SB Nation User Blog: lee3022

Brandon (old or new) is NOT Kobe (old or new) w/Poll

lee3022 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:16:32 -0000

The idea is being floated about that Brandon's play is like Kobe's ball-dominant play before the L*kers acquired Pau Gasol. It does not feel right. I wanted to examine this premise with data to see what validity this idea might have and this is what I discovered.

I compared Kobe and the L*kers from 2006-2007 to Brandon and the Trail Blazers from 2008-2009. I used the most recent complete year for Brandon against the most recent year for Kobe prior to the acquisaiton of Pau Gasol. By most accounts that acquisiton and perhaps the USA Basketball team experience for Kobe changed his style to being unselfish. In 2006-2007 Kobe played 3140 minutes. In 2008-2009 Brandon played 2903 minutes or 92% of Kobe's minutes. We will adjust raw numbers when head-to-head comparisons are made to equalize.

Since we are talking about unselfish, I started with assists. Kobe had 413 assists to Brandon's 400. With equal minutes Brandon gets 435, advantage to Brandon. Kobe had 22% of the L*kers assists while Brandon had 24% of Blazer assists. So far so good.

How about FGAs? Kobe had 1757 while Brandon had 1318. Again, equalizing for minutes, Brandon would get 1433 or just 82% of Kobe's attempts. So what about usage (an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor).

USAGE
	Kobe	Brandon
2009-2010	37.50%	27.20%
2008-2009	32.20%	27.40%
2007-2008	31.40%	24.90%
2006-2007	33.50%	23.00%
2005-2006	38.70%	n/a

Brandon's usage was significantly lower than Kobe's indicating Kobe's ball-dominance. Also note that the new Brandon and the old Brandon are nearly exactly the same, last year to the short period of this year.And Kobe's usage is even higher this year than last or in 2006-2007. This is likely higher this year with Kobe adjusting to the injury to Pau. But last year was nearly even with the old Kobe in 2006-2007.

I then calculated assists per shot attempts (FGA + 0.4*FTA). Kobe was 20% against Brandon's 26%. These shot attempts were 27% of L*kers' total attempts for Kobe and 21% of Blazers' for Brandon.

It would appear that Brandon's 2008-2009 sharing of the scoring and assisting teammates is significantly different than Kobe's for 2006-2007.

Finally out of curiosity I ran the same numbers for Kobe in 2008-2009 to see if the new Kobe was indeed significantly different than the old Kobe in 2006-2007. I was mildly surprised to find that they are not:

	2006-07	2008-09
Kobe Assists	413	399
Laker Assists	1908	1850
Laker Assists	22%	22%
Kobe FGA	1757	1712
Kobe AST/Shot Atmp	20.0%	20.6%

So it appears that the old Kobe is about the same as the new Kobe. His team is winning more games in 2008-2009, perhaps because they have more effieient scorers playing with Kobe in 2008-2009, but the inclination to share with teammates for Kobe has not changed.

It also appears that the new or old Brandon is not similar to new or old Kobe. While both are relied upon by their teams to score, the approach and results for the two players appear to be markedly different.

What do you take from these numbers? Is it helpful to bring statistical measurements into this discussion? Can you add additional light to this idea?

Poll

Brandon Roy is NOT Kobe Bryant ball-dominant?

Brandon is just like Kobe was before Pau arrived

4 votes

Brandon is a little like Kobe in style but not results

19 votes

Brandon has never been and never will be like Kobe's ball-dominance

54 votes

Comparing statistical measurements is wasting your time

7 votes

Other (feel free to expand below)

5 votes

89 votes | Poll has closed

Wendell Maxey on Juwan Howard

lee3022 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:32:07 -0000

Wendell Maxey on Juwan Howard

Brother Wendell writes a really good look at Juwan Howard.

I don't see this posted elsewhere so you might have missed it.

The reality behind a $75M contract (Partially edited)

lee3022 — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:37:10 -0000

The signing of Brandon Roy today heralds the cornerstone of the franchise for years to come. Some think the likely max contract of around $75M is too much for any player. Others think Brandon got jobbed by a down economy. Most of us have never even met someone being paid $75M over 5 years except in a fan line. What is the reality of this contract?

I did some digging and found a good summary of the NBA salary cap and its history at Wikipedia.com. Using their history I worked out what a 5 year max contract (25% of cap) would have looked like over the years. The first year of the cap was 1984-1985 set at $3.6M. That cap would yield Brandon a total 5 year salary of $5.4M under today's rules. In 1988 Paul Allen purchased the Blazers when the cap was set at $7.2M. Taking 5 year intervals here are the estimated totals:

	Salary Cap	5-Yr Contract
88-89	$7,200,000	$10,890,000
93-94	$15,100,000	$22,838,750
98-99	$30,000,000	$45,375,000
03-04	$43,900,000	$66,398,750
08-09	$58,700,000	$88,783,750
09-10	$50,000,000	$75,625,000

09-10	$65,400,000	$98,900,000

The 09-10 Salary Cap will not be official until July 2010 but NBA officials have indicated the $50M is a reasonable presumption per various news stories.

The 09-10 year at the bottom of the table calculates from an estimate of 8.43% average increase in the period 03-04-through 08-09 what might have been expected when Brandon joined the league. With $23M less, it would seem he did get jobbed by the economy, but wait -

A player given a max contract in 88-89 would get less over the 5 years total than any single year in Brandon's contract.Compared with the superstars who have gone before, Brandon has a gravy train.

On to Part 2 - the impact to the fans:

Ken Berger has written an interesting piece on CBSSportsline.com about the ticket revenue from last season in the league. In there he says this:

Portland, New Orleans and Orlando are great examples of why a better revenue sharing model is needed. All three teams were above the league average in total ticket sales but below average in ticket revenue simply because those markets can't support high enough prices. The Blazers are the most blatant example, selling an average of 17,872 tickets per game (third in the league) but generating only $813,809 per game (15th).

Berger makes the case for revenue sharing to lighten the load. It would seem to help but are the votes there to change ownership practice?

With max contract to Brandon and with LMA likely close behind the Blazers need more money from ticket sales. Hang onto your wallets because the next few years will likely bring significant increases each year. We have seen it before and it will price some fans out of the arena.

I do know the prevailing theory is Paul Allen can afford to lose money. That misses the point. Paul has invested many millions (maybe closer to $1B) in the Blazers. There needs to be a return soon. It is partly about ego - who wants to brag to their friends that you are losing $50M per year (as reported in the past) on an investment. If the Blazers can turn the corner and become profitable and steady in the profits then the fun is multiplied for Paul Allen.

So what do we glean from all this? The question are we willing to be patient with management regarding extensions? Are we willing to pay more to Comcast and for tickets to support these huge salaries?

Storyteller's correction for 2008-2009 is made above. His formula has not been incorporated (more later?).

The 2010 Free Agency Feeding Frenzy? Not Going to Happen? Why Extensions Will Be Signed Across the Board!

lee3022 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:07:45 -0000

The media buzz for the past two years has been huge around the free agent class of 2010. We are told that many teams are dumping salary to clear cap space for that year. The draw is, of course, LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire and Chris Bosh among the top players. All are either reported to have opt-out or player option clauses to exercise before June 30, 2010 making them possible free agents in 2010. Sorry folks the party might be over before it starts. In my review below you will see that the max contract players who are offered an extension this year will likely take them or lose huge salary money. The major free agent market in 2010 will instead deflate into mostly lesser players. I recognize that marketing contracts might offset this loss but that is a factor unknown to me so for the sake of discussion I am leaving it out. If you have specific facts that cover this factor you are welcome to cite them below along with the discussion. I also recognize the allure of two of the above playing together and that also is an unknown to be debated but one or both will take a monetary hit to do so. Read the review and consider the discussion questions below:

Analytical Review:

Free Agents are limited to a maximum contract amount in the first year (for 7-year veterans) of 30% of the salary cap. They negotiated player options or opt-out clauses because they expected the salary cap to remain stable or continue to rise as it has every year in recent times and because their present contracts limited them to 25% of the salary cap for the first year when effective. However the salary cap's decline this year and the expected drop next year ($8M expected) has changed the numbers drastically.

A Player may sign for 6 years with his own team and 5 years with another team Signing with the same team yields 10.5% of first year increases each year. Signing with another team yields 8% of first year increases each year. These differences are valued below.

For contracts effective 2007-2008 the maximum salary for a player of four years was $13.0M and increased to $17.1M for 2010-2011 (opt-out year). In the first two years following the signing of those contracts the above five saw the salary cap increase from $53.1M to $58.7M (110% increase). A similar increase over the next two years would bring the salary cap to $64.8M and a nice benefit for opting out. However the salary cap has now declined in year three and is expected to drop to $50M in 2010. So with 30% of of $50M maximum to re-sign with their own team a player receives $15M (note the actual amount is smaller by a 1% or 2% because of escrow I think) in the first year providing a net reduction of $2.1M from his opt-out year. But wait it gets worse. That is first year. You may already know all that.

My reading of the Larry Coon's excellent NBA Salary Cap FAQ would indicate that a Larry Bird Exception for re-signing a player has a maximum of that 30% of salary cap. However the extension of a player is based on the last year of his present contract plus 10.5% of first year increases. That changes the equation even more. Once opt-out is taken that right is presumably lost. (note the numbers may not add for rounding) I had an assist in this fanpost from an article here by George Thomas on Ohio.com. (Stoudemire's numbers are slightly higher)

Numerical Review:

2010-2011 Salary Cap = $50.0M (all numbers in millions)

                                  Opt out    Opt out    Extend with
                              Same Team   New Team Same Team
2010-2011                  $14.1    $14.1    $17.1
2011-2012                  $15.5    $15.2            $18.9
2012-2013    $17.0            $16.3        $20.9
2013-2014                  $18.5    $17.4              $22.6
2014-2015                  $20.0            $18.6    $24.3
2015-2016    $21.4            $20.5          $26.1

Totals $106.5 $102.1 $130.1

2010-2011 Salary Cap = $57.7M (all numbers in millions)

                                  Opt out       Opt out Extend with
                              Same Team New Team    Same Team
2010-2011 $16.2         $16.2 $17.1
2011-2012     $17.9       $17.5               $18.9
2012-2013 $19.6         $18.8               $20.9
2013-2014 $21.3         $20.1               $22.6
2014-2015                   $23.0         $21.4             $24.3
2015-2016                   $24.7       $23.7 $26.1

Totals                        $122.9       $117.8 $130.1

Summary:

The difference between old team and new team signing for a max contract free agent in 2010-2011 works out to be $5.1M over the life of the contract favoring the old team if the salary cap stays the same next year as this year. The difference between old team and new team works out to be $4.4M favoring the old team if the salary cap declines as reported to $50M. So there is not a huge effect from the cap change. This is why most newsmen are dismissing the difference (Although $4-5M is big either way compared to my budget!).

But the difference between extending and opt-out signing with a new team is $23.6M favoring extending over the life of the contract at $50M salary cap and $28.0M favoring extending with the old team vs. signing with a new team. If you consider the cap at $57.7M the difference between extending and opt-out signing with the old team is $7.2M favoring extending and signing with a new team the difference is $12.3M favoring the old team. Clearly the potential drop in cap will drastically alter the dynamics of decision.

Discussion:

It is an intriguing risk-reward dynamic for both team and player. It is a sliding scale for both depending on the level of economic distress you factor into the equation. So consider each separately;

If you are the player do you want to move teams with at least $12.3M loss of revenue and more likely $28.0M or more? Why would you not extend if offered if you decide to stay with your current club? Finally do you sign now or wait until the last possible minute to see what the economy will do?

If you are the team do you offer the max contact while leaving $28.0M on the table? Or would you want to negotiate a number somewhere in the middle? And with the risk/reward changing monthly with the economy and league revenue do you allow the player to have the same contact offer in June as he is offered now or would you offer with a decreasing % each month?

A final question to consider: If you are the league charged with maximizing profits for the teams do you issue overly dire warnings of the salary cap coming down to assist teams in getting lower contract amounts? How would you do that and still maintain credibility?

Hoopsworld thinks Millsap is likely replacement for LMA

lee3022 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:54:11 -0000

Hoopsworld thinks Millsap is likely replacement for LMA

There is an interesting response in chat yesterday with Steve Kyler, Publisher of Hoopsworld about LaMarcus Aldridge and Millsap's leverage: "Frank in Sacramento: Hi Steve, 1)Where's BOOZER end up? 2)If MILSAP goes to PORT, does that mean LaMarc. is moving? 3)Are the latest repts. on CURRY enough to make some GM want him? Thanks. Steve Kyler: Lets get them one at a time... 1)Where's BOOZER end up? - good question, Utah is aggressively shopping him. I think Miami wants him but does not have the assets to make a deal... Not sure we've seen the team that gets him. 2)If MILSAP goes to PORT, does that mean LaMarc. is moving? - A lot of LaMarcus' future is tied to his price tag, at $12 million he's pricing himself out of the picture... I have been told they would go $9 to $10 on lamarcus, which means that might go to an average of $11 million, but you have to think about Greg Oden and Brandon Roy - the Blazers want to keep this core together, but if laMarcus' camp plays this thing hard he could be the odd man out if they land Millsap - I like the notion of adding Milsapp for toughness, but do you really think a team is gonna carry two forwards making $10 million a season... neither guy gets enough minutes. I think if LaMarcus is reasonable, he stays - but at this point its so early in the talks to know where things go... three weeks ago the landscape as totally different" So while everyone is stressing about Roy's contract LMA may be the real problem forcing the team to take the harder line with Roy. Of course Millsap is not getting $10M every year but the economy is forcing all players to reassess their contact demands. Reality for Blazer fans? Food for thought and discussion. Do you think this week may bring LMA to the table if Millsap comes to us?

Reconsidering Steve Nash (edited)

lee3022 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:04:05 -0000

With Shaq apparently traded to Cleveland for a $5.5M savings for Phoenix and with Phoenix needing further relief (They still have $73M on the books) and not likely to be a contender in Nash's remaining years the Blazers are primed to get the championship point guard they need and offer ~~$11M~~ $7.5M more in cap relief (plus luxury tax savings to Phoenix) while offering a young point guard in replacement:

The offer of our cap space ($7M) plus Steve Blake and Sergio gives them the opportunity to ~~cut Steve~~, keep Sergio and move Nash's salary and save about ~~$11.5M~~ $7.5M putting them below the luxury tax (and able to draw their share of others' luxury tax) for a much bigger win than moving Shaq to Cleveland. We might need to move out of the 1st round to get the $7M space so the pick is traded for a next year's first?

I know these have been debated before but with extra 2nd round picks in play as well we might find tomorrow to be a golden opportunity. Is there any possibility? Would you want this to happen?

Portland sends:	2008-2009	2009-2010
Sergio Rodriguez	874,000	1,576,696
Steve Blake	4,250,000	4,000,000
Cap Space	~~7,000,000~~	7,000,000

Phoenix sends:
Steve Nash	12,250,000	13,125,000
Net Savings		7,548,304
~~Net Savings~~		~~11,548,304~~

These numbers are from Storyteller's excellent spreadsheet. Any errors are clearly mine in transcribing them!

Poll

Is dreaming of Steve Nash in Portland this year silly?

Let's do it!

95 votes

Not sure this would work

32 votes

Stay with what we have

4 votes

No way Steve Nash

33 votes

Revisiting this stuff gets so tiring

15 votes

Other (explain below)

2 votes

181 votes | Poll has closed

NBA History Made Yesterday by Blazers

lee3022 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:58:30 -0000

It is not often that we have gone through the doorway of NBA History so I wanted to mark this moment for all of us. Only an numbers guy would ever take the time to do so but you will find this interesting.

The Trail Blazers under Coach Nate McMillan have improved at least 9 games each season for the past four years. How often has that ever occured? I wanted to find out.

So I searched my favorite site for data: Basketball-reference.com to look at the records of each NBA franchise from the inception of the league (1949). I was surprised to discover the following:

The Trail Blazers improved from 21 wins in 2005-2006 season to 32 wins in 2006-2007. This has been done by nearly every franchise.

The following year, 2006-2007 they improved to 41 wins. This consecutive year improvement by at least 9 wins has been done in consecutive years by only 19 franchises and a total of only 30 times (Portland owning 3 of them).

This year last night's win brought the Trail Blazers to 50 wins assuring them of another consecutive improvement by at least 9 wins. This four consecutive season improvement by 9 wins has been done by only one other franchise - the Philadelphia 76ers (1972-1976).

No franchise has ever improved for a 5th consecutive season, so the record of 4 consecutive seasons was tied last night by the Portland Trail Blazers. That is history. With over 100,000 games played in NBA (ABA and BAA included) by current franchises this is a rare moment. Another marker to appreciate that we are living an unusual opportunity to watch a team develop.

Portland would need to improve an additional 9 games to reset the record to 5 consecutive seasons (somewhere between 59 wins and 62 wins) next year. Here is the question to debate: Can Portland make another 9-game improvement next year? And if so, what are your assumptions that allow that to happen?

Poll

What are Portland Trail Blazers' chances of another 9 win improvement next year?

Portland has no chance of improving another 9 games next season

19 votes

Portland has a 50% chance to improve another 9 games next season

148 votes

Portland has a 70 % chance to improve another 9 games next season

28 votes

Portland is a lock - no doubt they will improve another 9 games next season

19 votes

Portland has a 90% chance to improve another 9 games next season

18 votes

I hate polls and refuse to participate in this one

16 votes

248 votes | Poll has closed

Houston loses in Chicago

lee3022 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:03:52 -0000

Houston loses in Chicago

Beware the Bull - Thanks Chicago!

Winning with Rookies - A League Study

lee3022 — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:55:06 -0000

For many years I remember NBA coaches indicating in various ways that playing rookies meant losing and coaches just don't like to lose now so that the next coach will win. At the most 1 rookie might play (i.e. Tim Duncan) surrounded by savvy veterans. Otherwise a team blew up the roster and lost miserably. I began to wonder how the Trail Blazers are winning so many games with mega-rookie minutes and if anyone else is able to do that. I looked at the data through Friday, Feb 6, to compare:

Portland this year plays more rookie minutes than any other team except Memphis by a substantial margin. And, Portland is winning far more with substantial rookie minutes than any other team. Here are the top ten teams in rookie minutes as a percentage of team minutes and their records:

Memphis 36% rookie minutes 13-36 record
Portland 30% rookie minutes 30-19 record
Miami 23% rookie minutes 26-22 record
New Jersey 21% rookie minutes 23-27 record
Sacramento 19% rookie minutes 11-40 record
LA Clippers 19% rookie minutes 11-39 record
OKC 16% rookie minutes 12-38 record
Chicago 15% rookie minutes 22-38 record
Milwaukee 14% rookie minutes 24-28 record
Golden State 13% rookie minutes 16-35 record
Charlotte 12% rookie minutes 19-30 record
Indiana 11% rookie minutes 20-31 record
Minnesota 10% rookie minutes 17-31 record
All other teams are below 10% rookie minutes

So it seems that only Portland and Miami have winning records with high rookie minutes. Moderate use of rookies has been successful at Orlando (8%), San Antonio (9%), and Cleveland (6%). No other top-ten teams (by winning percentage) uses even 1% of minutes for rookies. It is small wonder that the league is becoming afraid of Portland. As this group matures and develops it promises to become the team that every team desires - combining youth, talent, culture and a winning mentality. Kevin Pritchard and Nate McMillan and staff have received early praise and, more recently, Coach Nate has heard stinging criticism for the use of players in the games. It looks to me as though we can have our cake and eat it too. We can win with rookies and early-career players and develop them with heavy playing time as well. A point to note: All five teams mentioned in this paragraph are anchored with superstars. Dwayne Wade, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, LeBron James and Brandon Roy all facilitate the use of rookies while still winning. Only San Antonio has an aging superstar in this group. I begin to think Portland, Miami, Cleveland and Orlando are the future class of the league (assuming they all keep their superstars and healthy as well). Obviously rookies are not the only young players on teams and there is nothing scientific in this study - only food for thought.

For me, personally, It gives me the feeling that I want to stand and applaud this terrific team and organization called the Portland Trail Blazers.

What are your thoughts? Do you see other areas to explore here or other conclusions to draw? Discuss freely....

The Oden Factor

lee3022 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:16:37 -0000

The Question:

The recent excellent post by Dave responding to Henry Abbott has started all of us thinking about how to measure Greg Oden's becoming a significant factor on behalf of the team.

In my analysis of the games through 11/19/08 I found several measures that say he has definitely boosted the team. His effect is not seen in how many points or rebounds he gets or even his plus/minus. It is seen in improvement in overall team defense and overall team production and from production from the Center position.

Joel Przybilla is playing his best basketball. Why? Joel tells us why: He can finally be aggressive and risk some fouls because Greg is his backup. But even more so these two Centers are (one of) the best pair in the league on defense. They are intimidating. Teams that want to beat the Blazers have to hit outside shots. Perversely the Blazer perimeter defense has improved as well forcing them inside.

Data derived from NBA.com and ESPN.com box scores of each game.

Here is the analysis:

The interior defense is being measured by points in the paint, percentage of shots in the paint and percentage makes from 2-point range. The Oden Factor considers the 6 games Oden was out of the lineup or not playing significant minutes against the 5 games following his return to the rotation (Miami through Sacramento). I do realize that the Phoenix game is an anomaly to this study but the work was done before that game and should continue to play out with anyone except a highly motivated Shaq and Amare.

Opponent average points in the paint w/o Oden = 40.0
Opponent average points in the paint with Oden = 35.6

Opponent 2-point FG% w/o Oden = 51.7%
Opponent 2-point FG% with Oden = 45.5%

Opponent ratio of 2-point shots w/o Oden = 74.5%
Opponent ratio of 2-point shots with Oden = 78.5% (see perimeter defense)

Team Defensive blocks from Center w/o Oden = 0.7
Team Defensive blocks from Center with Oden = 3.8

The perimeter defense has also taken a significant leap forward as measured by opponent 3-point shooting percentages. This reason for this might partly be the intimidating presence of the shot blocker in the interior allowing the perimeter defenders to play tighter.

Opponent average 3-point FG% w/o Oden = 41.2%
Opponent average 3-point FG% with Oden = 31.7%

These comparisons show a positive change with Oden in every defensive category except opponent offensive rebounds and the 17 OR by Chicago skews this significantly.

The interior offense has gained a boost from Oden as well as measured by points in the paint, shots from 2-point range & accuracy and rebounds of our shots taken. I also present the scoring improvement from Center

Team average points in the paint w/o Oden = 33.3
Team average points in the paint with Oden = 40.0

Team 2-point FG% w/o Oden = 46.7%
Team 2-point FG% with Oden = 47.9%

Team ratio of 2-point shots w/o Oden = 74.5%
Team ratio of 2-point shots with Oden = 78.5%

Team average offensive rebounds from Center w/o Oden = 3.0
Team average offensive rebounds from Center with Oden = 4.0

Team average points from Center w/o Oden = 4.2
Team average points from Center with Oden = 21.6

The perimeter offense has benefited also as measured by 3-point percentage.

Team 3-point FG% w/o Oden = 41.2%
Team 3-point FG% with Oden = 42.9%

The total offense has been steady at 99 points per game with and without Oden.

The total defense has been dramatically improved:

Opponent average points w/o Oden =100.0
Opponent average points with Oden = 90.2

Conclusion:

In my opinion Greg Oden has already made the team significantly better. He has improved nearly every aspect of the team while admittedly has more improvement to come. We are not sacrificing anything to play Greg as many minutes as his stamina can endure, while keeping Joel highly productive as well. Expect the coming months to add to this meager sample size and validate with even more improvement.

(With apology to the previous posters on this subject. This has taken me some time and presents a bit more data)

Poll

Do you agree with Henry or with Dave?

I think Dave is spot on and leaves Henry in the dust on this one

15 votes

I think they both have merit and neither is wrong

33 votes

I think Henry calls out our fanhood and shows us the error of our ways

2 votes

I don't answer polls

8 votes

58 votes | Poll has closed