Offseason boredom leads to Spurs WP48 post
This is my first fan post eva.
I hate this time of year. No college football and if you're a UT fan most of the recruiting has already happened (I'm a UT fan). I don't really like baseball. So all I'm left with is obsessing about the Spurs because at least they have the draft and FA coming up. I'm a big fan of the Wins Produced (WP) metric which you can read more about at wagesofwins.com. It's a production metric based on how the box score stats are correlated with wins. I spent a lot of time the last couple of days looking at what or players produced this year and thinking about what we could expect from them next year based on WP. So I thought I'd share.
Below is a site that automates the WP calculation. You can look at seasons 2006-2010 and look at the playoffs for each season.
http://www.permanent-sketch.com/WinsProduced/#/Season
The only problem with automating the WP calculation is that you have to compare a players production to the average at his position. So you have to know the position of every player in the league. The site has a good process for this, but it is not perfect. To fix this the raw production for a player is included (Adj.P48 or adjusted production per 48 minutes) so you can make the correct position adjustment if you feel a players position is in error. This doesn't completely fix the problem because the average for each position will be calculated with some players at the wrong position, but it's really close. Okay enough of that, now on to the Spurs.
So this year we produced 54.3 wins, which matches closely what you'd expect from our efficiency differential (54.7 wins in 82 games). The reason we didn't match this in reality is because of all the close games we lost early in the season to good teams. God I hated that.
Alright here are the players we had this year with over 100 minutes who finished the season with us. I'll list minutes, WP48 (wins produced per 48 minutes, average is .100), and WP
- Timmeh 2438 .309 15.69
- Manu 2150 .285 12.77
- Blair 1494 .263 8.19
- Hill 2276 .093 4.41
- McD 1617 .099 3.34
- Bonner 1161 .113 2.73
- RJ 2520 .052 2.73
- Parker 1728 .072 2.59
- Mason 1515 .038 1.2
- Ian 165 .198 0.68
- Malik 361 .081 0.53
- Bogans 1559 .007 0.23
- Temple 193 -.025 -.1
Blair, Timmeh, Manu were all production machines. Hill had a WP48 of .052 through the first half, so he was above average through the second and should improve more. He's a nice piece. TP wasn't good, but has been in the .150 to .200 range the last several years and I think he should return to this next year given he's taking the summer off. McDyess was average and will probably continue to decline but he's nice to have on the bench. Bonner had a WP48 of .190 in the first half so that means he was well below average in the second half. RJ had a .032 WP48 in the fist half so he did get better, but was still below average. Mason and Bogans were terrible. Malik shows some promise but needs to step forward. Still it's okay for bench players to be a bit below average. Temple still interests me but hasn't shown much. Ian is intriguing but he averages enough fouls to foul out in 30 minutes. He'd get a 20 and 10 doing it though so I'd like to keep him if our offseason moves give us enough roster space to get him 10-15 minutes a game.
Now here's what I think is a conservative estimate of what we can expect from our players next year.
- Timmeh 2016 .275 11.55
- Manu 2016 .250 10.5
- Parker 2448 .150 7.65
- Blair 1875 .275 10.74
- Hill 2700 .125 7.03
- McD 864 .050 0.9
- RJ 2550 .075 3.98
This gives us a total of 52.36 wins. I assumed all these players will miss 7-10 games. I assumed fewer minutes and less productivity from Timmeh and Manu. I assumed Parker returns to the bottom of his peak years. I assumed that Blair and Hill will improve at least a little and get more minutes and that RJ would perform more like his second half of the season. I gave McDyess so few minutes because I assumed he'd have a large decline and that we'll acquire another big or Ian will get some of his minutes. Obviously these guys could be better than this. I don't think they'll do much worse baring significant injury. In addition to this we have guys like Hairston and Temple and a draft pick. I believe the average draftee puts up a WP48 of .050 (I don't have a reference for this, just what I remember reading). If we draft a wing with a .050 WP48 who plays 12 minutes a game, and we get Splitter or another big who plays 25 minutes at .100 (Ian or a non declined McDyess could also take these minutes) we get another 5.3 wins for a total of 57.65 wins. We also have 2,177 minutes unaccounted for but in my conservative estimate I'll say those were played by players who averaged 0 wins.
So this yields an estimate of almost 58 wins without major roster changes and not relying much on players not already on our roster. Not to shabby. This puts us solidly in contender status and this is with Timmeh and Manu playing only 28 minutes for 72 games during the regular season. Obviously they will get more minutes come playoffs and increase team production. The key will be allowing Blair to get good minutes alongside Timmeh so he needs to work on his jumper.
In summary, I think we can have a great team next year with relatively little change. I am officially pumped for next season.
16 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So this yields an estimate of almost 58 wins without major roster changes
Impressive. I guess, we are a great team on paper. I think, Hollinger had us and Utah as favorites to get out of the West. Predicting NBA is like predicting weather. The highest probability is that the weather tomorrow will be just like today.
"We lost so many games that we shouldn't have lost," - Ginobili, May 2010
Predicting postseason is harder because of the smaller sample size and matchups. When you play every team in the league over 82 games things tend to even out. With a 7 game series against the same team things get tougher. A key player can be injured or just have a bad series (see Manu’s nose and Hill against Phoenix, although I’m pretty sure they’d have beat us anyway.) and the matchup may be poor. We also upped TDs minutes at the expense of Blair which doesn’t help us much because you’re just swapping minutes with two of our most productive players. So the TD and Manu can play more minutes in the playoffs theory didn’t help as much this year as it could. Getting Blair on the floor more is a must.
One last thing, in genearl a 54 win team is a good not great team. One you may expect to exit in the second round. Now if we post an efficiency differential more in line with a 58+ win team next year I would expect more.
Predicting postseason is harder because of the smaller sample size and matchups.
If you needed to make predictions in the beginning of the season, smart money would be on the Lakers to repeat, at least as the western champions. 7 months and many games later we got exactly the result which was totally expected. There was a lot of talk about how close the west was, but this is still the Lakers and everybody else. There is also no reason to expect anything different in the next season, unless something dramatic would happen.
"We lost so many games that we shouldn't have lost," - Ginobili, May 2010
Thanks for the advice. I guess there’ s no point in even playing another season. We’ll just play the previous seasons champions over and over again. Thanks for setting me straight.
Well, we all know that eventually the weather changes and champions fall. But it takes a lot of personal changes to upset the power balance. May be next year LeBron or Wade would come play for some western team, and could challenge Kobe and the Lakers.
"We lost so many games that we shouldn't have lost," - Ginobili, May 2010
Spurs one in ‘03, ’05, ’07. So some other team one in the ’02, ’04, ’06, ’08. But I guess it’s different with the Lakers. Kobe’s so amazing.
The Lakers added two future HoFamers to their already strong team in 2004. Still, it went down to Fish’s 0.4 shot for them to win against SA. In 2006, the Spurs lost in the overtime of game 7. So even when the Spurs didn’t win, they were very close every year from 2003 to 2007. Not quite as close in 2002 or 2008. Had no chance against the Lakers in 2000-2001 or in 2009-2010. Now the Lakers have a very good team, and it would take an exceptionally strong team to beat them. They are unlikely to implode themselves, as they did after 2004 season.
"We lost so many games that we shouldn't have lost," - Ginobili, May 2010
And my post says that the Spurs were good this year (as proven by our having a solid efficiency differential and making it to the second round of the playoffs) and that we’re likely to be even better next year. Making us contenders. Not saying favorites, just in play to win the West.
Your seem to be saying that we should just say the Lakers are probably going to win next year, no further analysis needs to be done. Don’t bother thinking about the team you root for. Not a fan of that way of thinking myself.
The Spurs were not good this year. They got #7 spot in the west, and got swept by the team which wasn’t even serious contender itself. I want to see the Spurs really playing to win, instead of fooling myself into thinking that we were so good after one of the most embarrassing playoff exits in recent history. Yes, getting swept by the Suns was embarrassing. Allowing Goran Dragic to beat you on your own floor was embarrassing. Hopefully, we’ll have better team next season. But 2009-2010 Spurs were not a good team, whatever your efficiency differential says.
"We lost so many games that we shouldn't have lost," - Ginobili, May 2010
I suppose it depends on your definition of good. Yes, getting swept was embarassing, but to say that Phoenix wasnt a real contender, i think is inaccurate. They pushed the Lakers and lost on a last second putback. Phoenix was legit. Just because a team didnt BEAT the lakers, doesnt mean they didnt compete with or werent an actual threat to them. The Suns were a threat.
I think we were a good team in 2009-2010. Yes, a #7 seed, but when have we EVER tried for a number 1 seed? We havent. We spend the first half of the regular season just tinkering with rotations, trying to find different matchups we can exploit. Most of our losses came during that part of the season. If we play our best lineup the whole season, we’re probably a 2 seed, but then if anyone gets hurt, we’re done in the first round because nobody past the first team has significant playing time together. I’d much rather be a 7 seed and a 1 seed.
Rim Rockin' Red Rocket -silverandblack_davis
by SpursfanSteve on Jun 7, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Spurs were a #7 but gave away 5+ games early which would put them at #2. Beating the #2 seed handily proved we were a top five team.
The two real problem teams in the playoffs are the Lakers, who are better, and the Suns, who are a bad matchup for us. We historically beat the Suns, even when they were the better team, because Tim could score at will or pass out of double- and triple-teams for easy buckets. This year Phoenix contained Tim with guys like Channing Frye guarding him straight up. Channing Frye!
Splitter plus a more mature Blair and Hill should help gain ground on the Lakers but Phoenix will still be a bad matchup. Should we should blow the team up in hopes of improving our chances against the Suns?
by doggydogworld on Jun 7, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Nope. All we need to catch the Suns is the ability to knock down a 3. We may have got swept, but we were close in most of the games. A possession here or there, especially against their bench, would have been the difference maker.
Rim Rockin' Red Rocket -silverandblack_davis
by SpursfanSteve on Jun 7, 2010 11:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Knocking down more 3s might have prevented a sweep, but we aren’t going to win a series if we let Phoenix score 110 or more every single game. They also scored 110+ in all three regular season games, so it’s not just a case of them getting hot for a week.
by doggydogworld on Jun 8, 2010 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions
You’re probably right, but i was agreeing with you :) It would be stupid to blow up our team just so we match up better with the Suns. I think Splitter+a more mature bench=Spurs win. I think a more mature bench would have probably gotten us a win this year. We stayed even with their starters for the most part, but their bench immediately responded by either running up the score on our bench or against a tired group of our starters. When you play Phoenix, you HAVE to go at LEAST 9 deep. Which is one of the reasons we used to beat them when D’Antoni was coach, because he rarely used the bench.
Rim Rockin' Red Rocket -silverandblack_davis
by SpursfanSteve on Jun 8, 2010 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions
The reason we didn’t match this in reality is because of all the close games we lost early in the season to good teams.
Or the ones we lost because of RQC’s, which is like not really the other team’s fault
(see: Nets over Spurs).Maybe after the off season around October you can do this again bduran.
For Sale:Anyone interested with Spurs SF Richard Jefferson? Then just pick up your phone and dial 781-452-0659.Oh,wait its the rejection hot line.(Just joking,we're stuck with him,let's deal with it that we got no other SF and I guess he is much better than what he is showing us.)
I’m not a huge fan of Berri’s metric, though I think it’s pretty decent. I think my general problem with Berri is his overwhelmingly arrogant writing style and condescending tittering when he isn’t even a legitimate sports statistician, he’s a sports economist. His self-superior attitude is frustrating and undermines everything he writes/proposes.
Otherwise it’s a decent analysis. We’re also adding a reasonably high draft pick to our team, as well as a possible second round sleeper. If we can get Splitter, Parakhouski to develop, and a good back up SF to sop up minutes we should be OK going forward. In a position to contend, though it’ll take some breaks for us to win another ’ship with Tim…
"Whereas I never went fly like some of the boys." -- Ice

by 






























