Winners set the standard. Understanding the anatomy of the ultimate NBA winners ostensibly gives us a blueprint for roster construction - a design to apply to personnel decisions.

Understanding the anatomy of a champion is obviously challenging - but I take a simple approach to the problem here by using a composite stat (Win Shares) to gain insight on what level of overall performance represents a champion caliber roster. Win Shares is convenient - with data easily available from basketballreference.com for all my samples. As a composite stat, it isn't perfect - but it is good enough to draw some basic conclusions.

Technically, I could go back to the late 70's to build my sample size (Win Shares calculated the same way for all teams/players going back that far) - but that is more work than I wanted. So, I limited my analysis to NBA champions in the current millennium. The Lakers dominate the millennium so far - with 5 championships since 2000. How that might skew my analysis, I have no idea.

What we do know is that the average team Win Shares for an NBA champion is 59. The low was 50.6 (2000-01 Lakers) and the high was the 2007-08 Celtics at 70.2. Where it gets interesting is how a 10-player rotation accounts for those Win Shares. After the jump, I take a look at Win Share distribution per Championship team, and I compare that to the current edition of the Portland Trailblazers. Dave recently posed the question of "how long to relevance?". This analysis offers some additional discussion fodder for that very question.

Continue reading this post »

Batum and his pending Restricted Free Agency (RFA) is a hot topic here on Blazersedge, and projections of reasonable offers are all over the board. Recently, a short discussion with Oden Mad, Oden Smash! and Magnum sparked the question of how to define value. Oden Mad, Oden Smash! proposed that only a small handful of players in the $8M-$11M salary range "earn" their contract. It is a market value question - where I counter that the proper question isn't whether a small number of outliers (higher than normal production for a given salary range) defines "value" - but rather the question is how much bang for the buck is necessary for a salary that individually consumes 20-25% of the available cap?

Incidentally, $10M represents 17% of a $58M cap, but close enough.

Magnum posted the question of being able to look at a comprehensive list of players in a given salary range and evaluating value based on the list.

Here you go (after the jump). The salary list, with exception notes, is based on 2011/2012 data courtesy of Storyteller's Contracts. Also courtesy of Smirnoff 100 + xEnergy Fruit Punch.

I limited the list to salaries between $6M and $10M, taking a few liberties wherever I pleased. I personally chose this range because I feel it represents both the appropriate player comps and Batum's likely future salary (don't see him getting $11M a year).

The average salary of the following list is $7.9 million (42 players). There aren't very many players in that range that one could say are clearly better than Batum.

Continue reading this post »

This will be a democratic draft, voted on by members of Blazersedge. Based on feedback, we can do updates once a week until draft time.

The #6 Poll is posted separately, but with the same list of players. Please vote your preference for where a player should be picked. Please vote your preference and expectation for who will be available at #11.

The list of players is based on the assumption that Davis, MKG, Beal, Drummond and Robinson are the top five picks.

This will be a democratic draft, voted on by members of Blazersedge. Based on feedback, we can do updates once a week until draft time.

The #11 Poll will post separately, but will likely have the same list of players. Please vote your preference for where a player should be picked (6 or 11).

The list of players is based on the assumption that Davis, MKG, Beal, Drummond and Robinson are the top five picks.

What we know:

• One of Oden’s four primary ligaments in one of his knees is affected by something that concerns the Blazers with concurrence from Oden’s camp.
• Diagnosis was made by MRI

What we do not know:

• Which ligament is affected
• Which knee is affected
• How the ligament is affected
• To what degree the ligament is affected
• Whether symptoms detected by MRI were confirmed by tests (place a knee in a position and test for laxity (looseness/stiffness), etc.) MRI is not a test, per se. MRI does not measure performance. Knee diagnostic “tests” measure performance (flexibility/stiffness/pain).

What we might know (gleaned from comments that are not authoritative or are ambiguous):

• The affected ligament is “non-weight bearing”
• Oden is asymptomatic (whatever is causing the concern causes no pain or instability)
• Oden may or may not be cleared for limited basketball activities
• McMillan anticipates Oden returning “soon”
• Management does not expect Oden sooner rather than later, but does not rule Oden out sooner rather than later

What we can deduce:

1. Which ligament is affected
2. How the ligament is affected
3. To what degree the ligament is affected

If the notion of “non-weight bearing” has any credibility at all – it probably means that Oden has an issue with one of his Medial Collateral Ligaments (MCL). “Non-weight bearing” is not an anatomical term with regards to knee ligaments. However, we do know that the knee has two cruciate ligaments and two collateral ligaments. The cruciate ligaments are on the inside of the joint – and they are the primary stabilizing ligaments. Being on the inside of the knee means they are in direct line with the load-bearing axis (when a person is standing straight up, the force of weight passes through the cruciates to the bone below). The cruciates do not bear all the weight – but they are in that load-bearing path.

The collateral ligaments are on the outside of the knee joint – one on each side. When standing straight up, the collaterals would not be in the direct load-bearing path.

Of the two collateral ligaments (medial and lateral), injury to the MCL is by far the most common – and easily the primary candidate for any concern by the Blazers or Oden. The MCL is on the inside of the knee – the LCL on the outside.

*for the purposes of this exercise, I have disregarded the Patellar Ligament, typically referred to as the Patellar Tendon. If there was damage to the Patellar Ligament, it would probably have been referred to as a Patellar Tendon issue rather than a ligament issue. This is a strange fact in knee anatomy, where a specific ligament is actually called a tendon.

Severity of injury to the MCL is tested by measuring joint separation when pushing sideways from the outside of the knee (valgus stress) when the knee is straight (0 degrees flexion) and bent (30 degrees flexion). Incidentally, valgus stress is the most common means of injuring the MCL – but the tests will not cause injury. How much the knee joint separates at each flexion tells us something about the nature of the injury.

Per Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dept. of Rehabilitation:

Opening of 0-5 mm indicates a Grade I tear, 6-10 mm a Grade II tear and more than 10 mm a Grade III tear. The amount of laxity [looseness] in each position of flexion is indicative of the number of medial structures injured. Valgus laxity at 30 degrees of flexion but not at 0 degrees of flexion suggests an isolated MCL injury. Valgus laxity at both 30 and 0 degrees indicate injury to the MCL, posterior oblique ligament (POL) and most likely the ACL.

These are the types of tests that Oden would have been subject to at his Thursday physical. Ostensibly, those tests did not indicate damage to any of his ligaments that would preclude basketball activities (from Brigham & Women’s Hospital):

• Pain: typically well-localized to medial aspect of knee
• Palpation: localized soft-tissue swelling and tenderness over medial knee1
• Range of Motion (ROM): Active and passive ROM of knee joint
• Joint Mobility: patellar glides, femorotibial glides
• Strength: hip and knee musculature; note quality of VMO recruitment
• Sensation: may be impaired to light touch due to localized swelling
• Girth measurement: to assess for swelling, atrophy
• Special Tests: ligament stability tests, especially valgus stress at 0 and 30 degrees, Lachman, anterior drawer; McMurray
• Posture/alignment: note any varus or valgus deformities at knee joints; knee hyperextension; weight bearing avoidance or intolerance on affected lower extremity.
• Proprioception: if possible, assess single leg stance, compare to uninjured leg
• Gait: note if antalgic, uneven stride; decreased stance on affected limb; cadence;
• ask patient to increase speed to brisk walk and note further impairments; note balance and safety with locomotion; assess stair climbing ability. Note, if any, type of device(s)- cane, shoe lift.
• Functional Outcomes: using the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS)

Instead, we know that whatever is driving the current concern was detected by MRI. MRI detects lesions – or tears in the ligament. Based on the assumption that Oden passed the tests described above, the MRI may have detected lesions less than Grade I. This is consistent with reports that Oden is asymptomatic. Whatever the MRI discovered – it wasn’t severe enough to be detected by tests or cause pain, instability, loss of function, etc. Also, MRI is about 90% accurate – meaning that diagnosis of small lesions less than Grade I may be a simple case of erring on the side of caution.

What it means:

• Oden’s rehabilitation/recovery to date has been with regards to his microfracture surgery and the reestablishment of articular cartilage. We have no reason to believe that this process has been anything but a success.
• Small lesions in MCL ligaments can be treated with therapy and will repair
• The chance that Oden will play this season based on this diagnosis is high.
• If we see Oden on the court with a knee brace – we will know more.
• If we find out the terms of Oden’s contract – we will know more.

Great discussion topic and research from blacknoiseNW. 

Bumped to Front Page. Please click through.

-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter

Continue reading this post »

Brandon Bass has been a mainstay on Blazer fan wish lists over the past few seasons - and for good reason.  Not especially tall, but strong and quick - Bass has a reputation as a high-energy bench player that can rebound, play some defense and make an offensive contribution with hustle plays and a decent outside shot - all at a position of need for the Blazers - Backup PF.

Bass is in his 5th year in the league, but it turns out we have a rookie aka Dante Cunningham that brings everything to the table that Bass does...

First - the Physical:

• Bass: 6'8 250 lbs
• Cunningham: 6'8 230 lbs

Bass comes in a little heavier, but they have remarkable similarities physically.  Both are physical specimens and ripped.  They are strong, quick and have good hops.  Bass has a few extra years of muscle built into his shoulders.  However, it was the physical similarities I noticed just now while watching the Lakers @ Orlando that prompted me to research this comparison in the first place.  Relying on 82games.com because I don't have Synergy resources, I found some more interesting similarities and positive comparisons favoring Cunningham:

Peripheral Stats (read order Bass 1st; Cunningham 2nd):

Bass and Cunningham draw fouls at a similar rate (10.4 vs. 10.3%) and have similar passing ratings (1.1 vs. 1.4) and block ratings (4.9 vs. 5.3).  Interestingly, Cunningham starts to pull away from Bass in terms of rebounding (player rating 19.2 vs. 24.6) based on 2009/2010 stats, so I went back to 2008/2009 for Bass to get numbers that reflected more of his potential contributions (2009/10 hasn't been a great season for Bass' minutes).  However - Cunningham still compares favorably to Bass as a rebounder - even using Bass' much better 2008/2009 stats (24.8 vs. 24.6).  Cunningham also has a better 'hands rating' (9.2 vs. 11.3) that is even more dramatic if you consider Bass' 2008/2009 stats (5.2 hands rating to go with a 0.3 passing rating).

Shooting Tendencies:

For context, Bass' and Cunningham's raw stats are remarkably similar this season (and for Bass' career):

Using Bass' career stats: 48.8% shooting vs. 49.9% (Bass is at 50% this season) leading to a 6.7 ppg career average vs. 4.1 ppg.

How these guys get their points is also an interesting comparison:

Bass Scoring by Game (2009/2010):

Scoring

Dante:

Scoring

and the details:

Bass

Shooting Details

Dante

Shooting Details

The data isn't perfect - but it does tell us a few things:

1) Bass takes more shots closer to the basket, but doesn't necessarily score more effectively (eFG%/Blk'd%)

2) Cunningham shoots more jumpers more effectively - but within the flow of the offense (much higher assisted %)

3) Bass creates his own shot more (lower assisted %)

Overall

What this quick comparison does tell us is that the Blazers already have a "Bass-type" on the roster that in all likelihood will be an even better player.   Dante's peripheral stats are as good or better, right now (Bass did draw more fouls in 2008/2009); Dante rebounds as good as a happy Bass; Dante shoots better (other than FT's); Dante passes better, turns the ball over less and blocks better.

Cunningham is arguably better than Bass - right now - and there is certainly no way you can make an argument for Bass over Cunningham when you compare salaries ($4M vs. $400K).

I like Brandon Bass' game - but the Blazers do not need him to get his game.

This is a post to highlight a paragraph extracted from the APER article over at Hoopdata. 

Consider this, all ye armchair statisticians:

Another important thing to note in regards to advanced statistics is that statistics do not measure ability, at least not exactly. Statistics measure performance, and in a sport as context heavy as basketball, performance is not always going to be 100% reflective of ability. When you're in a team-oriented offense like Phil Jackson's with a ridiculously good sidekick like Pau Gasol, you're probably not going to be giving everything you possibly can every night (I'm talking effort level, not contribution), simply because the offense doesn't require you to. From an ability standpoint, I don't think you'll find many people who think that Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, or Chris Paul are noticeably better than Kobe Bryant (even when you don't include defense in the conversation). But from a performance standpoint, in terms of what those players provide to their teams in their roles? I think if you look closely, it's more than reasonable that over the course of an entire regular season, the other three are required to do more for their teams than Kobe does. It's not quite fair that he is penalized for that, but that's why you always have to remember that statistics are about performance, not ability. And on that note, while PER and APER have their flaws, they do a pretty good job of measuring that.

and elsewhere in the article:

People may still be unsatisfied that Kobe ranks so far behind the likes of Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, and Lebron James, but the fact of the matter is they create a lot more of their own shots than Kobe does. And even Brandon Roy, who some consider to be far beneath Kobe as an offensive player, last season created more of his own shots, scored with a higher efficiency, had a higher assist rate, and a lower turnover rate.

It is safe to say that Brandon's ability transcends his bulk production - but I also think it is safe to say that he has a fair amount of league-wide respect for his ability, hence his All Star appearences.

Ultimately, however, this post is a self-reminder that any statistic we use to support our arguments must be considered within context - and context can be extremely complex to understand.  The complexity comes from the almost infinite variables that shape each player uniquely.  We do have enough similarities to compare apples to apples, but those apples are Fujis and Granny Smiths - similar fruits of completely unique species.

We will never be able to compare Golden Delicious to Golden Delicious, no matter how hard we try to simplify our definitions.

Therefore, we are much better off using statistics to understand winning trends and then finding players that contribute directly to that winning trend.  Instead of arguing this point guard is better than that point guard, we should be focusing on "that player produces x, y and z -  and x, y and z win games".  When you focus your analysis on production, rather than player roles, you are much more likely to field winning combinations because your player evaluation isn't based on indirect measurables such as wingspan - but more on assists, TS%, etc.

So layoff Bayless and put him in the starting lineup, already.  His arms are long enough.

Look no further than his 82games.com shot profile 2009/2010 vs. 2008/2009.  Brandon's inside attempts are down 12%, with his inside scoring down to 3.9 ppg from 7.0 ppg.  Brandon is scoring slightly more from outside this season, and more of that outside scoring is coming off an assist (a LOT more).  For all the bitching and moaning about Roy not being a team player or playing off the ball enough - the stats say this is an arguable point (his assisted percentage is down on the inside shots - but so are the shots).  Roy is also making his outside shots at an equivalent rate.

The big thing for me is that the criticism of Roy as a selfish player is completely irrational and baseless, relative to 2008/2009.  Assisted percentage is up to 41% from 33%; passer rating is up; assists per 48 min are up.  Roy is not the problem.

Shot selection 2008/2009

Shot selection 2009/2010

Just for giggles, here are Andrew Miller's charts:

Shot selection 2009/2010:

Shot selection 2008/2009

Miller isn't going inside as much, either - and his outside shooting is atrocious.

Hypothetical distribution of minutes.  Plenty of room for one or two minute tweaking.  Blake takes the most obvious hit.  That doesn't hurt the Blazers.  Bayless, Rudy and Martell all beneft from Blake's reduction in minutes.  Outlaw doesn't get an inordinate amount of burn.  Also, all teams actually average more than 240 mpg game, but this spreadsheet does not account for overtime or 6 players on the floor.