 possessions) when that player is on the floor vs. off it.  Obviously the more negative this number is the more it shows how much of an impact that player makes on the defensive end.

One of the major attributes to Boston's success (they did have 56 wins) was their front court rotation excelling in defensive net plus minus.

Now the reason I chose Boston here is simply because they were not stellar in any of the other metrics.  

Boston ranked 20th in rebounding rate, 11th in assist to turnover rate and 27th in 3 point attempt rate.

The reason for Boston still being able to have a solid season was indeed their PF/C front court defense (dealing Perkins did not help).

Below is a list of the net defensive +/- for Boston's PF/C combos (sorted by minutes played):

Glen Davis: 1.52

Kevin Garnett: -6.19 

Nenad Kristic: 2.85

Shaquille O'neal: .22

Kendrick Perkins: -3.72

Luke Harangody: -1.1

Semih Erden: 2.58

Jermaine O'neal: -1.57

Troy Murphy: -0.57

What we really see above is the impact KG had on the team's PF/C defense.  No other big in the team's top 4 minutes played came close to his -6.2 net defensive plus minus.

Seeing the above it is no reason to see how the team's decline after the Perkins for Green/Kristic deal was so glaring.  The team dealt away an over -3 net defensive plus minus for a 5 in Nenad who's number was over +2, a whopping 5 point swing.

BRI ended up being BS

It seemed when we started this lockout many moons ago that both sides would inevitably squabble over the mighty pie of basketball related income.  We heard for months that the NBA was going from a 57% share of the BRI down to 53%, then to 52.5%, then 52%, before what seemed like a monumental leap to 50%.

The NBA owners and commissioner seemed to have gotten what they originally sought for a 50/50 BRI split.  Why then is there no resolution?

It turns out that after all this time the BRI was actually secondary.  Both sides seem much more keen on these system issues.

What it seems to boil down to is the players wanting freedom to play wherever they want and the owners wanting competitive balance.

The players' biggest selling point is that they already gave back 7% ( I still don't understand how you 'give back' money you haven't earned yet) and would like to have the system issues be resolved more towards their liking.  The owners still maintain that they'd like competitive balance and see harsher luxury taxes, less MLE for tax teams etc etc as ways to establish such a premise.

Either way the simple solution both sides should make is really proving what is more important.  Money (The BRI split) or "Something Greater" (system issues - for owners competitive balance, for players freedom to play in any city etc).

If both sides really are now preaching of "something bigger than the BRI" then prove it.

Owners should have offered a deal that had the BRI split vastly in the players' favor but had stricter rules against teams going over the cap.   Would players have accepted a 47 - 53% BRI split (in owner's favor), if all of those new rules were vanished?  What about the owners?  Do they say yes to a 47-53% split if they are able to enact all of those new rules to solve the "system issues"?

That would have been the true test in this lockout.  Who really would have stayed with their "guns" regarding the agreement, willing enough to take a less than 50/50 BRI split when doing so.

It's too bad we couldn't get that far.  It's not too late to really show up the other side with that offer (or counter offer).

Trades that should happen: CP3 In a Clipper Uni

If you were the New Orleans Hornets why wouldn't you want to deal Chris Paul? 

Regardless if the superstar point guard agrees to sign an extension or not shouldn't be the real concern. The fact is the Hornets have not been to at least the conference finals since he has been in the league and have recently found themselves in the middle of the NBA pack.

The worst thing to occur to a franchise in this league is to be in that middle ground: not good enough to be a true contender, but not bad enough to land a top pick.  Unfortunately, the Hornets are a clear example of such a franchise is their 1st round picks since Paul have been the following (this is before any draft trades were made etc):  19, 11, 21, 27, 13, and 12. 

There doesn't seem to be much hope on the horizon either for New Orleans as the team has no major young prospects to build around or even package in a last ditch effort to build a contending team around Chris Paul.

Finally, the last straw is Paul's looming free agency that is coming off the heels of David West's current free agency.  Now is the time to make a decision on Paul since it would entail re-signing David West this summer.

If the Hornets decide to go the rebuilding route, they can simply let West walk this summer and salvage decent value for Paul if he agrees to sign an extension with new team X.

So the route of rebuilding seems to be the clear path, but if New Orleans chooses that route what would they be looking for in a Chris Paul package?

Any perfect rebuilding package should include at least several of the following: future 1st round picks, young prospect(s), and expiring contracts...probably in that order.  Also, if I can add any long-term veteran contracts I won't really have use for in a rebuilding state that is an added bonus.  Finally, the final roster around Paul (and perhaps location and marketing opportunities) should be attractive enough that he would sign an extension there.

Who could offer the Hornets that exact package?  It would also need to be a team that Paul would likely sign an extension with given the final product and location.

The Los Angeles Clippers

A simple trade idea would be the following:

Chris Paul, Emeka Okafor
FOR
Chris Kaman, Eric Gordon, Randy Foye, 2012 Minnesota 1st Rd pick

Why it would work for the Hornets?

This deal satisfies all of the above criteria.  The Hornets net a valuable future pick, a nice young prospect, and expiring contracts (Kaman and Foye).  Chris Paul is paired with Blake Griffin in one of the biggest markets in the globe, and likely agrees to an extension.  What could be better?

The Hornets could probably make a few more moves if they chose to tinker around the roster and add a few picks (perhaps move Kaman to the Bucks for Gooden/Livingston and a Milwaukee future 1st, Foye or Jack to the Lakers for Walton and a future 1st, Ariza to the Raptors for Amir Johnson).   Either way, this one initial move certainly puts them in a great position to rebuild.

The main aspect would be having two picks in the top 10 to potentially add a few premier talents in what is supposedly one of the more touted and deepest classes in recent memory.

Why would the Clippers consider this?

Remember NBA Jam.  Recently an anniversary game came out for this video game featuring today's players.  Could you imagine the duo of Paul and Griffin in such a game?  Seriously, what duo would be more fun to play with?

Obviously no video game prospect could be reason to make a trade, but it does shed light on the potential impact both on and off the court for Chris Paul in LA.

On the court

According to Wins Produced (now I know many don't fully believe in this metric, but it does warrant some consideration in accumulating a team's final win total) the trio of Blake Griffin (15.6), Chris Paul (20.5) and Emeka Okafor (8.9) produced a total of 45 wins last season.  Now most teams operate by the Pareto Analysis (i.e. that 80% of their work is produced by 20% of the talent), which estimates that around 3 players produce roughly 80% of, the team's win total.  If this above trio simply replicates the above win total (considering Griffin should be increasing in production and Paul/Okafor should at least stay stagnant is very likely), the total win total for the Clippers could be around 56 next season, a figure that could rise over time with Griffin's progression.

The bigger question could be how would LA surround talent around this trio. 

The team would still have the current contracts of Mo Williams, Ryan Gomes, Eric Bledsoe, Brian Cook and Willie Warren.

At the very least the team would have two major holes: starting shooting guard and backup center

A starting 2-guard with such a core, the Clippers would be best suited looking to sign a pure shooter who can space the floor for Paul to penetrate the lane and Griffin to operate in the post.

The following 2-guards could fill in such a hole and would be available rather cheaply (4 million or less per year):
Mike Dunleavy JR, Delonte West, James Jones, Marco Belinelli, or Daequan Cook

As for backup center, netting Paul and Okafor via trade would likely mean the team would not match an offer sheet that D'Andre Jordan signed elsewhere.  The Clippers would be in the market for a cheap solid backup 5 who could play a rugged 15 minutes behind Okafor.  The following centers should be available for a rather cheap price and should suffice:
Jeff Foster, Erick Dampier, Hilton Armstrong, Jason Collins, Chris Wilcox, Aaron Gray, or Joey Dorsey

Assuming the Clippers could at least sign one player from each of the above lists, the following roster should be consistently competitive for Western Supremacy over the next decade in the league:

PF B. Griffin/ B. Cook
SF A. Farouq Aminu/ R. Gomes 
C   E. Okafor/ J. Foster
SG M. Dunleavy JR/ W. Warren
PG C. Paul/ M. Williams/ E. Bledsoe

Off the court

Such a trade would completely rebuild Clippers branding.  LA would not solely be a one-team basketball city with the Clips giving their bitter rival Lakers a run for their money.

This could change the ultimate scope of a franchise accustomed to playing second fiddle and change the framework of the loveable losers out West.

More importantly the deal would actually be great for the NBA.  It would pair up a future super star with a current one and add one more 'Must See' team to the selective list of several in this league.

Paul and Griffin! You'd want to play them on NBA JAM and will certainly pay top dollar to watch them in person.

What happened to the "Shooting" Guard?

Right now there are two main things missing from today's NBA.

The first is quite obvious, quality starting centers.  The truth is based on the statistics of heights in the world this notion does make sense.  There are less quality big men available due to two major items.  First, it takes some unique coordination to play on the court like you're typical NBA player if you are over 6"8.  Second, there are just less human beings out there and thus less selection from people of that height for the NBA.

The 90s spoiled NBA fans by featuring a healthy dosage of quality centers.  The golden center decade featured Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, and Mutombo.  Currently, only Dwight Howard would be worthy of being mentioned amongst such greats.

But this isn't about Centers.  Having a current crew that consists of Howard, Bogut, Bynum, Nene and Monroe sounds about fine when you consider the points mentioned earlier.

This is about the Shooting Guards.

Shooting in general has been a slowly dying art form in the league in general, but the weird part is it has happened mainly in shooting guards, you know, guards that are suppose to shoot.

Think about it.  On the top of your head how many players in the league right now could give you around 20 points per game and are primarily perimeter oriented wing players?

Now I know guys like Kobe or Paul Pierce can nail the 3 ball, but I am speaking of guys who are more known for that perimeter stroke than anything else.

Currently, you got Joe Johnson, Jason Richardson, and Kevin Martin and....JJ Redick?  Meh, he can't really get you anywhere close to 20 a game. Jason Terry?  More of a combo guard than a true wing. 

Meanwhile if we go back from 1995 - 2005 check out the below list of wings who could you around 20 and were shoot first wing players.
Steve Smith, Glen Rice, Mitch Richmond, Reggie Miller, Glenn Robinson, Ray Allen, Michael Redd, John Starks, Peja Stojakovic, Rashard Lewis just to name a few.

Now a days having players who can simply shoot from the perimeter is actually a luxury.  What the lack of true shooting wings has caused though is the in flux of shooters getting major minutes at other positions that were not once used for true shooters.

Guys like Andrea Bargnani and Danillo Gallinari who are poor defensive presences and rebounders for true 4s, will always find a niche in the league as shooters.  Or point guards like Jose Calderon and Jimmer Fredette who may lack true play making abilities, but are lethal from down town and were signed to a hefty contract and draft high respectively solely because of it.

Even though you wouldn't label these guys classic Power Forwards or Point Guards, they'll get hefty contracts and stick around in this league solely due to their shooting.

The reason for the above is really due to the notion of following the super star. 

After MJ was the big thing 20 years ago, you started seeing an influx of wing talent coming in looking to slash and score, but with less emphasis for shooting.  Now with LeBron as the current best wing in the league, more players are coming in looking to emulate him and not focusing as much on the jump shot.

Moving into the next decade of basketball having a wing who can play significant minutes for you, and is not a major liability, that can shoot it fairly accurately from the perimeter, will start becoming a rarity in this league.

Again, this will cause a ripple effect with teams looking to get that shooting from other slots and sacrificing perhaps with lack of true point guard play or size up front.

Regardless, if these trends continue, it will still be SF and SG...but swap the word 'shooting' for 'slashing'.  Unfortunately for all it may negatively effect the beauty of the game.  With less perimeter play, slashing will be supreme, there will be even more one on one play and less efficient isolated play. Guys like Redick will soon be an extreme luxury in this league.

Best advice for any GMs out there.  Get all the shooters on your team while you can, or else you'll need to waste a lotto pick on someone like Fredette.

Does Orlando have any shot at keeping Dwight?

Before already thinking that there is no way Howard bolts Orlando next off-season via free agency, shouldn't Magic fans be thinking the opposite, as in why wouldn't he leave?

Orlando is tapped out financially and they don't seem better than a 2nd round squad currently.

There doesn't seem to be any worthwhile prospects on the roster to deal and not many good bargains out there.  What on earth can Orlando do to salvage next season, perhaps make a run and retain Dwight?

Orlando first has to explore the crap for crap market.  Yah I said crap.  This market entails trying to trade your own junk, or crap, for what another team considers junk (poop?).

Poop, junk or crap can better be described as usually a veteran who is unhappy or overpaid in their respective situation.  The veteran would like to seek a deal to leave their team and since he is overpaid etc, the management of that team may agree.

The best example of the above is Richard Hamilton of the Detroit Pistons.

Hamilton was ousted by the team's coach last season and was unhappy about the idea of moving to the bench, even if it was part time.  Furthermore general manager Joe Dumars, even tried dealing Hamilton for pure expirings, using the team's coveted first round pick in the package.  The fact that the team was so willing to deal Hamilton combined with him wanting to leave perhaps just as badly, makes any Hamilton deal to a better team a match made in heaven.

What would Orlando want in a Detroit deal besides Hamilton?  First off the only player on the Magic roster that would make sense in such a deal would be Jameer Nelson in somethingn like a Nelson and Q-Rich for Hamilton deal.  The question is what else could the Magic get in such a trade venture?

Since Detroit seemed willing to deal their 8th pick along with Hamilton to simply unload the contract, wouldn't they likely deal some protected 1st round pick in 2012 along with Hamilton to get better than an expiring, aka Jameer Nelson.  I think they would.

It would depend on the protection, but Orlando should be able to net back Hamilton AND a top 6-8 protected 2012 pick from the Pistons in such a trade (with the protection lowering each year the pick is not used etc).

So now the Magic have a nice asset they can use in future dealings, the Pistons 2012 1st rd pick.  What else can they parlay to exceed their title chances and retain Howard in doing so?

They can orchestrate the above deal into a 3 or 4 way with the Hawks or Clippers.  Simply deal Bass and Redick to the Clippers, the Clipps then can send Kaman to Atlanta and Orlando can send that Pistons pick to Atlanta as well.  What would be the end result?  Josh Smith could then come to Orlando.

Then Orlando (if the CBA is not changed much...huge IF), could sign Crawford to around the MLE and hope for the following rotation:
PF Josh Smith / Ryan Anderson
SF Hedo Turkuglu / Earl Clark
C  Dwight Howard / Daniel Orton
SG Richard Hamilton / Jamal Crawford
PG Gilbert Arenas / Chris Duhon

That team looks better than the current one, but with some time needed for chemistry building it is unsure how much better it is.  Would it beat Boston or Atlanta, likely.  How about Miami or Chicago, still unlikely.  Is that deal easy to do?  No.  Would all the teams involved even accept it?  Unsure.

If you're still with me, the point I'm trying to make is really that the Magic have little chance at contending next year and keeping Dwight...see above.

Is there really much they can do at this point? In short, no.  GM Otis Smith shouldn't look at the above as a way of revamping the team, but really more of proof over how the team's contention possibilities are maxed out.  They have no long term assets and regardless of whether Dwight stays or go, what future would they have?

So what should the Magic do?  Forget about Dwight, pretend he's already gone, and try dealing him now while his value is high and rebuild this ship...likely with a new GM.

Reducing NBA Games could help overall revenue

Why is the NFL so much more successful than the NBA?  Is Football really a more followed sport than Basketball in this country?

Last season all 30 NFL teams made a profit, where according to the owners, only 8-10 NBA teams did so (out of the same 30).

So let's first look at the NFL and find out why that league is so successful that their only major lockout was solved without even training camp being canceled.  The truth is we likely don't have to look very far.

The NFL stands out from the NBA in particular because of two factors: the infrequency of games played and the 'team' concept.

The NFL receives high ratings mainly due to the fact that most teams only play once a week, each game is thus vital, and cities need to generate overall less sales to see sell outs for a complete season.  Meanwhile in the NBA, teams play 82 games with sometimes as many as 20 coming on back to backs.  Not only is not every game vital, but at least for around 25% of the season teams are not playing their full effort at times due to the games being back to back.

The NBA won't be able to be 'team' like the NFL as only 5 players play on the court at one time and the individual marketing is what has rose the NBA game from its depths in the 70s.

In order to increase overall attention, fan fare, and overall revenue, reducing the amount of games from 82 to around 68 would ensure no back to backs be played, and each team playing about 3 games a week.

Here's how it could work.

Each NBA team would automatically get one weekend night (either Friday night, Saturday night, or Sunday night) at home every week with another two games to be played that same week, with at least one being on a week day night and more than half being on the other weekend night.

For example, the Sixers would play in Philly Sunday night, in Boston on Wednesday night, followed by either in Philly or somewhere else that Friday night.  The only time an NBA team would not play two weekend nights is if they played on Saturday night.

What would this do?

Well, a drawback could be that majority of NBA games would be played Sunday night, Wednesday night, and Friday night in such a method.

Is that really a bad thing?

First off, that's kind of the way it is right now.  Most of the Saturday night, Monday night, Tuesday night or Thursday night games (even though they are on TNT) usually happen to be back to back for someone involved.

By eliminating those back to backs you're likely eliminating most games those nights (Sorry TNT, choose a different night).

Bottom line the idea is to limit games to 68, so there's closer competition for the playoffs and games matter more.  The other notion is to limit the back to backs so we don't see NBA teams dogging it on a 4th game in 5 nights etc.

As we learn in the crazy world of supply and demand and economics, sometimes less is more.  Why is New York real estate so high?  It is mainly due to their being 70% rent control buildings, thus more demand for the 30% of supply remaining, and thus extremely high rent in that 30%.

The Yankees also realized this notion.  When they built their new stadium, they decided to put in less seats, but charge more for seats.

Who would this idea help and who would it hurt?  It is true that many of the higher marketed teams like the Lakers or Knicks don't need such a concept since they'd sell out (at least while the Knicks are winning) regardless of whether there are less games or not.  So those teams could charge roughly 10-15% more for tickets.  They'd likely at least duplicate the same revenue as an 82 game season.

But what about the Pacers or Bobcats?  The 68 games would keep them either closer to playoff contention and ensure an appropriate supply to demand ratio which is necessary.

82 games is also extremely a lot considering the Euroleague only plays twice a week.

If the NBA wants to get serious about increasing the BRI (basketball related income) and ensure all teams stay competitive as well, reducing games could be an interesting alternative to look into.

It may sound ludicrous, but sometimes less is indeed more.

New Ownership Should look for a new home for the Atlanta Hawks

The Atlanta Hawks have been reportedly sold to LA businessman, Alex Meruerlo.

Initial reports have also indicated that the sale wouldn't mean a move for the Hawks.  Atlanta fans shouldn't feel so secure.

In any league all that management could really do to ensure that attendance is being maintained at a high level is to have a winning product on the floor and is exciting to watch.

The Hawks do have a relatively exciting nice core in place with Smith, Johnson, Horford and Teague.  These players do display an exciting brand of basketball and have warranted enough wins over the years to warrant solid attendance numbers.

Winning and doing so in an exciting way, didn't really produce high attendance totals for these Hawks though in the last 3 seasons as we see below (season ending year):

Attendance Ranking

2011: 22nd
2010: 18th
2009: 20th

Winning Percentage Ranking

2011: 13th
2010: 7th
2009: 12th

Based on the above Atlanta's average attendance over the last 3 years placed them at 20th, meanwhile over that span they were on average around the 11th best team in the league, a 9 slot difference.

Smaller market teams like Cleveland over that span ranked 3rd, 2nd and 5th over that span.  Yes they had LeBron, but fans kept showing up to see a winning product. 

How about a different team with no real marquee talent that had similar winning outputs to the Hawks?

Well, the Portland Trail Blazers over the last 3 years ranked 2nd, 3rd and 3rd in attendance.  During that same span their average NBA ranking in winning percentage was 9th, only 2 slots better than Atlanta and an attendance average ranking (3) 17 slots better.

What helps these above teams?  For Cleveland the solution was likely both winning AND attaining the most exciting and marketable player in the NBA in LeBron James.

For other teams like the Knicks, usually the city's market share is a key indicator.

Where teams like Hawks get hurt the most is competing with the other sports teams in their area.  Atlanta is home to the Trashers (pending move), Falcons, and Braves.  For a major U.S. city, but not a New York, LA or Chicago, that's a decent amount of local competition.  On top of which Atlanta can't really stand out too much in their own city even winning wise with the Braves and Falcons usually competitive in their own sports for playoffs and beyond.

The Hawks should certainly look to move.  You can't have a 9 slot difference year in and year out between your winning percentage and attendance ranking.

The new location, despite the businessman being from a large market (LA), doesn't need to be a New York or LA.

Looking at some other NBA teams that are successful in attendance like the Utah Jazz and Portland Trailblazers, we could note that they are from semi big cities, but with little professional competition.

If Atlanta's new ownership decides to move it may make sense to choose a location were they won't need to pry fans from the cities' other major sports teams.

The problem is that many of those locations are likely taken.  There may be some smaller cities that have absolutely no other professional sports teams (Albuquerque, El Paso, or Louisville) and a venture could duplicate similar results as the Blazers or Jazz.

Another idea is to form a similar strategy as the Golden State Warriors (Oakland and San Francisco) and place a team near two big cities (Columbus and Cincy, or Anaheim and San Diego).

Any which way ownership decides to go, it is clear that a move is necessary.  If a team can not fill seats by winning and being exciting while doing so, what else can they do?