Miserable end to bad Bucks month

One time when we were watching The Sopranos on HBO, the GF asked me what the difference was between the mafia's "No Show" construction jobs and their "No Work" jobs. I said you get paid for both kinds of work. But the first kind you don't have to show up for, whereas the second kind you have to show up, but you don't have to do anything.

I could have used last night's Bucks game to illustrate the distinction. Last night's game was a "No Show" for Michael Redd, and a "No Work" for the rest of the Bucks.

Bogut is Buck of the Month for January

It wasn't too tough to choose the Buck of the Month for January. There were only two Bucks who even played above average basketball. With a nod to Mo Williams and Bobby Simmons who were just below average, Andrew Bogut and Charlie Bell were the only Bucks who ended the month with above average production.

Of the two, Bogut was clearly the choice for Buck of the Month. He had one of his best months in Green and Red. I would have said the same thing about Bell at the middle of the month, but he tailed off badly in the month's last nine games. Bogut, on the other hand, had only one truly bad game (last night's).

On the other hand, Michael Redd had his first negative month of the season, as did Mo Williams. Yi Jianlian was so brutal he actually cost the Bucks victories with his horrible play. Jake Voskuhl was good in a couple of games and totally horrendous in others. Somehow he was able to cost the Bucks more victories than Yi in just a fraction of the time. Dan Gadzuric was also terrible all month until garbage time last night.

As I told someone recently, the greatest indictment of Larry Harris' regime is not that he hasn't assembled any talent. Its that he has sunk a ton of money into role players who are simply awful. That has nothing to do with limited revenue, it has to do with terrible judgment.

Bucks Performance Numbers for January

Here are the production numbers for the month. The number in parenthesis is the player's percentage of above average games for the month of January. The next number is the player's Position Adjusted Win Score. It tells you how the player's statistical production correlated with victory, compared to the average statistical production at his position. The third number is the player's Win Contribution. That is a product of the player's Win Score multiplied by his percentage of the Bucks overall court minutes (240 per game). If you add up all the player's Win Contribution's a team with a zero overall Win Contribution is a .500 team, so each player's Win Contribution number indicates the player's contribution to a winning or losing team. The final number is the player's Wins Produced. That takes the formula developed by the authors of the book The Wages of Wins and translates it into the actual number of victories that can be credited to the player. It is generally 95% accurate.

Andrew Bogut (83%).....(+3.19).....(+.470).....2.65 wins

Mo Williams (60%).....(-0.10).....(-.014).....1.23 wins

Michael Redd (50%).....(-0.45).....(-.040).....0.60 wins

Charlie Bell (58%).....(+0.67).....(+.078).....1.26 wins

Bobby Simmons (62%).....(-0.22).....(-.023).....0.82 wins

Charlie Villanueva (37%).....(-1.85).....(-.148).....0.28 wins

Royal Ivey (29%).....(-2.43).....(-.292).....0.22 wins

Yi Jianlian (6%).....(-4.56).....(-.486).....(-0.45) wins

Awvee Storey (20%).....(-4.10).....(-.089).....(-0.06) wins

Michael Ruffin (38%).....(-1.70).....(-.075).....0.17 wins

Dan Gadzuric (20%).....(-7.20).....(-.070).....(-0.11) wins

Jake Voskuhl (22%).....(-14.00).....(-.119).....(-0.29) wins

Total Win Contribution %: -.808

Win Contribution Translation: 6.52 wins

Total Wins Produced: 6.32 wins

Actual Wins for January: 7 wins

Identifying the NBA's Reliable Scorers

As much as I recognize the genius behind the Win Score method of grading basketball performance, and as much as I appreciate the link between it and a team's victory totals, even the authors of "The Wages of Wins" themselves admit that you cannot have a successful basketball team made up entirely of the Dennis Rodmans or Ben Wallaces of the world. You also need players who have a simple knack for producing points above the average. In other words, you have to have players who can provide you with reliable scoring.

And, unfortunately for Antlerheads, when it comes to reliable scoring, it appears that no team in the NBA is thinner than the Milwaukee Bucks. They have Michael Redd, whose per minute scoring totals make him quite reliable, then they have the borderline reliability of Mo Williams and the barely used Charlie Villanueva. That's it. Everyone else on the team produces points at a below average rate.

But I wondered how many reliable scorers do other teams in the NBA have? As it turns out, most every team -- even the sorriest teams in the Association -- has at least 3 solidly reliable scorers. As I noted, the Bucks have one solid scorer, and two who are borderline.

How I measured Scoring Reliability

In an effort to find out how many scorers each team employs, I've come up with what I call the "Scoring Reliablity" metric. Reliable scoring, to me, is scoring that is above average even when considering shot efficiency.

To find such scorers, I first seperated all of the players on every team who score the basketball at an above average rate, which is 0.4 points per minute or better (and that equates to 19.24 points per 48 minutes of playing time). Any player with a point total per 48 minutes above 19.24 made the first cut.

Then, in a nod toward the importance of shooting efficiency, I multiplied the number of shots the player took per 48 minutes by the number of points per shot the average NBA player scores (which is 1.22). That amount was then compared to the actual number of points per 48 the player scores, and that resulting amount was then added or subtracted from the player's initial "Scoring Reliability" point total. If the final result of that summation was negative, then the player was removed from the list of reliable scorers.

The formula then is the following: (Player's scoring average per 48 - 19.24) + (Player's FGA per 48 * 1.22 - Player's scoring average per 48) = Player's "Scoring Reliablity" point total.

And here is the formula in practice:

Michael Redd averages 29.1 points per 48 minutes, and takes 21.8 FGAs. So, his initial reliable scoring output per 48 is +9.86 (29.10-19.24). And, on 21.8 FGAs, the average NBA player would score 26.59 points, so Redd gets an additional 2.50 points for his superior efficiency (29.1-26.59). Thus, Redd's overall "Scoring Reliability" average is 12.36.

Now, Charlie Villanueva averages 22.4 points per 48 minutes, and takes 20.5 FGAs. Thus he is an above average point producer (+3.16), but an inefficient scorer (-2.61). However, since his point production just barely outstrips his inefficient shooting, I still consider him a Reliable Scorer with an average of +0.55.

NBA's Reliable Scorers by team

Boston

Garnett +10.50
P Pierce +9.06
R Allen +3.50

Atlanta

J Johnson +4.68
M Williams +5.88

J Smith +4.86

Charlotte

J Richardson +5.26
G Wallace +8.76
E Okafor +1.37

Chicago

A Nocioni 7.58
J Smith 0.91
B Gordon 6.87
L Deng 4.40

Cleveland

L James +20.33
Ilgauskas +2.09

Dallas

Nowitzki +13.45
J Howard +9.38
J Terry +4.90
D Harris +6.96

Denver

C Anthony +15.89
A Iverson +15.61
JR Smith +7.78
L Kleizka +5.29

Detroit

Hamilton +7.82
Billups +11.65

Golden State

B Davis +8.32
A Harrington +6.10
S Jackson +4.74
M Ellis +6.39
Azubuicke +0.38

Houston

McGrady +8.98
Ming +13.15

Indiana

Dunleavy +8.30
Granger +6.80
J O’Neal +2.20
Williams +3.69

LAC

Maggette +14.82
Cassell +4.90
Kaman +2.21
T. Thomas +2.56

LAL

Bryant +20.17
Vujacic +5.97
Farmar +4.47
Fisher +4.91
Bynum +7.16

Memphis

Gay +6.14
Gasol +7.52
Miller +4.75
Warrick +6.06
Navarro +2.54
Swift +3.45

Miami

Wade +16.08
Shaq +8.19
Blount +0.68

Milwaukee

Redd +12.34
Williams +1.56
Villanueva +0.55

Minnesota

Al Jefferson +8.88
McCants +5.41
Smith +5.73
Gomes +1.39

New Jersey

Vince Carter +7.57
Richard Jefferson +15.07
Boston Nachbar +1.37

New Orleans

Chris Paul +8.50
David West +5.32
Peja Stojakovic +3.88

New York

Z Randolph +3.81
Nate Robinson +5.03
Eddy Curry +9.27
J Crawford +3.38
Marbury +1.26

Orlando

Turkglo +6.13
D Howard +16.52
R. Lewis +4.08
Dooling +3.91

Philadelphia

L. Williams +3.47
Iguodala +5.36
Andre Miller +1.33
Willie Green +1.04

Portland

Roy +6.19
Alridge +4.42
Outlaw +3.68
J. Jones +5.12

Phoenix

Stoudamire +22.74
Barbossa +7.57
Nash +9.14
Hill +5.05
Marion +1.88
Banks +1.00

Sacramento

Kevin Martin +19.51
F. Garcia +4.28
Artest +2.62
Salmons +4.87

San Antonio

Ginobli +16.60
Duncan +9.82
Parker +7.97

Seattle

Durant +6.49
Szczerbiak +9.42
Wilcox +4.46

Toronto

Bosh +15.58
Humphries +2.35
Ford +6.73

Utah

CJ Miles +3.38
Milsap +2.20
Brewer +3.93
Korver +6.12
D Williams +8.63
Boozer +14.00
Harpring +6.53

Washington

Butler +7.73
Jamison +5.97

Nick Young +2.13

Why is Yi playing so many minutes?

Is the objective here to keep the Chinese Government happy or to win basketball games? Because by my count, Yi Jianlian played his 15th below average game in a row last night, yet he continues to start and continues to play the bulk of minutes while backup Charlie Villanueva sits on the bench.

Sure, Villanueva sucks a little worse than Yi... but that's over the course of the season. Unlike Yi, Villanueva has at least mixed in some good games this past month, and he brings scoring to the table, something that, with Michael Redd out of the lineup, the Bucks desperately need at the moment (and which should have been apparent at the half when they only had 35 points). Right now, Yi brings next to nothing.

Got the Small Lineup Blues

I don't understand the Bucks affinity for the small lineup. Especially when they play Charlie Bell at small forward. He is woefully undersized for that position, more so than even his "head height" suggests.

In fact, its long been my contention that NBA teams should disregard a player's normal height, and should only consider what I call his "basketball height". That is, his standing reach. After all, you do not shoot a ball from the top of your head, you do not block shots with the top of your head, and you do not grab rebounds with the top of your head. You do all those things at the apex of your reach. Thus, standing reach is the important "height variable" for basketball purposes.

According to his predraft measurement, Charlie Bell's basketball height is 8'1''. That is, at best, good enough to play point guard. The typical small forward in the NBA is at least 8'7''. Bobby Simmons is 8'9'' while Desmond Mason is 8'10''.

By comparison, Maurice Williams is 8'2'', and Royal Ivey is 8'1''. With those two and Bell on the floor for extended minutes, is it any wonder the Bucks got outrebounded by 17 last night?

By the way, there was a guy who was available on the Bucks bench last night who can play small forward and who has a standing reach of 9'1''. His name is Charlie Villanueva. But, of course, going big like that is just stupid.

The ironic misconception about the book Moneyball

Ever since the fascinating book Moneyball came out a couple of springs ago, the term "Moneyball" has become synonymous with statistical analysis. This wrongheaded notion is dripping with irony, because misconceptions like that are the actual theme of the book.

At its essence, author Michael Lewis' Moneyball is just an update of the old tale "The Emperor Has No Clothes". It is a book about how conventional thinking or conventional methods becomes codified into accepted, unquestioned practices in nearly every competitive industry (in the particular case the industry just happened to be Major League Baseball... but Lewis clearly argued that the thinking behind the A's methods could be applied by any small competitor in any industry) and how such conventions can be uncovered and exploited by aggressive, smaller competitors to overtake their larger, better financed foes.

Statistical analysis is certainly one way to go about it. But Lewis makes it clear that market inefficiencies can be uncovered and disproven using any method at all. The book is about the attitude and daring that one must have to even attempt such a strategy.

Lewis argues that if you can muster up the nerve, and if you don't mind being shunned and being the target of ridicule in your line of work, then you can find inefficiencies and use them to take down even your biggest rivals. That's the Moneyball message, and its the message I've tried to make the central theme of this blog. I think its the Bucks best chance to return to glory.

So remember, "Moneyball" is not a method, its a state of mind. And it isn't exclusive to sports or to statistical nerds. Fortune favors the brave. Whenever you run across anything "conventional", whether it be a method of operation, a belief... any kind of sacred cow of any kind... have the courage to ask "Why?" and you'll often put yourself on the path to discovering ways you can gain a decisive advantage over your competition.

Houston has a nerd problem

The only reason I cite so many statistics on this site is because I am trying to start conversations amongst Bucks fans as to how the Bucks can win another championship. Please don't ever confuse me with pencil stains like the crew running things in Houston.

I'm a basketball fan who uses numbers the way I use any other form of information: to enhance my understanding, in this case of Dr. Naismith's brilliant little gym game. But those chubby nerds in Houston, with their "secret formulas" and their charting of how many times Tracy McGrady scratches his nuts, sound like a bunch of rotisserie nerds who are just trying to get revenge on all the jocks who pushed them into lockers or gave them swirlies. If Morey ever hooped in his life I'd be stunned. I'm not in league with that kind of shit, and I hope it isn't taking over the game.

Again, let me be clear, there's nothing incompatible between loving Bucks basketball and crunching numbers... as long as the numbers don't overtake the game itself. Hell, I might even have a couple of statistics centered posts ready to go. And I still think the Bucks management needs to get going and join the information revolution.

But at its heart basketball is for those who ball. The sounds of the keyboard and the tapping of the calculator pad should never drown out what's real: the percussive symphony of leather hitting hardwood and the sweet melody made by the ripping of the cords. That's hoopin.

Are the Bucks better without Michael Redd?

In the last four games the Milwaukee Bucks have played without their star SG Michael Redd, they are 4-0. Of course, on the day of each one of those games the sun has also risen in the East and set in the West, so let's be careful. Is there an actual connection between Redd's absence and the winning result, or are the two events mere coincidence?

Its hard to say for sure. For one thing, the opening paragraph contains a classic misuse of statistical evidence. I drew an arbitrary boundary to make the case against Redd seem artificially stronger (beware of that trick -- ESPN uses it on an almost daily basis). In truth, there have been five games the Bucks have played without Redd this season. In the first game, the one I left out, the Bucks were destroyed by the same Bullets they beat in overtime yesterday. So the case is not so clear cut.

Besides which, the combined margin of victory in the four Reddless wins was a mere 17 points, and three of the wins came against teams whose combined record at tipoff was 33-69. So perhaps the team's play has not been as impressive as their record in those games might lead you to believe.

But with all that said, I can almost guarantee the Bucks will make a major effort to Michael Redd this offseason. Here's why:

(1) Redd's Good, But He Can't Carry the Weight of a Max Deal

On a small market team like the Bucks, your max dollar guy has to be a versatile contributor. Redd can be that guy, but either he doesn't want to be, he doesn't realize he needs to be, or he just can't sustain that kind of productivity over the long term. Because, after a promising start to the season in which he dramatically improved his all-around contributions, and after a summer in which he swore that was going to be his aim, Redd has reverted back to the one-trick scorer that he has been ever since he signed his big contract a few seasons ago.

Now, don't misunderstand, that "one trick" is good enough to make Redd an above average player, but you're maximum dollar guy has to be much better than just above average or your team will struggle (its the Pareto Principle at work -- the top 20% of your roster is almost always counted on to deliver around 80% of your team's wins).

Redd showed me signs in November that he was going to be a big time Win Contributor, transforming himself mid-career in the same way Rick Barry transformed himself from a volume scorer to an all-around superstar prior to Golden State's 1975 championship season, but I am beginning to think that what I saw was a mirage.

(2) Both Parties Might Be Better Off

For their part, the Bucks probably want to turn the page. The last few seasons have not exactly been filled with glory. A trade allows the team to wipe Redd's salary off the books, and it allows either Andrew Bogut or some as yet unacquired player to become their next cornerstone.

At the same time, Redd would most likely flourish in a secondary role on some other team. On the Milwaukee Bucks, he just seems to be a great character actor who is miscast as a leading man. But if you put him on a contending team that lacks a designated shooter, I think he would truly shine. In fact, had he gone to Cleveland to play with LeBron, that team probably has more than one conference championship, and maybe a world championship, already.

With that in mind, however, the Bucks can't simply give Redd away. They have to get value for him. And they will need to find someone capable of replacing Redd's scoring punch.

But we'll probably have all summer to discuss those things, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Bucks defense looks clueless

When I was in college I worked electrical construction during the summers. On one particular job I was installing those plastic face plates you see on electrical outlets (they gave me all the challenging work!).

Anyway, they're pretty easy to put on... there's one screw in the middle. But no one told me the "professional" way to install them was to make sure the screws all had their grooves perfectly straight north-south. I just tightened the screws and left the grooves whereever the hell they ended up. So when I finished each room (this was a retirement home or something we were working on), it looked a little shitty.

Well, about a half hour into the job the foreman comes around inspecting my work. In the first room I heard him guffawing. His grumbling got louder and louder as he went from room to room. Finally he ripped one of the plates off and smashed it on the concrete.

"Hey college boy! Half your grooves are left, half are right, half are fuckin I-don't-know-what (note: he was a foreman -- not a mathematician) ... what the fuck, you ain't even got a system!!"

Bucks defense needs a system

That's what I feel like when I'm watching the Bucks defense. They allow penetration at will, but at the same time they don't really challenge any jump shooters. They don't take anything away. What the fuck, they ain't even got a system.

What I would do if I were the coach is this. I would say to them, "I don't want anyone to let their cover get past them on penetration... I don't care if you have to play right on the block/charge arc... no one gets to the basket unfettered."

If the Bucks would at least do that... if they would at least pick one thing they want to take away at all cost... they wouldn't be so disjointed. At the moment they are giving up both layups and uncontested 3 pointers. They have to take one away. I would start with the higher percentage shot, the layup. Then build from there.

Come on Bucks. All I'm asking is that you at least get a system. This is sickening.

Was McGlocklin as good as Moncrief? No way

For their 40th anniversary the Bucks are reretiring jerseys. On Saturday they reretired "The Space Shuttle", Sidney Moncrief's number 4.

Anyway, they were interviewing Moncrief about it on Bucks Live after the Bucks got hammered by the Golden State Warriors. When they asked him where he ranked himself among the All-Time Bucks, Sir Sid, like Gale Sayers, said "I am third." He put Kareem and Oscar ahead of himself, in that order.

I actually think he's underslotting himself (he did more for the Bucks than the aging Oscar Robertson did), but that's not the point of this post.

When they cut back to the announcers, moderator Craig Coshun said something to the effect that Bucks color man and former G Jon McGlocklin might actually deserve that number 3 ranking.

That's a joke. And its not the first time they've tried to push that hooey. McGlocklin's abilities as a basketball player are constantly overblown by the FoxSports crew. They get away with it because I'll bet 80% of the viewers never saw him play. They only know that he has his jersey up in the rafters, so they're probably inclined to believe he was a really special player. He wasn't.

McGlocklin is Mr. Milwaukee Bucks... no doubt about that. But its because of what he has done for the team and the community after his career ended... its not because of what he did on the court. On the court he was a one-trick pony... he could shoot from the outside... that's it.

And keep in mind McGlocklin played before the advent of the three point shot, so "home run" jump shooters of his ilk were not that valuable (Brian Winters falls in that category also). When a layup is worth just as much as a long jumper, and when it goes in much more often, you want guys who can get layups, not distance shooters. So before the 3 (and to a large extent after the 3) outside shooting specialists, while entertaining as players, were not exactly win producers. I will show that mathematically in my next post.

But Win Production isn't the only way to rank a player. What about pure basketball skill? From what I've seen, McGlocklin comes up short there too.

Now granted, the only time I ever saw Mac play was twice on "Hardwood Classics" on the NBA channel. But, unless he played one way during the Bucks trips to the NBA Finals and a whole different way the rest of the time, I think I saw all I needed to see.

Frankly, I was shocked at what I saw. I don't mean to be indelicate, but McGlocklin played like a bit of a spaz. Sure, he could shoot. But the rest of his game was decidedly unimpressive.

For instance, when McGlocklin dribbled the ball, he seemed to always have his head down... not exactly pro level ballhandling. And he was one of those guys who was so unconfident with his dribbling that he would overprotect the ball, if you understand what I mean. Thus, he couldn't penetrate if his life depended on it. And he wasn't a playmaker either. All of his passes that I saw were two handed chest passes... thrown laterally. All he ever did was "swing" the ball.

And even his specialty, the jump shot, wasn't that impressive. The only time I saw him shoot was when he had both feet set and he was open. I never saw him free himself with his dribble. Thus, I would say he was strictly a spot shooter.

None of this is meant to disrespect Jonny Mac. I love the guy. But there is no way in hell he was even close to being the third best Milwaukee Bucks of all time. Let's be straight about that.

By Win Production, the three greatest Bucks of all time were Kareem, Marques Johnson, and Sidney Moncrief... in that order. I'll make the case with my next post, and rank the all-time greatest Bucks in order. I'll also show you how some of the Bucks whose numbers are up in the rafters aren't even close to being among the team's best all-time players... if producing Bucks victories is the primary criteria.

Bogut/Bell going one way, Redd the other

I had written a killer post (according to me) explaining how and why January has been the best of times for the once forlorn tandem of Andrew Bogut and Charlie Bell, and how it has been the worst of times for the suddenly sagging Michael Redd. However, I lost the post when blogger.com disconnected. Pissed me off.

I'm not going to rewrite it, but I'll give you the executive summary.

Redd's numbers have been trending downward since November. I said the cause was his reversion to "Redd the Jump Shooter" and then I listed his declining FTAs, Rebounds, and adjusted FG percentage as proof of his abandonment of the aggressive approach that brough him great early success. I said he needs to get back to that style by not settling for jumpers and instead attacking the basket and the boards once again.

As for Bogut, I wrote that he is trending way up because his adjusted FG is way up, his rebounds/min are up, and so is his FT%. I mentioned how awesome he's playing, but challenged him to do "awesomer" by continuing to improve his FT% (which he's proven he can), and rebounding in the .30/min range. If he can do that consistently, he will move into the elite.

Bell, on the other hand, has salvaged his season by suddenly shooting the lights out from everywhere at the moment, and because he's cut his turnovers in half this month.

Finally, I noted that when I compared the statistics in games the Bucks won and games the Bucks lost, the only glaring differences were the AFG%s of Bogut, Bell, and Redd. All three are below 50% in the losses, and all three are well above 50% in the wins. Apparently, when those three are hitting simultaneouly, the Bucks win. So if Redd could just get going...

If Vecsey's right, Harris blew it

According to Peter Vecsey, the New York Knickerbockers offered the Milwaukee Bucks PF Zach Randolph and SF Renaldo Balkman in exchange for PF Charlie Villanueva, SF Bobby Simmons, and C Dan Gadzuric... otherwise known as the Three Unproductive Amigos. Unbelievably, Harris said no. The proper response would have been "What time should I have those guys on the plane?"

If this report is right, the Bucks could have ditched overpaid dead weight for a fairly productive power forward, and a young, physical small forward with proven productive potential. Although both Randolph and Balkman's production is down this season, that's a relative term. If you compare their production to the Buck end of the deal, they both look like superstars.

In one fell swoop, Harris could have erased three of his mistakes and filled two of the team's gaping holes. What about this deal didn't he like? It was a deal worthy of "Dollar Days" at Target.

I hope Vecsey was wrong (which is certainly within the realm of possiblity) or I'm going to be one peeved Bucks Diarist.

Position Adjusted Win Scores (Estimated Career PAWS in parenthesis)

Renaldo Balkman...........+0.74 (+4.47)

Zach Randolph...............+0.50 (+0.26)

Bobby Simmons............-2.98 (-0.60)

Charlie Villenueva............-2.98 (-1.22)

Dan Gadzuric...................-3.36 (+0.45)

Which NBA stars are most reliable?

Everybody has an off night once in a while. Except Shawn Marion of the Phoenix Suns.

In an effort to determine which NBA players are the most reliable, I made a list of 53 of the game's biggest names and then tallied the number of "above average" performances each has had this season. I then divided that by the overall number of games the player has participated in this season and that result I called the player's "Above Average Game" percentage. A performance was deemed "above average" if the player's WP48, a production metric that correlates very closely with wins, was above average for his position. (Please click on the link for an explanation of the metric). All information came from the website Winsproduced.com.

The Results

If you want bigtime production, Shawn Marion is almost a sure thing. He has played in all 33 games this season for the Phoenix Suns, and has delivered above average production in 32 of them.

I was stunned to see how inconsistent Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, and Dwayne Wade have been this season. Especially Wade. He is far more likely to have a bad game than a good one. He's down there with the Darko Milicic's of this world.

For some reason, I was also mildly surprised that Kevin Garnett was not up in the 90s. He never seems to have bad games.

On the other hand, I was not a bit surprised to see where Kevin Durant, Mehmet Okur, and Shaq O'Neal came in. Durant is highly inconsistent, Okur is wildly overrated, and Shaq seems to have just lost it.

NBA Stars "Above Average Games" %s

Source: Winsproduced.com

1. Shawn Marion, Pho..................97.2%

2. Marcus Camby, Den................94.1%

3. Dwight Howard, Orl.................89.3%

4. Jason Kidd, NJ.........................88.5%

5. Andrew Bynum, LAL...............88.5%

6. Carlos Boozer, Utah..................86.4%

7. Chris Paul, NO...........................85.7%

8. Mike Miller, Memp...................83.7%

9. LeBron James, Cle....................81.2%

10. Kevin Garnett, Bos.................80.0%

11. Caron Butler, Was...................79.4%

12. Chris Kaman, LAC..................78.7%

13. Steve Nash, Pho....................77.7%

14. Antwan Jamison, Was............77.1%

15. Tyson Chandler, NO................77.1%

16. Amare Stoudamire, Pho...........76.4%

17. Chauncey Billups, Det...............75.0%

18. Kobe Bryant, LAL....................72.2%

19. Allen Iverson, Den...................71.4%

20. Al Jefferson, Mn.......................69.4%

21. Al Horford, Atl..........................68.7%

22. Paul Pierce, Bos........................68.5%

23. Yao Ming, Hou..........................68.4%

24. Josh Howard, Dall.....................67.6%

25. Dirk Nowitzki, Dall...................67.5%

26. Manu Ginobli, SA......................66.7%

27. Pau Gasol, Mem.........................66.6%

28. Brandon Roy, Port.....................66.6%

29. Deron Williams, Uta..................65.7%

30. Chris Bosh, Tor..........................65.6%

31. Andrei Kirilenko, Utah..............64.7%

32. Tim Duncan, SA.........................64.5%

33. Michael Redd, Mil......................63.6%

34. Baron Davis, GS.........................63.1%

35. Carmelo Anthony, Den...............62.8%

36. Ben Wallace, Chi..........................60.6%

37. Vince Carter, NJ..........................58.0%

38. Tracy McGrady, Hou..................56.0%

39. Tony Parker, SA.........................54.8%

40. Mike Conley Jr. Mem..................53.8%

41. Luol Deng, Chi..............................51.7%

42. Ray Allen, Bos..............................50.0%

43. Richard Hamilton, Det.................50.0%

44. Joe Johnson, Atl.........................50.0%

45. TJ Ford, Tor...............................47.0%

46. Jermaine O'Neal, Ind..................40.6%

48. Kevin Durant, Sea........................37.1%

49. Dwayne Wade, Mia......................35.7%

50. Shaq O'Neal, Mia..........................35.7%

51. Darko Milicic, Mem......................34.4%

52. Mehmet Okur, Uta......................26.6%

53. Andrea Bargnani, Tor..................21.2%

Who is the Most Dependable Buck?

Last night Bucks PG Mo Williams snapped his personal streak of 10 consecutive "above average" performances by Win Score calculation. He had a terrible game, but I cut him some slack... he's been very good this season.

On the other hand, C Andrew Bogut had another terrific game and ran his streak of above average games to 5 in a row and 8 out of his last 10.

It led me to thinking. Who's the most dependable Milwaukee Buck? In other words, which Buck has had the highest percentage of "above average" games? To put it another way, who has the highest percentage of good games?

Well, there was no way I was going to go back and calculate every game. But thanks to this terrific site I didn't have to. I just had to count them up using my fingers, toes, and an abicus.

Here then is each Milwaukee Bucks percentage of "good games" this season, along with the percentage of good games he had last year (in parenthesis).

Milwaukee Bucks "Above Average Game" %s

1. Maurice Williams.................69.4% (54.4%)

2. Michael Redd......................63.6% (56.6%)

3. Andrew Bogut.....................59.4% (56.0%)

4. Desmond Mason..................44.0% (25.3%)

5. Charlie Bell..........................43.2% (41.4%)

6. Jake Voskuhl.......................37.5% (38.3%)

7. Charlie Villanueva................37.1% (48.7%)

8. Dan Gadzuric......................35.0% (40.7%)

9. Bobby Simmons...................36.3% (---)

10. Yi Jianlian...........................32.4% (---)

11. Michael Ruffin....................28.5% (16.6%)

12. Royal Ivey..........................28.1% (32.0%)

Discussion

As I suspected, Mo Williams is the most consistently good Buck (even though Michael Redd is the biggest Win Contributor)... Surprisingly, Charlie Bell has actually had a higher percentage of good games this season than he did last... Charlie V, on the other hand, is heading the other way... Yi Jianlian is actually around 4th on the team when it comes to overall Win Score and Win Contribution... Therefore, his low percentage of "above average" games seems to support my argument that his game is more suited to small forward. He simply cannot reach the average performances of a power forward. He lacks the bulk needed to play down low... These numbers point to why its fool hardy to give a lot of minutes to Royal Ivey. He will often let you down.

Last night's loss goes on Coach K

Collectively, the Milwaukee Bucks played an outstanding basketball game last night. However, with a bit better resource management by Coach K, the Bucks could have won.

In terms of Win Score, six of the nine players who participated in last night's game for the Milwaukee Bucks had either above average or outstanding games. Two had below average games, and one had an absolutely awful game. Unfortunately, the latter three started the game and were given extended playing time. That may have been the difference in the outcome.

Actually, the narrative can be condensed even further and focused entirely on one position: small forward. The starter, Bobby Simmons, had an atrocius game. His shot selection started out poorly and then became laughable. His scoring efficiency numbers, 12.3%, indicated he could not hit the building if he were standing in the doorway. Meanwhile, his "backup", Michael Redd, had a superlative game. His scoring efficiency numbers, 61.3%, were off the chart. He was really zeroed in on the target. Yet somehow Simmons was alloted two more minutes of floor time than Redd.

Milwaukee Bucks Win Contributions

vs. Los Angeles Lakers 01/11/08

Andrew Bogut...........WS: +6.57................WC: +.793

Michael Redd............WS: +6.69...............WC: +.696

Maurice Williams.........WS: +2.60.............WC: +.465

Charlie Villanueva...........WS: +7.29.............WC: +.455

Charlie Bell....................WS: +1.89................WC: +.196

Michael Ruffin................WS: +2.53................WC: +.189

Yi Jianlian......................WS: -1.20..................WC: -.165

Royal Ivey......................WS: -3.03.................WC: -.290

Bobby Simmons...............WS: -12.63...............WC: -1.420

Note: Win Score, or WS, compares the player's production to the production of an average player at that position, with a WS of 0.00 representing the average player's production. Win Contribution, or WC, multiplies the player's WS times the player's percentage of overall playing time (overall playing time= 240 minutes per game) to assess the player's overall impact on the game. Thus, a player who has a higher WS than another player can still have a lower WC if his playing time is lower.

The Mo and Bo Show

Deadspin.com once called this blog the "Diary of a Mad Bucks Fan". I guess that's fair. I come across that way sometimes.

But its not intentional. If I rant and get a little irrational, its only because I love the Bucks and want the Green and Red Glory back.

In fact, I greatly prefer to heap praise on the team, which I am about to do.

I cannot tell you how astonished I am that the Bucks are 15-20. They're completely defying the numbers. Sure, the numbers are distorted by so many ugly blow-out losses... but that's sort of an indictment in itself, isn't it? Good teams don't get blown out.

But, to be honest, the Bucks aren't really playing all that well. Or, more specifically, certain Bucks are playing very well (Mo and Bogut) while certain other Bucks are offsetting that with horrible play (Ivey and Charlie V). Thus, their overall net is still in the negative.

What all that means is they're doing enough to beat bad teams, but they will have to do more to compete with the good ones. But, hey... they're winning winnable games, and I like it.

The Atta Boy List

PG Mo Williams: This guy's becoming a mainstay on the Atta Boy list. Should he be the leader of the Bucks? He almost certainly is their "most indispensable" player. And he's making a strong case for himself for Bucks first half MVP. As I said in the last "postgame" post, Mo hasn't had a nonproductive game in quite a while. He's been steady Eddie. And last night was no exception.

In fact, he's been so consistently good, I feel kind of stupid for doubting him earlier this year. Right now I can't say enough good things about him. We always bitch (self included for sure) whenever anyone signs a big contract and then Cadillac's in the productivity department... but Mo's done just the opposite. In fact, he's having the best season of his career, and he's creeping up the list of best point guards in the NBA. If they trade him I'll burn the house down.

C Andrew Bogut: The Bog man is playing beautiful, beautiful, basketball. His numbers in the last three games have been exceptional, and guess what? The Bucks have won all 3 games. Coincident... I don't think so.

And its so easy. He doesn't have to go out and try to score 50 to have a great game. In fact, that would probably be counterproductive, if anything.

I hope he's figured out that all he has to do to make a huge contribution to the Bucks is work to find high percentage shots (layups, dunks... who cares?) and then convert them (note: he should just stop shooting those high degree of difficulty lefthanded shots altogether); the second thing he has to do, and has done, is bare down on his throws (they're more important than I think he thinks... but he's gettin it); and grab about .35 rebounds a minute (he came up short on that one -- he should have had 12, instead he had .21... kind of weak but his other aspects made up for it).

The only reason I harp so much on getting Bogut to .35 rebounds a minute is its so attainable for him. First of all, he doesn't have to rely on his teammates to accomplish it. Second, a center gets like 5 freebies a game. Third, he's a good rebounder. And fourth, and most importantly, rebounding is just "want to". I can't prove this, but I'll be that if Bogut believed his NBA livelihood hinged on his rebounding rate, he could get upwards of .40 per minute. That's a lot of boards, but I'll bet he could do it.

GF Charlie Bell: Ring my bell for the third straight game! Who is this guy, and what has he done with our severly below average sixth man? Ever since that article in Sunday's MJS where Bell said he intended to heat up, guess what? He has! It never happens like that.

I'm just glad he didn't follow Jason Richardson's advice, though. Richardson told Bell to "shoot" his way out of his slump. No, no, no! The proper advice when you're not making shots is take easier shots. Too often guys like Bell think their role on the team is to "shoot" -- regardless of selection or production. That's a warped view. No team needs guys who are willing to shoot. There are plenty of people on every roster who are willing to take shots. Teams need shot makers. There's a big difference.

SF Bobby Simmons: Simba had another poor shooting night, but for once he made up for it by going to the boards with gusto. Thus, he had a good game. He contributed heavily to the win, and he could do that every night.

Its a matter of reordering priorities, both on the court and in the front office. If NBA players were properly compensated according to actual victory contributions, rather than raw scoring numbers, they would take an entirely different approach to the game.

First, they would refrain from taking any 2 point shots they couldn't confidently make more than 50% of the time, and they wouldn't take 3 pointers unless they were confident they could make them at least 35% of the time. They would never, never force shots.

Second, NBA players would have two thoughts on their mind at all times: (1) Go get the ball (rebound or steal) when you're team doesn't have it; and, (2) protect the ball (no turnovers) when it does. Simple points, to be sure, but one's that completely eluded me until recently.

In fact, until recently I had no clue. As stupid as it sounds, I thought assists were much more valuable to a team than steals. Seriously! I thought that.

In fact, its worse than that. I actually looked down on steals. I thought they were signs of "lazy man" defenders. Why? Well, I thought steals were produced either by: (a) guys who played defense with their hands rather than moving their feet; or, (b) guys who drifted around in the passing lanes and didn't really guard anyone. What a naive view.

If you think about it, steals are like interceptions or fumble recoveries in football (except not quite as valuable because of the greater supply of possessions... but still quite valuable). We just don't see it that way in basketball.

Wrong Power Forward, Bango

The hot rumor this morning... which you've probably already heard... is the Bucks and Knicks are going to pull off a trade involving Zach Randolph and some unnamed Bucks.

I don't know. Yeah, Randolph has a history of being a slightly above average PF, but he's also got a history of being a jerk, doesn't he? I'm not in the mood for that this season.

Besides, the Knick I want is named David Lee (although I realize it ain't gonna happen)! Apparently Lee and Nate Robinson are on the Knicks protected list. But, I've identified an even better David Lee in the draft (hint: La... La... "LOVE" plus one!). More on him in the future.

Makes sense to have Lee on the protected list. He's a big time producer. My only question is: if the Knicks value him so much, why don't they play him more?

And why protect Robinson? He's really undersized... oh, and he sucks. Weird. It's like the Bucks protecting Michael Redd and...oh, Royal Ivey. Reminds me of the song "One of these things just doesn't belong"...

I guess I wouldn't mind a Randolph trade so long as the Bucks don't have to give up Bogut, Yi, Redd, or Mo Williams. And so long as Randolph doesn't act a bitch.

If they give up Charlie V... I love it! Happy trails. He is never going to be an above average PF, and he may even be too soft to play the 3. He's a problem in need of a solution. He's fallen and he ain't gettin up.

Should the Bucks promote Sessions?

I don't know what kind of an NBA player PG Ramon Sessions can become, or if he even will become one, but I do know he's currently tearing up the NBDL. In fact he looks very promising, indeed.

His point guard adjusted Win Score with the Tulsa 66ers is an excellent +4.25. He penetrates, dishes the ball, and minimizes turnovers. His low scoring efficiency worries me (.451%), but I think if he came up he would show a lot of discretion. He may be overshooting in an effort to get noticed -- a smart strategy given the way the NBA overrewards scoring (and yet his bad shooting is not killing his WS, which tells you how good his secondary numbers look).

But how will his NBDL numbers translate if they bring him up to the Show? That I don't know. But I'd sure like to find out.

Playing Royal Ivey is a complete waste of time. The Bucks are getting nothing from him. In fact, its worse than that. He's so far below average he's actually a corrosive force. And its obvious, the more you play him, the more damage he does.

Night after night the Bucks are actually having to overcome his lousy play to win. Why not try the young guy?

Worrisome College Numbers

The one thing that frightens me about Sessions are his mediocre college numbers. Normally that indicates a potential flop.

However, again, I think what happened was Sessions tried to force the points in an effort to get to the pros. If someone gets in his ear before he gets to Milwaukee and tells him to take only high percentage shots, he should be fine.

Oddly, Sessions NBDL numbers are far better than his college numbers. I wonder if that's common.

NBA Offensive/Defensive Performance Rankings

Here are this week's PVOA rankings for each offense and each defense in the NBA.

PVOA counts the number of possessions per team in each NBA game and then measures every team's offensive and defensive performances by comparing those performances against their opponents defensive and offensive efficiency averages (which are: pts allowed/poss and pts scored/poss). The numbers next to each team represent that team's average number of points scored or allowed above or below their opponents efficiency averages.

Offensive PVOA Rankings

1. Phoenix Suns...................+4.56

2. Detroit Pistons................+4.42

3. Dallas Mavericks.............+3.63

4. Los Angeles Lakers...........+3.07

5. Golden State Warriors........+2.96

6. Boston Celtics.....................+2.74

7. Toronto Raptors..................+1.87

8. San Antonio Spurs...............+1.68

9. Utah Jazz............................+1.39

10. Orlando Magic.....................+0.75

11. Portland Trailblazers...........+0.71

12. Washington Bullets..............+0.18

13. New Orleans Hornets...........-0.31

14. Memphis Grizzlies................-1.01

15. Sacramento Kings................-2.40

16. Denver Nuggets...................-2.44

17. Atlanta Hawks....................-2.69

18. Charlotte Bobcats.................-2.87

19. Houston Rockets..................-3.04

20. Indiana Pacers.....................-3.11

21. Miami Heat...........................-3.92

22. Milwaukee Bucks..................-4.22

23. Cleveland Cavaliers...............-4.58

24. New Jersey Nets...................-5.07

25. New York Knicks...................-5.15

26. Chicago Bulls........................-6.03

27. Philadelphia Sixers...............-6.70

28. Seattle Supersonics................-6.93

29. Minnesota Twolves................-7.92

30. Los Angeles Clippers.............-8.84

Defensive PVOA Rankings

1. Boston Celtics......................-10.22

2. Houston Rockets..................-6.24

3. Detroit Pistons.....................-5.20

4. New Orleans Hornets..............-4.31

5. Los Angeles Lakers................-4.15

6. San Antonio Spurs...................-4.10

7. Denver Nuggets......................-3.58

8. Chicago Bulls...........................-3.56

9. Orlando Magic........................-3.28

10. Los Angeles Clippers.............-3.13

11. Philadelphia Sixers................-2.38

12. Atlanta Hawks.......................-2.34

13. Cleveland Cavaliers..............-1.92

14. Indiana Pacers.....................-1.88

15. Portland Trailblazers.............-1.67

16. Sacramento Kings..................-1.53

17. Dallas Mavericks....................-1.14

18. Washington Bullets.................-0.74

19. Toronto Raptors...................-0.53

20. Seattle Supersonics...............-0.50

21. Golden State Warriors...........-0.49

22. Utah Jazz............................-0.31

23. New Jersey Nets...................-0.13

24. Phoenix Suns..........................0.00

25. Miami Heat...........................+0.29

26. Charlotte Bobcats.................+0.90

27. Memphis Grizzlies.................+1.41

28. Minnesota Twolves................+2.57

29. Milwaukee Bucks...................+3.18

30. New York Knicks....................+4.66

Notes: History shows that the NBA champion will almost certainly come from a team that has a positive offensive PVOA, a negative defensive PVOA, and is in the top half of the Association in each category (only two teams have not met that criteria: the 1978 Washington Bullets and the 1979 Seattle Supersonics). Generally that qualifies approximately 20% of the NBA's teams (in line with the Pareto Principle, otherwise known as the 80/20 rule).

That's almost the case thus far. Five teams fit the bill right now: Boston, Detroit, San Antonio, Los Angeles, and Orlando... with Orlando falling, and Dallas, Portland, Golden State, and New Orleans looking to replace them and fill the other open spot (20% of 30 is 6). History suggests Phoenix must improve its defense to have a legitimate shot at a World Championship.

Are the Bucks about to be "blowed up"?

I don't usually traffic in rumors (you can get those delivered in a much better and more timely manner on RealGM's boards), but this one is too big to pass on. It appears that, in the immortal words of Emmitt Smith, the Bucks are about to be "blowed up".

This fellow from Yahoo sports writes that the NBA grapevine is saying Bucks GM Larry Harris is all but gone. Says Harris and the Senator are barely speaking. Says Rick Sund, the former Seattle GM, or... ewwww, Doug "The Perm" Collins... are tops on the Bucks "Next GM" list. It also says that everyone on the roster is on the block except Yi and Bogut.

None of that is really a huge surprise. Herb Superb made it pretty clear last spring that it was "playoffs or bust" for Larry Harris, and I'm sure the Senator has not been pleasaed with the embarrassing losses that litter this season's schedule results.

Still, to hear that they aren't talking... that's kind of weird. Sort of high schooley.

As for the purported candidates, Hoopshype.com lists Sund's best transaction as the "Payton/Mason for Allen" trade. Nice. Looking over the rest of his record, he seems to have a disturbing penchant for selecting "soft" foreigners in the draft (Vladimir Radmanovic Career WS: -2.39 and Johan Petro Career WS: -3.08), and/or risky high school kids who may never pan out (C Robert Swift Career WS: -1.44). He did, however, select the hardworking PF Nick Collison Career Career WS: +0.642, so that's at least something.

Aaah, on the other hand, I don't think Doug Collins has any experience as a GM. I guess his insightful comments on TNT ("Duncan looks great tonight") are what make him so attractive as a GM prospect. After all, we've been trying our damndest to sign him up as GM for... what?... ten years now.

I just had a thought: was Collins on board with Washington's disastrous Kwame Brown pick? Do I want to know the answer to that question?

Bucks finding ways to pick up wins

If you look at the Milwaukee Bucks efficiency differential (-6.9), it suggests they are headed for a 23 win season. If you look at ESPN's RPI listing, the Bucks "Expected Winning Percentage" for the season is .260... again, 23 wins in 82 games. In fact, by all indications they are a bad team. Yet they've already won 14 games. Strange brew in the Beer City.

And nothing typifies the Bucks schizo season better than the last ten days. In that time, the Bucks have had two horrifying losses and three pretty resourceful wins. All three wins have come without the assistance of their best player, Michael Redd.

I frankly don't know what to make of this team. I guess you have to say they're somewhat resilient. Don't you? Or do they just "tank" games they know they can't win and compete in games they think they can? As I said, this team confuses me.

Atta Boy List

A constant through all 5 games has been the play of G Maurice Williams. By my calculation, he has not had a below average game in quite some time. He has really been excellent, and last night was no exception.

Another guy who has stepped up in the last two games is C Andrew Bogut. He had an outstanding game against Charlotte's Emeka Okafor and a very productive game against Philly's tough C Samuel Dalembert. What has he done better in the last two games?

He has dramatically improved his scoring efficiency (.625 vs. .493 for the season), he's dramatically increased his FT percentage (.727% vs. .567 for the season), and he's increased his rebounds per minute from an average rate (.26) to an outstanding rate (.31). As a result, his Win Contribution -- average for a center -- has shot up into the elite levels in the last two games. Did he Google my advice post?

My final "atta boy" goes to the prodigal Buck: FG Charlie Bell. He seems to be pulling an Eli Manning on us. The home crowds have gotten on him so bad (NEVER say "I don't want to play here" -- fans don't forget those words), he's taken to playing his best ball on the road. Well... I exaggerate. He's actually not playing well anywhere, but he has stepped up in the last two road contests and its made a huge difference.

Other keys to the Bucks last two wins

The Bucks clearly won the Charlotte game on the "Possessions Board". That's measured as: Rebounds + Steals - Turnovers (Bucks 54 vs. Bobcats 38). There's really no other explanation for the win. The Bobcats scoring efficiency was much better than Milwaukee's (.501 vs. .463), the Bobcats' rebound total was a bit better, and the Bobcats made about as many free throws. But those extra possessions the Bucks got by being competitive on the boards, being downright felonious in the Bobcats passing lanes (especially Mo who had an Alvin Robertson like 6 steals) and being extremely careful with the ball (only 9 turnovers), all paid off huge. That's a "hustle" win for Bango.

Last night's game, on the other hand, was won by defense. Yes... defense!! Actually, in the past month, its been the Bucks offense that has come apart... the defense has actually sort of stabilized. Its still bad, but its not getting appreciably worse. Last night it was pretty darn good, because, while the Bucks offense was its normal so-so self (Scoring Efficiency: .473), but for once they really put a vise grip on their opponents as Philly's SE was extraordinarily low (.400). Of course, Philly's a horrid offensive team, but hey, they all get paid.

Btw, Scoring Efficiency is measured as (Points - FTM / FGA). The NBA Average is about .499... the Bucks average is .482. Their opponents average is .512.

NBA Relative Power Ranking 01-06-08

Below is the weekly Relative Power Ranking of NBA teams based exclusively on each team's "point value over average". (What is PVOA?)

The PVOA concept is derived loosely from the logic behind the "DVOA" measurements used by footballoutsiders.com to rank NFL teams.

Whereas DVOA judges NFL teams on how they perform in every given circumstance compared with the average NFL team's expected performance in the same circumstance, PVOA judges NBA teams by comparing their performance against the average NBA team's performance given the same opponent and the same number of possessions.

Because the NBA, like the NFL, operates with an unbalanced schedule, we believe the PVOA results are much more indicative of each team's relative strength than their respective won-loss records.

Footnote: Bucks fans, if you follow college ball and want a reason to be optimistic about basketball in Wisconsin this winter, check out this guy's college basketball relative power rankings.

NBA Relative Power Ranking

for all games played through Saturday January 5, 2008

1. Boston Celtics............................+12.96

2. Detroit Pistons............................+9.62

3. Los Angeles Lakers.......................+7.41

4. San Antonio Spurs........................+6.41

5. Dallas Mavericks...........................+4.47

6. Orlando Magic.............................+4.45

7. Phoenix Suns..............................+4.05

8. New Orleans Hornets.....................+4.00

9. Golden State Warriors....................+2.99

10. Houston Rockets.........................+2.92

11. Toronto Raptors.........................+2.61

12. Portland Trailblazers...................+2.38

13. Denver Nuggets.........................+1.36

14. Utah Jazz................................+1.22

15. Washington Bullets......................+0.87

16. Atlanta Hawks............................-0.35

17. Indiana Pacers............................-0.67

18. Sacramento Kings........................-1.20

19. Memphis Grizzlies.......................-2.10

20. Chicago Bulls.............................-2.12

21. Cleveland Cavaliers.....................-3.24

22. Miami Heat..............................-3.49

23. Philadelphia Sixers......................-3.99

24. Charlotte Bobcats.......................-4.04

25. New Jersey Nets........................-4.37

26. Seattle Supersonics....................-5.55

27. Los Angeles Clippers...................-6.56

28. Milwaukee Bucks.......................-7.96

29. New York Knicks.......................-10.22

30. Minnesota Twolves....................-10.66

P**s Poor Effort by the Bucks

If you've been reading this blog, you know that the Bucks cannot hope to win playing any of their reserves, especially Bobby Simmons and Charlie Bell, for extended minutes. They got away with it against an unmotivated and undermanned Miami team, but I knew they probably wouldn't get away with it against a Washington Bullets team that features, statistically, one of the best starting fives in basketball. They didn't.

But put that all aside for a minute. The effort the Bucks gave last night was shameful. They were nearly "doubled down" at the half. You can't have that from any group of well-paid professionals in any industry. It just can't happen.

I don't blame Coach Krisco, either. Plenty of people at the tavern I was watching the game at (in my Bucks ski cap no less) were pissing and moaning about firing Coach K. I disputed that.

I think it ultimately must and will fall upon the man who put this slouchy team together, not the coach who has been asked to babysit them. 3 men have proven incapable of coaching Larry Harris assembled units... at some point don't you have to blame him?

Anyway, I like Coach K and really feel for him. He looks like he's losing weight and sleep over this deal. I saw it coming and people laughed at me when I called this a lottery team before the season, but they are what they are.

Btw: I'll post my frontcourt rankings later today.

Double Btw: I never thought I'd be embarrassed to be an Antlerhead. Last night I was.

Ranking the NBA's starting centers

In an attempt to figure out exactly where the holes are in the Milwaukee Bucks swiss cheese lineup, I spent the holiday's applying Professor Berri's Win Score algorithm, adjusted for position, to all the starters and every bench in the NBA. This is the third in my series of six postings ranking my results. I'll get the other three rankings (SF, PF, SG) up as soon as I can.

First, a couple of comments. All of the production data I used came from Draftexpress.com and is current as of December 31st. To determine the starting lineups, I first relied on HoopsHype.com, until I saw they had Charlie Villanueva listed as the Bucks starter (a situation that hasn't occured once this year). Then I tried Foxsports.com, but I realize they had some minor errors as well (they list Manu Ginobli as the Spurs starting SG, when in fact he has started only 3 games, and they list Jordan Farmar as the Lakers starting PG, when in fact he hasn't started a game all year).

In the end, I relied on a combination of the two plus my own knowledge. Not surprisingly then, a few of the players listed may not technically be starters, but the analysis is basically still the same.

What do the numbers in the rankings mean? The WS number is "Position adjusted Win Score per 48 minutes", meaning how many Win Score points the player scores per 48 minutes above or below the amount which would be scored by the average center per 48 minutes. The WC number is "Win Contribution", which is simply WS multiplied by the percentage of overall player minutes the player was alloted (Overall player minutes = Games played * 48 * 5) .

I have found in doing my calculations that a +1.000 WC indicates an elite player. There are only about 8 such players in the entire Association, and two of them play center (and they're probably not the two most people would consider the best centers in basketball). You have to be hugely productive and play a lot of minutes to achieve +1.000 WC status.

To indicate what a +1.000 player means to a team, you first have to know what WC means. If you add up all of the WC scores for every player on a given team, you can calculate the number of games they won in a given period of time within one or two games. And if a team's WC total comes out to +1.000 for an entire season, the calculation indicates that such a team would have won around 52 games. So, theoretically, you can surround a +1.000 player with a bunch of average players (ie players with WCs around 0.000) and still expect a 50+ win season (Kareem proved that in his rookie season, as did Larry Bird in his).

NBA's Starting Centers

1. Dwight Howard, Orl..........WS: +10.36............WC: (+1.627)
2. Marcus Camby, Den..........WS: +10.57...........WC: (+1.495)
3. Andrew Bynum, LAL..........WS: +7.96............WC: (+0.895)
4. Chris Kaman, LAC...............WS: +5.24...........WC: (+0.854)
5. Andres Biedrins, GS..........WS: +6.78..............WC: (+0.802)
6. Tyson Chandler, NO...........WS: +5.68.............WC: (+0.769)
7. Al Jefferson, MN.................WS: +3.55............WC: (+0.540)
8. Yao Ming, Hou....................WS: +3.10............WC: (+0.484)
9. Franciso Oberto, SA...............WS: +4.85.........WC: (+0.456)
10. Samuel Dalembert, Phi............WS: +3.19.......WC: (+0.435)
11. Kurt Thomas, Sea..............WS: +6.81.............WC: (+0.398)
12. Amare Stoudamire, Pho............WS: +3.34.........WC: (+0.386)
13. Spencer Haywood, Was...........WS: +3.49..........WC: (+0.369)
14. Al Horford, Atl...................WS:+2.39...............WC: (+0.301)
15. Erick Dampier, Dall..............WS: +4.50..........WC: (+0.286)
16. Zyraunas Ilgauskas, Cle..........WS: +2.13...........WC: (+0.280)
17. Ben Wallace, Chi..............WS: +2.13..............WC: (+0.255)
18. Rasheed Wallace, Det..........WS: +2.04...........WC: (+0.242)
19. Brad Miller, Sac.............WS: +1.00..............WC: (+0.140)
20. Joel Pryzbilla, Ptl..............WS: +1.48.............WC: (+0.134)
21. Shaquille O'Neal.............WS: +1.06................WC: (+0.122)
22. Nazr Mohammed, Car.......WS: +0.74...............WC: (+0.028)
23. Andrew Bogut, Mil.................WS: +0.08...........WC: (+0.010)
24. Troy Murphy, Ind..............WS: -0.38..............WC: (-0.034)
25. Josh Boone, NJ...............WS: -0.68................WC: (-0.035)
26. Kendrick Perkins, Bos............WS: -0.79.............WC: (-0.077)
27. Darko Milicic, Mem.............WS: -3.84.............WC: (-0.286)
28. Eddy Curry, NY................WS: -4.53.............WC: (-0.513)
29. Mehmet Okur, Utah............WS: -5.30............WC: (-0.531)
30. Anrdrea Bargnani, Tor.............WS: -8.14.........WC: (-0.652)

Comments

Profile of a winning center: a rugged player who lives to rebound, block shots on defense, and take only high percentage shots on offense...Profile of a losing center: Soft, foreign born player (or Eddy Curry) who is allergic to paint and therefore will not rebound and will shoot low percentage outside shots... If this analysis proves anything it is this: a center must rebound... you can get away with playing anyone at center as long as he is willing to rebound at least once every three minutes, and as long as he doesn't mind restricting himself to taking only shots he can make... The latter part was why Jamaal Magliore sucked, if he would have restricted himself to rebounding, he would have been gold -- but, no, he thought he was an offensive force to be reckoned with and so he undid all the good his rebounding would have done... Bucks' fans, at this point Andrew Bogut is simply a well below average starting center... You can only build a championship team around him at this point if you also include (a) Michael Jordan, (b) Larry Bird, or (c) Magic Johnson... And I'm only being half facietious... He has to get his numbers up, and he can do it if he follows my advice posting of a couple of days ago.