Bucks Diary

THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO: mvn.com/bucksdiary

2009-01-06T14:17:00.003-06:00

All new writing on this blog is being posted at http://courtsideanalyst.wordpress.com/. Click on the link to be immediately redirected. Thank you for your interest in the NBA and Milwaukee Bucks basketball. (note: it was on MVN.com for a time, until they went belly up. Its now called "The Courtside Analyst" but features the same subject matter -- Bucks basketball first and then general NBA analysis -- and the same approach)

The Commenters excellent warning

2009-01-02T21:11:00.004-06:00

Seeing as how I Typhooned the mvn.com/bucksdiary... for now... I cannot give proper credit to an astute commenter a few posts back whose words of warning ought to give Bucksnation a little pause.

Remember my Win Trajectory post, written around Xmas or just days thereafter? In it I argued that the Bucks are on a 44 win pace this season, when you make adjustments to account for unbalanced schedule and home/road splits thus far. In the comments section, someone wrote that had I done the same calculations two years ago, the Bucks were probably I'd probably have gotten similar results.

I thought the commenter was right, but I lacked the information to verify, and I certainly wasn't going to go back in time and reconstruct the first two months of the 2006-07 NBA season. Then I thought of a shortcut. I remembered that Coolstandings.com, which has a win projection system not at all like mine but normally yielding close to the same results, keeps records going back several seasons. There projection would suffice.

Whoa. The commenter was eerily correct. The Bucks record two years to the date the commenter posted was 16-15, and they were on a slightly better pace. Coolstandings had them projected to win 45 games. Tip of the cap to the commenter.

Of course the bad news is the Bucks won only 10 more games the rest of the season and finished 26-56. Scary.

But, I think the factors that led to the collapse were by and large outside the realm of forecast... injuries devastated that team as I recall. And they may (knock, knock, knock) do the same to this team... who knows?

Another key difference that I think is worth noting is the 06-07 team was powered by offense, while this season's team is most certainly powered by defense. Defense is much steadier.

Nevertheless, thank the commenter's fine Milwaukee Bucks memory for a warning against early hubris.

I accidentally blew up the new Bucksdiary

2009-01-02T17:54:00.002-06:00

Remember I said not to be alarmed if anything strange happened at the new mvn.com/bucksdiary? Well, something strange happened.

Through a simple mistake compounded by a "don't push that button" attempt to backtrack and restore the blog, I appear to have destroyed it.

So, while the guys at MVN.com hopefully will restore it to what it was, I'm going to post everything back here again.

Maybe they won't have any interest in restoring it. Who knows. All i wanted to do was install a statcounter.

Yeah, that didn't work.

Have any of you switched over?

2008-12-25T00:38:00.002-06:00

Have any of you switched over to the new site? I'm having difficulty figuring out the functionality over there and the normal commenters haven't been around and there are some interesting issues arising with our successful Milwaukee Bucks. There may be opportunities for further advancements (our highest paid players are doing nothing... our lowest paid player is a blossoming superstar). So PLEASE let me know if you like this deal. So far I'm kind of like... eh... its frustrating. But its supposedly a lot bigger audience. But right now it feels like one of those George Lucas or Stanley Kubrick movies where somebody landed me on an all white planet by myself and I can't find any signs of civilization...

Here's where the new driveway is, gang

2008-12-23T22:05:00.001-06:00

If you haven't found the new location, for Bucks Diary, its here mvn.com/bucksdiary.

The Arguments against Redd explained through the use of stupid analogies

2008-12-22T17:31:00.004-06:00

People are misunderstanding my argument against Michael Redd. Let me try to lay it out with odd analogies.

The "Perceived Value versus Real Value" argument against Redd

My brother had a Saab. He paid a relatively high amount for it. When it ran, it was okay, he got some head nods from passersby, not a lot. But the damn thing never ran. He also had a Ford Focus (I'm making all this up). Didnt pay alot for it. It ran beautifully, was pretty reliable, but had absolutely no cache.

One day my brother asked himself, was that little bit of cache he was getting from the Saab worth the price he was paying for it. It never ran... it didn't get the CENTRAL job done that a car must do to be worthwhile ( in my story cache is meant to be analagous to Redd's scoring numbers while the 'never running' part is meant to be analagous to his lack of 'Win Scoring'... Geez I'm explaining the analogys... I aint exactly Sir Winston Churchill.)

Now, my brother says to himself... there's alot of suckers out there who will pay too much for my Saab, but would probably only give me market value for my Focus. Hmmm, perhaps I can sell the Saab (ie "his overvalued asset") to some sucker who would be willing to give me something more than it is worth. Gee, I would be much better off. I will have cut ties with my expensive, OVERVALUED ASSET, and gained some productive assets... assets that can help the Bucks win a Championship.

That's why I want to trade Redd. I like driving him around on Friday night, but geez I can't pay through the nose for that little return. And, alot of people think Saab's are sweet, so they may be dumb enough to give me too much back (in terms of Win Production) for him.

Hell, the Pistons traded one of the NBA's best Win Contributors, for like 4 seasons running, for a mediocre Win Contributor who basically volume scores and runs his mouth and I guess doesn't like to practice.

So opportunites are there. Oh, one final point.

Even if we only get market value back for Redd... and this is actually a HUGE POINT, he plays a position that's pretty easy to replace with a pretty decent player... so EVEN IF WE BLOW THE TRADE... no big whoop... PLUS... Redd's monster contract is off the books.

The "Distribution of Basketball Talent" argument against Redd

Let's say there's a ton of electricians in the area and most of them are slightly below average, average, or slightly above average, with some being supertalented (Kobe) and some not so good (Ben Gordon). Meaning there is a low standard distribution (am I saying that right? I actually avoided statistics in college... i'm self taught -- like Lincoln... or, ... not like Lincoln). On the other hand, there's just slightly less plumbers in the area, but they vary wildly in talent, with few being average, many being way below average, a handful being above average and then a few being superb. Meaning there's a high standard deviation. Just play along with me, I know its dumb.

Who's more valuable? A slightly above average electrician or a slightly above average plumber? The plumber, obviously, because if you lose him you risk getting stuck with something horrible. Whereas if you lose the slightly above average electrician, you can replace him with someone who can do a reasonably good job.

Redd and his fellow perimeter players are the electricians. Big men and point guards are the plumbers. Why in the world would you offer a slightly above average electrician a maximum contract? Yeah, he'll do a nice job, but your distribution of resources is f%%d.

I'm here and I'm there!!

2008-12-22T13:36:00.001-06:00

Everything in life is relative, idn't it?

2008-12-22T10:28:00.012-06:00

I'm sitting here loving all the comments on BucksDiary (btw, its unclear now when I'm moving to MVN so just keep coming back here... when i move i'll put a link up don't worry)... I'm loving Milwaukee Bucks basketball again... I'm proud to be an Antlerhead for the first time since they traded Ray Allen... then I'm thinking "Hey, if my buddy from Celticsblog, or if JE Skeets, or if anyone who isn't an Antlerhead is reading this... they're laughing their asses off... we're13-16!!".

But, so what? Everything in life is relative. Or, better put, everything in life is trajectory, and the Bucks trajectory appears to be pointing up.

In fact, this is how Mike Holmgren might have described the situation in one of his legendary locker room speeches... you know the ones... you've seen them on NFL Films... where he meanders all over the place trying to get the team's attention before he gets to his point and then puts the team in a frenzy... well here's what I imagine Coach Holmgren might say, courtesy of NFL Films, about the State of the Milwaukee Bucks... lets listen in (if you like it, Coach Holmgren has promised to make intermittent appearances on BucksDiary, similar to BD on that pompous political comic strip)...

"Gentlemen, gentlemen... hey... (loud voice) hey, hey, hey... hey... guys, listen up... guys... cut the chatter... guys... (conversational voice) We had a NICE couple of wins there on Friday and Saturday (Loud Cheers)... didn't we?... yeah, we did... we sure did... we sure did... a nice couple of wins... and I thought the defense played pr-e-t-ty well... pr-e-t-ty well (loud cheers)... and the offense... hey... hey, hey... the offense... well, its comin around... I think it is... i think it is... its comin around... but hey... hey, hey, hey... listen up... listen up... we haven't achieved... guys, guys... we haven't achieved anything yet... Have we? (Humongous cheers )... our goals are BIG... aren't they?! (Even louder cheers)... YES SIR THEY ARE!... But, hey.. hey, hey, hey... guys, guys, guys... we're building something here in Milwaukee, aren't we?? Yeah... You're proud to be a Milwaukee Buck again, aren't you?!!... YES SIR YOU ARE!!... (Maddending Cheers)... NOW LETS CARRY THIS MOMENTUM TO TEXAS!!!!! (Roars)... LETS CARRY IT TO TEXAS (Continuing Roars)... EVERYBODY IN HERE!!! EVERYBODY IN HERE (everybody huddles up)... (30 second pause)... Where's Brett?... Hey, where's Brett?..."

Everything is Green and Red

2008-12-21T20:41:00.002-06:00

I just checked basketball-reference.com. I've been doing this blog for what... geez almost 4 years off and on. I cannot remember seeing more beautiful (relatively speaking) numbers for the Bucks than the ones I just checked.

First, were near the one third mark, we've played a tough schedule, road heavy, and our Pythagorean is above 0.500. Second, our defense, which you've heard me say time and time and time again has not been above 15th in the NBA for over a GENERATION (since Del Harris coached the team... chew on that) is now EIGHTH in the NBA and rising, and... even better news, our offense has improved!!

Two things... maybe I should lay off Redd a bit. But guys, I'm not arguing he can't help the offense... OBVIOUSLY he can!! What I am arguing is he simply isn't worth the money. Think about it this way. Lets say you have... oh screw my analogies!! Just know he's good but you don't pay 15.75 million for a frickin Corolla!!

Second, my sabermetric chart says ... whoaaa... on that "Redd is back, therefore its Redd" cause and effect reasoning... Others have improved simultaneously... Jefferson, Bogut.... Charlie V if you catch him on the right night... Whether Redd had anything to do with their performance, I doubt it... Professor Berri did exhausting research on the so-called "he makes others better" effect, and found it did not exist -- NOT EVEN WITH JORDAN OR BIRD... so I doubt it exists with a no pass gunner like Redd.

But I'm getting sidetracked. The point of this is the Bucks numbers rule. Go Bucks... got work to do... see ya.

Were those the Bucks Lambeau Leap games?

2008-12-21T20:02:00.005-06:00

Normally I try, weakly, to emulate Bill James, the baseball writer. Tonight, I'm going to try to emulate Bill Simmons, the "sports guy". So this post is based on nothing but my "gut". And, sadly, it will probably be alot more popular and conversational than the Jamesian posts that I actually put alot of effort into. Oh well, (hey, I'm super wordy like Bill Simmons!) here it is:

16 years ago next Saturday, Christmas Day 1993 to be exact, I remember I believed the 8-6 Mike Holmgren Green Bay Packers were kind of the same old Green Bay Packers. Pretty good, yeah, improved from Lindy Infante, yeah, a little better coached, to be sure, but headed ultimately to a fate of at best 9-7 seasons, one after another, and then a series of one and dones in the playoffs. In other words, they were nothing special.

The next day, December 26th, the Packers played an okay, 8-5 Los Angeles Raiders team at Lambeau Field. The Raiders weren't great, but they were formidable. The Packers beat them down so thoroughly, so completely... LeRoy Butler invented the Lambeau Leap that day... I just remember thinking after the game... this shit is different. These aren't the same Packers. They're headed for a different plane. NFL Films says the Packers victory over the Lions in the play-offs two weeks later set them on their way... I say it was the win over the LA Raiders two weeks previous.

Of course the analogy with these Milwaukee Bucks is by no means pure. Its way too early in the Skiles era. And remember, even after the Raider beat down it took the Packers setback after setback to reach the pinnacle. And by the way, I'm not saying the Bucks can get close to the pinnacle... because basketball is different and harder.

But after 20 years of poor defensive teams, didn't those two victories just feel great? Weren't they sort of "paradigm shifts" in your mental impression of the Milwaukee Bucks? Didn't you walk away thinking "these aren't the same Milwaukee Bucks"?

I did.

That's all I'm saying.

Was last night and the night before the Bucks' LA Raider games?

2008-12-21T11:09:00.002-06:00

This is an analytical blog that normally bases its analysis upon hard evidence. This time I'm basing it strictly upon intution or what sports analysts refer to as "a feeling I got".

This may mean absolutely SQUADUSH (is that a word?) but, in the last two nights, I got the same exact feeling about the Milwaukee Bucks that I got way, way back in the day, almost exactly 16 Decembers ago -- set ur mental flux capacitors to Sunday, December 26, 1993 -- when Mike Holmgren's second edition of the Green Bay Packers took on the Los Angeles Raiders.

Going into that cold Sunday game, both teams had decent records -- the Packers were 8-6, the Raiders were 9-5. So the Packers were a decent team at that point... there's no question about it.

But, have you ever read the book Blink? If you have, you know that our brains cannot process all the information...

Ok, I gotta go shovel... here's the point... that game the Pack beat down the Raiders in a manner that transformed my entire image of the team.

The

2008-12-21T10:39:00.000-06:00

Mine eyes have seen the Skiles: Sabermetric Boxscore for Bucks vs.Clippers

2008-12-21T02:07:00.011-06:00

For the loyal readers of this little blog... think back just six short months... did you think the last two nights were possible? I mean FORGET the opponents? Did you think those kind of defensive efforts were possible from these Milwaukee Bucks? Last night the Clippers Team Win Score was 15.0! That's amazing defense... A miracle has happened... Moses has chased the Pharoah out of Egypt... the 16 year plague has lifted... What else can I say for what Scott Skiles has done? He's finally gotten the Milwaukee Bucks to commit to defense... and, as my historical analysis showed, its the surest way to a world's championship (that's why I no longer like the Lakers at all -- and why I think the Cavs look ready to win it).

Click Here for my Sabermetric Boxscore: Milwaukee Bucks vs. Clippers

Stars of the Game

1. Luke Ridnour
2. Luc Moute
3. Richard Jefferson

Notes on the Game

1. Moute is up there again. Damn, that is great to see... You notice, he plays well, the Milwaukee Bucks play well. I'll admit it to you readers, I thought the Force had left Luc, I thought either he had hit a rookie wall or the Association had figured out how to play him at the 4. Because he had, like a 2 week span of bad games... hang on, i'm going to figure out his season MWS and TWC... his Marginal Win Score currently stands at +0.9... now that's taken a beating over the past couple of weeks, but its pretty damn good for a rookie... his TWC is down as well but its still pretty outstanding for a first year, second round pick... it currently stands at +0.099... that translates into a TWC above replacement level of +0.261 (remember, he's playing 79% of his time at the second most valuable spot... power forward, so that's elevated his value considerably). That makes his Championship Percentage a lofty 9.4%. Not shabby at all for a second round pick. Not shabby at all.

2. Bogut had another sort of bad game... I'll cut him a break though, Camby is big time.

3. I hate giving positive TWC to guys like Charlie Bell who only get them because the players opposite them stink. But those are the rules... your duty is to outproduce your counterpart opponent... by any means necessary... you do that, you improve the team's win probability.

4. I can't believe how badly Luke Ridnour DESTROYED the so-called great Baron Davis. What has happened to him? He looked disinterested! I bet he's thinking about whatever movie he's gonna produce or whatever. Way to go Luke.

5. Brilliant basketball game from Richard Jefferson. Brilliant.

6. When will we see something like that from Redd. He's having a crappy season, backing up what was a CRAPPY season last year. When's he gonna start playing like a max dollar player. The reason I'm harpin on this you guys is because we've got the defense in place... all we need are those one or two efficent offensive engines to drive us to some wins, and we paid for a Ferrari engine and Redd's kind of giving us a Ford Focus... you know, it runs, but its nothing special... meanwhile RJ is like a Saab... it goes great and then it doesn't go... no wait, if he was a Saab he'd be on the injured reserve a lot, so that doesn't work....hmmmm.... anyway, the point of that mumbo jumbo is were not gettin what we paid for.

7. All in all a great two nights for the Bucks... I really don't care who the opponents were... they were NBA teams, one on the road and one at home and both of them received Sleeperholds of each of thier games from a Bucks team who six months ago couldn't apply a sleeper hold to a baby. Awesome thing to see.

Put your ears to the ground, boys... I hear a stampede a comin'... the Milwaukee Bucks are on their way back!!

Can Skiles fix the economy?

2008-12-21T00:21:00.001-06:00

What Scott Skiles has done to fix the Bucks 16 year defensive drought is nothing short of miraculous. There has been no significant defensive addiition to the roster (RJ was never known as a stopper -- okay LOSING Mo Williams WAS a huge help, butttt.....).

The point is, I just

What Skiles has done

2008-12-21T00:14:00.001-06:00

Wow.... wow. On back to back nights, the Bucks just curbed two opponents in a row on two consecutive nights. Not with wild three pointers... with suffocating defense.

I'm just speechless. The difference is stunning. Even the people that used to see me wearing Bucks gear and gripe "Ohhhh, the Bucks... they never play annnyyy deeefennse" don't say that anymore.

Its all because of Skiles. He's somehow done it

Compare and contrast where they're at: The Lakers and the Cavs

2008-12-20T23:37:00.002-06:00

I'm not picking on the Lakers, I like them, they're obviously loaded... but they're making me look ridiculous at the moment, and I can't be made to look ridiculous.

At the beginning of the year, I thought they had learned from last season's playoffs that Showtime Lakerball, meaning, high octane offense and just average defense, won't get it done. They were playing lockdown defense to begin the season. Ten games in I said "Shut her down" its the Lakers year. Then they went back to Laker ball.

Now it looks like the Cavs year (or the Celts... the Celts HAVE the D... its just that the Cavs have the D and the O).

The last two nights provide a nice case study. The Cavs and the Lakers go on the road against similarly situated tough teams in the opposite conference across the country. Lets see how they responded.

The Cavaliers faced the very tough Denver Nuggets at their very difficult home court site. What the Cavaliers did... and I watched it... was frightening. They basically cut Denver's chest open, ripped their heart out while it was beating, and ate it... the defeat was that complete.

More importantly, Cleveland's defense ruled. Their Defensive Win Score was a playoff ready 18.9... this is against a Denver team whose Home Offensive Win Score is near 50.0. IMPRESSIVE.

Now the Lakers. They go on the road against an equally tough Orlando. They play them hard but they lose. Why did they lose? Defense.

Their defense wasn't horrible, but it wasn't championship level. Their Defensive Win Score was 44.9. That's slightly below average. Again, not horrible, and they'll win a TON of games with that and their WAY above average Offensive Win Score, but they won't win a golden ball with Defensive Win Score teams like Cleveland and Boston out there. It just won't happen.

See, what happens in the playoffs, and I charted this last season, and I went back over a few other NBA Finals and found the same phenomenon. Team Win Scores collapse.

You would logically think, "Hey thse are the best teams, the Win Scores are going to go up". Its not the case.

The Win Score average for a season is usually in the 40s... NBA Finals games are normally played in the 30s... sometimes in the 20s. You know what I think the reason is? No easy baskets. There are no layups allowed... and most of the game is played in the half court setting. But that's just a hunch.

Anyway, my message to LakerNation is this: tell Philipo he needs to grow back that beard and get the Lakers playing defense again. They've obviously shown they are capable of doing so... they need to begin to make it a habit if they are going to make a championship run.

Change you CAN believe in

2008-12-20T21:57:00.008-06:00

I cannot tell you how much respect I have Scott Skiles and what he has accomplished in one month. Scott Skiles is a miracle worker. Everything about the man screams "Leader".

And he's got the Milwaukee Bucks playing devastating defense.

Six months ago... did any of you think it was POSSIBLE I could have wrote those words without being sarcastic?? What a job Skiles has done! In fact, he may be the best basketball coach in the business... here's why...

Professor Berri is going to argue -- and backup with evidentiary research -- in his upcoming book, I believe, that basketball coaches don't matter much. BUT, I think he's going to take the position that they don't matter because they cannot improve PLAYER PRODUCTION much. Okay, lets accept that.

Let's say his argument is right (and I'm on thin ice here since I haven't read the book because it hasn't even been released) if it is, then could it n. How can you do better than Coach Skiles has done with your Milwaukee Bucks?

Anyway, chew on that for a while and I'll have the TWC boxscore shortly...

HOW BOUT THEM BUCKS??!!!!!!

The Bucks may be closer than we think

2008-12-20T21:26:00.001-06:00

Normally on this blog, I like to use statistical analysis. This time I'm going to use pure intution. Here it is

Lets review the Bucks last season and this season.

Last season the Bucks basically struggled against everyone.

What do we see this season? '

This season, the Bucks compete for a while at home with the upper echelon of the NBA (Boston, Phoenix). They

The Magnificence!!... And thank you Pressey25!... 25!! Aaahhh look at the picture dumb dumb author!

2008-12-20T20:32:00.006-06:00

We suffered for soooooo long in Milwaukee with teams that could not or would not or just refused to play defense. It was so painful to watch. It was so utterly painful to watch.

Now, this season, with no significant upgrade in talent... remember, coming into this season Richard Jefferson's career numbers were projecting sharply downward... with all that, the Milwaukee Bucks... OUR Milwaukee Bucks... the Boys in Green and Red... the Boys who couldn't bust the top 16 in defense for an entire generation....

Well, they are a frickin defensive machine... and they are just CRUSHING inferior teams with almost no offense and it is beautiful to watch because its proving my PROVING my theory on Defensive Win Score... they're OFFENSE IS WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST SEASON... and yet they are much improved, so much improved...

And a frequent and astute commenter by the name of "Pressey23" deserves a half credit for inspiring the notion of Defensive Win Score he unknowingly made the key inspirational critical comment (you can be a friend of this blog and rip the shit out of me you know... that's how knowledge is gained). I once wrote that Mo Williams was "a key component" because he had a positive Win Contribution, which was true... he did have a positive offensive Win Contribution.

Well, a day later, Pressey batted in the Comment section something like "Mo Williams a key component?? No way... I can't sit through another season with a point guard who plays NO DEFENSE"... He convinced me and started me thinking... defense HAS TO MATTER... It turned out that if you compared the Win Score production of the point guards of Milwaukee Bucks opponents who were on the floor at the time Mo Williams was on the floor, Mo Williams production suddenly became negative... so the NBA AVERAGE WAS FUNCTIONALLY IRRELEVANT... THE RELEVANT AVERAGE WAS THE ONE CREATED ON THE HARDWOOD IN THE GAME... Bingo...That led to the whole idea of "Counterpart Opponent"/Defensive Win Score, which led to the idea of Marginal Win Score, which led to TOTAL Win Contribution... which is now basically the raison d'être of this here blog.., so thank you Mr. Pressey, and keep it up in the second half Bucks!

And Skiles rules!!! And I'll have a TWC by at least tomorrow morning if not tonight.

And I'm moving to MVN Monday morning. I'm just too busy this weekend.

Shine a Light on Lue: Enhanced TWC boxscore from the Bucks crushing of the Knicks

2008-12-20T16:42:00.004-06:00

This may be my last posting on blogspot. I have to check my email and see how the procedure works to switch over to MVN, but that's definitely imminent.

I wish you buds could see me. I've been shoveling all day and trying to get this stupid ENHANCED Milwaukee Bucks TWC boxscore done, because it was such a huge and crushing win. Anyway, I look like frickin Charlie Villanueva. I'm wearing tearaways. A Milwaukee Bucks hunter green old school jersey... obviously... and a Green Bay Packers cold weather headband that I haven't taken off with those kind of heavy army socks... because I've been between the computer and the fricking snow all day.

Click Here to See my TWC Boxscore with below average positional performances in italic red

Timeout for a Rant (Skip below for my Notes on the Game)

Anyway, I wanted to do this thing because the GD Milwaukee Journal has the whole narrative wrong AGAIN. They credit stupid REDD because .... GEE he scored alot of points.

People if you lose me and dont follow me over to MVN, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE (I sound like this guy) remember this... VOLUME SCORING ALONE IS MEANINGLESS IN BASKETBALL!!!!!!!!!!! If anything it can tend to kill a team... the important thing is possessions.... Its like Robin Yount taking as many at bats as he wants for the Brewers and then the Journal reporting that the Brewers won because he got four hits....HOW MANY AT BATS DID HE USE UP???

Ok, enough ranting... by the way those analogies are all stolen from the Wages of Wins, so read it for more insight....

Notes on the Game

1. Tyronn Lue has secretly resurrected himself people. He's close to having a positive Win Contribution for the season, and his play is above Replacement Level, which is what you want from your bench players. Think about your low level players as a basement floor. The higher the basement floor, the higher the structure. Good going Lue.

2. Croshere is also playing at an above Replacement level. Can he be physical enough to be our permanent replacement center? That is my question. His athletic ability is clearly gone, he can no longer man the 3 or 4.

3 My man Moute, the Winter Prince of Milwaukee as one of my loyal commenter so aptly and keenly dubbed him, has clearly gotten his second wind. He has played some beautiful games this weekend.

4. Michael Redd will give you points per minute... lately that is the only thing he and RJ are delivering above average. They are playing decent defense, to their credit... but I also think they are benefiting from going against gunslingers. Both RJ and Michael must do more to earn their money. Particularly Michael. He must make a concerted effort to get the team more possessions. At the moment he is averaging around 1.7 possessions gained per 48. That will never get it done. Early in his career, as I have pointed out many times, he was much better at that, and he can be. Quit romancing that 3 point line. Durant has revitalized himself, Redd can too.

5. I can't say enough good about Andrew Bogut... remember when I said we should shop him last year... that dude who wrote I was crazy... you have earned the right to do this to me

6. To paraphrase Bobby Kennedy, "Now its on to Milwaukee, and Lets Win There!"... Tonight is a must. Cannot lose to the Clippers at home. Cannot do it people. They're last in my Power Rankings, if I was keeping them up.

Knicks forgot what Willis Reed taught... defense usually trumps offense

2008-12-20T13:34:00.008-06:00

I don't know about that "European, little man, fire it up, offense first, defense-be-damned" system Coach D'Antoni has brought to the Big Apple. It will win him games in the regular season, there's no question about that. But, ultimately, it will not win him championships. Defense wins championships... not offense.

The irony is, KnicksFan should know that better than anyone... the Knickerbockers used two AWESOME AWESOME Defensive "or Opponent" Win Score teams to dismantle two superior Lakers Offensive Win Score teams and win their two famous Worlds Championships back in the early 70s (one of them was the celebrated "Willis Reed Championship", the other one I call the "Crooklyn" Championship because it was celebrated in Spike Lee's movie.)

Of course, D'Antoni is really not working with superior personnel at the moment, and the Bucks just took them apart root and branch last night, so this unit is not a good test of my theory. Anyway, tremendous win for the Green and Red last night, and I will have a TWC boxscore shortly. (I'm going back to "Green and Red"... they're insisting on wearing those Red jerseys so I have to go with the flow) BTW, REDD DID NOT WIN THE GAME LAST NIGHT AS JSOLINE IS INSISTING... anyone who reads this blog and is therefore "enlightened" will know Redd had a slightly above average game but that the heroes were CLEARLY MOUTE and BOGUT. Get ready for my TWC Boxscore.

www.blogger.com

2008-12-19T22:19:00.001-06:00

Here it is... Big O '74 road jersey

2008-12-19T19:43:00.003-06:00

I keep referencing my Big O '74 road jersey... here's Oscar wearing it... mine's just a replica and its in tatters... but I keep wearing it cause its my favorite Bucks road jersey and I wish they would bring it back... I guess this year's team favors the Badger red... they've worn those things about three games in a row now... I think superstition is playin a part in that though... alright time for the second half... Go Milwaukee Bucks!!

Defensive Brilliance!... Keep it up Bucks

2008-12-19T19:35:00.003-06:00

I've got my Oscar Robertson 1974 Hunter Green Road Jersey on right now, cause I'm not going anywhere with the snow coming down. That first half was awesome, though. They held the highpowered New York Knickerbocker offense to just 37 points! Think about that... this is a defense that could not stop squat last season and they hold one of the best offenses in the NBA to 37 points in a half at home!

Skiles is brilliant...

I'm opening another Pabst Blue Ribbon and I will have a TWC Boxscore at the end of the game...

Remember I'm moving to MVN this weekend... GO BUCKS!!!!!!

Utilizing my sabermetric chart

2008-12-19T19:04:00.003-06:00

When you are looking at my offensive sabermetric chart, you can also use it as a means of determining who is suited to play what position. For instance... Ramon Sessions is above average in every category when you consider him as a point guard, yet he is below average in some of the areas if you consider him as a shooting guard.

And indeed, Skiles has deployed Sessions as a shooting guard 32% of the time, and it has hurt his Win Contribution. Sessions Win Contribution is +2.9 as a point guard and only +.6 as a shooting guard. Deployment matters.

Enjoy the Bucks versus the Knickerbockers. My Bill James Log 5 Calculations say the Bucks have a 44% chance of taking tnis game at the Garden. So go Bucks!

If your going to a tavey to watch this game remember to drink only Milwaukee or Milwaukee heritage beers!! And careful of the snow!! Drive safely!! Ever reader counts!!

And remember I'm moving over to MVN!!! The basketball revolution lives on!!

Bucks Diary Fans its official.. I'm moving to MVN

2008-12-19T16:47:00.003-06:00

Bucks Diary Fans... The Revolution is moving...

If your a fan of the this blog its moving. I tried like hell to bring an audience to blogspot but it just didnt work as well as I wanted. So were movin our act into the bigtime at MVN, the Most Valuable Network. I'm not totally sure how its going to work, but its happenin this weekend, and I'm pretty excited.

For one thing, no more annoying purple lines when you click on an archived post (I dont know where the heck those things came from, I called them the curse of Dunleavy) or amatuer graphics.

I guess you just gotta go over to MVN and find me.

But DO IT!! I NEED YOU!!

Oh, and one, other thing. If I don't respond to email, or answer this comment or that, its not because I don't appreciate the reader. I APPRECIATE EVERY READER OF THIS BLOG. Its just my attention to detail can wane from time to time. Don't take it personally. Everyone who reads this blog is part of the brotherhood and will always be part of the revolution!! Stay Strong!! Stay on Board!! And please follow me to MVN... I need every single one of you!!!!!

A complete sabermetric diagnosis of the Bucks offensive woes

2008-12-19T15:28:00.003-06:00

I've finally completed my statistical analysis of the Bucks offensive woes. I have the chart for your observations. It contains every important statistic for every Milwaukee Buck along with the corresponding NBA positional average, taken from the positional averages done by Professor Berri's research. I leave it to you to observe which Bucks are deficient in which areas.

Click Here to see my statistical breakdown of the Milwaukee Bucks Offense

You will notice the chart emphasizes: possessions gained per 48 minutes, basket attacking ability, scoring reliability, and the ability to convert possessions into points. Those four categories are the essence of NBA offensive excellence.

I'm sure after looking at the chart you will conclude, as I do, that, as Alec Baldwin said in the awesome scene in Glengarry Glen Ross, the Bucks offense's name so far this season is "Your Wanting". (PUT THAT COFFEE DOWN, CHARLIE BELL! YOU CALL YOURSELF A SHOOTING GUARD YOU SON OF A BITCH!)

Kareem aint walkin through that door, Oscar aint walkin through that door...

2008-12-19T12:11:00.005-06:00

I have a Kareem Abdul Jabbar mock 1970 Milwaukee Bucks road jersey shirt in my drawer. I have an Oscar Robertson mock 1974 Milwaukee Bucks road jersey (in tatters) in my drawer. But the odds of the Milwaukee Bucks ever acquiring another Kareem Abdul Jabbar, or the odds of the Milwaukee Bucks ever acquiring another Oscar Robertson again are infinitesimal.

The fact is if the Bucks are ever to rise again, they must do it the Moneyball way. They have to find the anomalies in the market and exploit them. In other words, they must act like the two venture capitalists in the book "Super Crunchers".

These two guys went into a meeting with a couple of Hollywood big shots to pitch a proven method they had to determine whether a script would produce a profitable movie. (It was based upon regression analysis of certain elements contained within each script... I forget now what the specific elements were, but it was things you wouldn't normally consider: like the title, or the plot line... things like that... quite fascinating actually).

Think about it. This would be worth BILLIONS to the Hollywood industry. If they knew BEFORE HAND whether a movie would be profitable? That should be candy in their ears. It wasn't! Even though these two guys proved their case to these two studio CEOs, the CEOs basically threw them out the door. They told them "That isn't how we do things in Hollywood!".

Well, the venture capitalists left the meeting laughing. The author of Super Crunchers, who is a Professor of Law at Yale University wondered what in the fuck these guys were laughing about, after all their proposal just gut shoved up their asses!

Well, the venture capitalists just smiled and explained to the naive prof, "This is how we make our millions. We find silly captains of industry who cling to their irrational beliefs and we exploit them." In other words, they find market anomalies and take advantage.

The Bucks have to do the same thing if they are ever going to rise again. They have to follow the Pistons model of a few years ago. Grab productive players who are undervalued either in the draft (Tayshaun Prince), in trades (Rasheed Wallace, Antonio McDyess,) or in mid-level free agency (Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace). (Note: If I'm wrong about how any of those Pistons were acquired please let me know. But you get the basic point. None of them cost the Pistons a King's Ransom, and all of them were Championship Percetage pieces).

That's why I so desperately want Richard Hendrix. At the moment he would cost nothing to acquire. NOTHING. And lets just say I'm right about his value. He would have a TWCar of about, lets say he gets full playing time, he would have a TWCar of .525, which is a a Championship Percentage of 18%. How do you pass that chance up? For no cost? I ask you that?

I sort of pulled a Dan Rather

2008-12-19T00:20:00.004-06:00

A couple of posts ago, I reported that the Bucks attendance at the Bradley Center had fallen to its all-time low NBA rank. I did a chart showing how it followed a sort of disturbing downward trend over the years the Bucks have called the BC their home gym.

Well a reader pointed out that the attendance figures did not jibe with others he had seen. Turns out he was right concerning this season. I just rechecked my source, basketball-reference.com, and they have the Bucks falling from 27th to 30th... even though the Bucks have been on the road the last week. Obviously their numbers are gross totals, but they didn't explain that anywhere and I was duped. Turns out the Bucks attendance has actually risen a bit this season to 23rd... although how much of that is tomfoolery brought on by the reduced price upper level seating deal I don't' know.

But the numbers from the preceding years remain legimitate. There has clearly been a downward trend in attendance that must be reversed. We have to get back to the days of the early 90s when the Bucks had attendance figures in the top ten in the NBA. That means the Bucks have to start putting a better product on the court.

Dear Santa: Please deliver Richard Hendrix to the Bucks

2008-12-18T22:38:00.006-06:00

I do not understand the logic behind some of the decisions made in the National Basketball Association. An awesome anonymous tipster just brought me this news (thank you by the way, brother, and I wish you guys would leave monikers so I can give proper props... but I think I'm moving to MVN shortly anyway, so do it when I get there PLEASE) The Golden State Warriors just cut loose Richard Hendrix... a guy who has TRUE VALUE tattoed on his chest.

Teams think he's undersized. HE'S NOT!! Head height is IRRELEVANT in basketball. The relevant "height" for basketball purposes is your standing reach. And he's got above average standing reach (his standing reach is 9'0''). The average center is 9'1''. He's also got the size (250 lbs) and the strength (13 reps) to play both of the most valuable positions on the court (PF/C). I would estimate his replacement value at around +5.0. So he's a wildly valuable commodity.

And, most importantly, he's a proven producer. Everything on his resume says he would be a WILDLY PRODUCTIVE WIN CONTRIBUTOR. In college he consistently produced huge numbers (defensive numbers I can't reproduce at the moment). Professor Berri's study of the last twenty drafts, I believe, showed the average NBA center/power forward had a collegiate Win Score/40 (they play 40 min in the NCAA) of 12.4. Hendrix had a four year collegiate average of 14.3, and he produced a Win Score 12.0 as a freshman! So he's the real deal!

If that's not enough, the guy produced a 17.4 WS/48 in the D League. And he played pretty sweet defense too. He had a MWS/48 of approximately +4.6 and a Total Win Conribution of +0.543 to the 9-1 Bakersfield Jam. He's a freakin' winner!!

He's got the size, he's got the bulk to play the most valuable positions on the court, he has a long resume of production, he seems willing to play defense... HOW THE HELL IS THIS GUY UNEMPLOYED!!

Memo to GM Hammond: SIGN RICHARD HENDRIX NOW!!!!! PLEASE!!

Of course, it won't happen... I'm going to bed before I go crazy. Thanks, though, Anonymous. That was an awesome tip.

Olympian Redd costing the Bucks a royal sum

2008-12-18T21:27:00.004-06:00

This season, Michael Redd is making $15.75 million. That's way beyond his market value, and way more than a small market team like the Bucks can carry.

The 2008-09 market price NBA teams are paying per win produced equals $1.77 million (total salary amounts / available wins). Thus Redd owes the Milwaukee Bucks 8.9 wins this season.

He is currently on pace to deliver less than half that amount (3.0 wins). His Marginal Win Score at the moment is just slightly above average (+0.2) and not nearly far enough above replacement level (+1.1) to justify the maximum dollars he is getting. In essence, he is delivering wins that cost the team about $3.6 million above the going price. That's terrible. Its like shopping at an airport or in Door County!

And as bad as that sounds, the Redd situation is actually worse. As I wrote the other day, the average number of wins an NBA Champion produces is 58.8 wins. Yet even the highest NBA payroll -- the ridiculous amount the Knicks are paying their collection of stiffs -- only adds up to 55.5 wins. That means its incumbent upon a general manager to find and pay players who deliver beyond their salary amount. And it means it is absolutely lethal for a small market team like the Bucks to have players on its payroll like Redd who deliver less than half the wins they are paid for! On a well constructed championshp tea, your highest paid players must deliver around or above market value, and then you must skillfully construct a roster consisting of at least several players who are drastically under paid per win.

Take last season's champs as an example of my point. Last season, the market rate for a win produced was $1.6 million. Here's what each Celtic made versus what I believe each Celtic was worth according to the wins he produced, and what the Celtics total payroll should have been:

What the Celtics were paid vs. what they were owed
(in millions of dollars)

1. Kevin Garnett... paid:(23.75) owed: (21.42)
2. Paul Pierce... paid: (16.36) owed (19.53)
3. Ray Allen... paid: (16.00) owed (12.60)
4. Sam Cassell... paid: (6.30) owed (-0.37)
5. Kendrick Perkins... paid (4.81) owed (8.52)
6. James Posey... paid (3.20) owed (8.30)
7. Brian Scalabrine... paid (3.00) owed (1.23)
8. Tony Allen... paid (1.80) owed (6.37)
9. Eddie House... paid (1.50) owed (7.91)
10. Rajon Rondo... paid (1.22) owed (11.12)
11. Scott Pollard... paid (1.22) owed (0.33)
12. Leon Powe... paid (0.66) owed (4.48)
13. Gabe Pruitt... paid (0.65) owed (0.16)
14. PJ Brown... paid (0.47) owed (0.66)
15. Glen Davis... paid (0.42) owed (3.3)

Actual Celtics Payroll: $80.6 million
Market Value of Celtic player production: $108.06 million

As you can see, to win a championship, a general manager must be clever enough to find bargain players and under pay them for their above average win production. Most of those players will be younger payers who have little bargaining power (check out the disparity between what Rajon Rondo is paid and what he produces... its nearly $10 million!) Because of the messed up NBA labor situation (I'm trying to use PG-13 language) you may have to overpay a few top dollar guys. But you cannot carry a top dollar player who delivers less than half market value, as Michael Redd is doing. You just can't have that.

If the Bucks are going to return to glory, they have to know what you are doing when they negotiate contracts. They have to act like aggressive venture capatilists. That means they have to find market anamolies and exploit them (as I've shown, there are PLENTY of market anamolies in basketball... why else would Joe Dumars trade the uberproductive Chauncey Billups for the marginally productive Allen Iverson? He, like many GMs, harbored irrational beliefs about the value of "volume scorers" like Iverson.).

What I'm saying in a nutshell is the Milwaukee Bucks have to start to play Moneyball right now. No more Joe Alexander picks when shitloads of productive players are on the board (how sweet would Mario Chalmers look in a Bucks uniform... he and Sessions in a rotation?? Whoa!). No more signing marginally valuable players like Michael Redd to large contracts. Its time to get smart.

The Senator paid for 40 wins

2008-12-18T21:05:00.001-06:00

I guess I rarely pay attention to salary amounts, but last night I looked through the Bucks payroll on HoopsHype. Wow! I'm glad I'm not the Bucks owner. They have a $71 million payroll! That is nearly equal to the payroll of the Milwaukee Brewers ($79 million) and up their with the Green Bay Packers ($89 million)!! Yet the Brewers employ 20 players at the Major League level ($3.9 million per), and the Packers employ 53 ($1.6 million per)!

So the Bucks, with only 15 players on their payroll (and that includes that bastard Damon Jones, whom the NBA collective bargaining agreement requires the Bucks to pay +$4 million to debate Skip Bayless on ESPN) have in fact the highest payroll of the state's professional teams. And yet the Bucks are, sadly... but clearly... the third most popular professional team in Wisconsin. And I'm not talking third with a bullet either... if you counted the Badgers they might be fourth. The NBA has a screwed up financial model.

But the point of this post is the amount of wins the Senator deserves in return. Well, if you take the total amount of salary paid by the NBA's franchises this season and divide it by the number of available wins, you get the market value of a win: $1.77 million. Thus, Senator Kohl has paid for 40 wins.

But if he gets them, they won't come according to outlay. The two highest paid players -- Michael Redd and Richard Jefferson -- owe the Senator 8.9 and 7.4 wins respectively. Redd is currently on pace to

Celticsblog, your boys are back! But LeBron and the Cavs look ready to rule

2008-12-18T19:28:00.010-06:00

Are we moving toward an historically magnificent postseason? It sure as hell looks like it. I can't remember a year when we've had three super teams on the horizon. No matter who makes it to the NBA Finals, as Sugar Ray Leonard once famously said, "It will be a war". (metaphorically speaking).

I just did a Win Score analysis of the aformentioned "super" teams: the Cavaliers, the Celtics, and the Lakers. The analysis was similar to the one I did for every NBA Finalist back to the mid-70s. Using what I learned from my historical analysis, the Cleveland Cavaliers are, at the moment, clearly the best team in the NBA, and have the looks of an NBA World Championship team (I'll explain in a moment). The Lakers, on the other hand, are back to the old Laker formula and are the weakest of the three.

Click here to see my Win Score analysis of the three teams

Notes

1. As you can see, the Lakers are still playing fantastic "Offense" but their "Defense" is back to its historical "slightly above average" level. (Note: I call "Team" Win Score "Offense", and I call "Opponent" Win Score "Defense"... not quite true, but basically correct labels).

2. I've mentioned it before but I'll mention it again because its bizarre... the Lakers ALMOST ALWAYS field teams that are outstanding offensive teams and just around the average defensive teams (go through the link above and look at the Laker champions of the 80s)... they're at it again! And those bastards fooled me early in the season! They had me believing they were planning to play Celtic stlye defense... well, they've quit that and gone back to full scale "Laker" style Showtime ball. Its won in the past, but not when its come up against +30% defensive teams like the Celtics and/or the Cavaliers. Thus, at the moment, the Lakers are no longer my favorites to win the NBA Championship

3. The Celtics are right back to last season's levels. I didn't think it was possible, but they've done it. Their defense is right where it was last season... actually better. They looked poised for another championship run. But one team is standing in their way...

4. Last spring, I said the Cleveland Cavaliers may have stumbled onto a championship formula. They had just finished a mediocre season with a lenghty playoff run, a run which clearly taught them the importance of defensive motivation. Well, this season they've put it all together, and they are playing at an historically high level. They're playing better defense and much better offense than the Celts. If they can maintain this pace, they will win the NBA championship. But remember, I said the same thing about the Lakers a month ago. So time will tell.

Does coaching matter in basketball?

2008-12-18T17:55:00.002-06:00

Professor Berri's, the architect of the Win Score metric and the author of the fabulous blog "The Wages of Wins Journal" is coming out with a book Stumbling on Wins. I'm waiting for it with the same anticipation those Star Wars geeks waited for those awful movies that made up the "prequel trilogy".

But I might have some trouble swallowing the book's central thesis. Berri and Schmidt will argue that coaching does not matter much in the sport of basketball. But I'm not sure that's true. At the risk of commiting an act of heresy, I'm going to try to rebut that assertion.

Whenever I'm trying to figure out whether something may have an influence on something else, I learned to use an Einstein style thought experiment that imagines the opposite. Lets do that in this case. Lets say your author was appointed Coach of the Milwaukee Bucks because the Senator wanted to sabotage the team, like the owner in the movie The Natural, or Major League, I guess.

Couldn't I do that through misguided assignments and poor distribution of playing time? Couldn't I scuttle the team's chances by sitting all the best players, playing all the worst, and then deploying those scrubs in disadvantageous positions? Obviously, I could. If I played all of the team's "replacement level" players, I could reduce the team's Win Probability to replacement level: 25%. So coaching can have an effect.

So for the "coaching doesn't matter" thesis to be true, one has to assume a certain level of technical competence amongst NBA coaches. But I'm not sure even that exists. (Now, obviously, I'm in dangerous waters here, because I'm critiquing a thesis I have never read. But, the Slate article seems to lay out what I am outlining.)

Take the case of Kevin Durant. Some birdbrain in the Sonics/Thunder organization decided last season to play him at shooting guard. That misdeployment costs the team dearly. As a shooting guard, Durant's career MWS48 is -3.9... way below replacement level. However, if you move him to small forward, his career MWS48 is +2.3... way ABOVE replacement level. Finally, after an early season COACHING change, it appears Durant is becoming the productive player we all envisioned him to be out of college. So, in his case, coaching seems to have mattered, and I've run across dozens of examples of the same-type misdeployments (hell, the Timberwolves have about 5 such cases by themselves -- Kevin Love is far better at center than power forward, yet he is usually deployed at power forward -- Al Jefferson is far better at power forward than center, yet he's routinely played at center -- the injured Corey Brewer is far better at shooting guard than at small forward, yet he normally plays small forward)

And if coaching does not matter, how do you explain the effect Scott Skiles has had on the Bucks. Lets examine the players he inherited from last season... the same cast of characters who couldn't defend a junior high team.

What did I miss with Beasley?

2008-12-18T17:35:00.002-06:00

The best way to learn is to examine your mistakes.

Last season I louted Michael Beasley as a can't-miss NBA Win Contributor. So far, he's missed badly. His Marginal Win Score per 48 is -4.7. That's -3.1 below "scrub" or replacement level. You can't put a guy like that on the court. He's silently killing the Miami Heat.

Where did I go so wrong?!

Well let's first see where he's deficient. His personal Win Score is 5.6 per 48 minutes. That's way below the standard for an NBA power forward (10.3-10.8) and 76% below Beasley's own collegiate WS48 of 23.5. The normal collegiate dropoff is around 37%. (Beasley's unusually large dropoff is eerily similar to Kevin Durant's rookie dropoff -- 73% -- and Adam Morrison's rookie dropoff

What did I miss with Beasley?

2008-12-18T17:35:00.000-06:00

Last season I was touting Michael Beasley as a can't-miss NBA Win

Bucksdiary's unscrupulous plan to keep our Bucks in Milwaukee

2008-12-18T14:43:00.017-06:00

Here's my plan to take advantage of Obama's trillion dollar stimulus package to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee.

Let me say first, though, I think Obama's stimulus package is one of those good notions that will not serve its intended purpose. To my eyes, the economy is currently caught in a liquidity trap. Therefore, to fix the situation, the government should be directly injecting credit into the economy, not spending money on infrastructure projects. Massive public works didn't fix the similar situation we had n the 1930s and they won't work now. The Government has to act more directly. Of course, if the Government gets in the lending business, as I'm suggesting, you have the problem of getting the government out of the lending business (ie, "creeping socialism"). So my recovery plan will never happen. We're just going to have to wait for the banks and suffer through. (By the way, its a myth that World War II got us out of the Great Depression... studies show no advanced economic gains in areas where military investment was concentrated. The country came out of the Great Depression in the late 30s when local and national banks began to reloosen credit requirements and money began to reflow throughout the economy. I'm worried that is what will have to happen in our current state. Banks have to get their courage back.. FDR was right, in a sense, the thing we have to fear is fear itself.)

Boy, I'm off on a tangent. This is not an economics blog, its a Bucks blog, so let me finally round off to my point.

If Government is giving away all this funny money for public works, Senator Kohl ought to have his "game face" on, and think about the future of the Milwaukee Bucks. He ought to see if there couldn't be a way to roll a new Bucks arena into some kind of Orwellian doublespeak project like a new "Convention Center" or something of that type. Perhaps he could gin up some kind of urban renewal project that included a fancy new gym for the team. God knows downtown Milwaukee needs renewing.

I realize what I'm asking the Senator to do is the absolute antithesis of his entire political philosophy. He models himself after the legendary William Proxmire (whom I met on the DC Metro in his very late years, after which I did some research and writing for him... he worked until the day he died... he worked out of a tiny office they give ex-Senators at over at the Library of Congress... he didn't always recognize me because of his age, and it sometimes freaked me out... but I'm meandering all over the place here).

The point is, Senator Kohl hates "pork barrel" spending. And I'm asking him to engineer the very worst kind of pork barrel spending -- spending that would directly benefit him.

So its unlikely to happen... unless Milwaukee's mayor or someone other than the Senator massages it through the legislative process. I mean, the whole thing is a cynical self centered action on my part, but the opportunity is there. And it may never come again.

Local financing will never happen. I assure you of that. If the Senator's waiting for that to happen, he'll be dead before it does. (For C's sake, THE PACKERS vote for public financing was only 53%-47%... in BROWN COUNTY... during prosperous times! If that's the case, I cannot imagine a scenario where the Bucks who are backed mainly by professional men and urban youth could win a public financing vote anywhere.)

So if we have to have a new stadium to have our Bucks stay local, we have to do it the sneaky way. Senator Kohl must, in his heart of hearts, recognize that.

Besides, there's precedent for my plan. Believe it or not, Milwaukee County Stadium, which was built in the early 1950s, was actually funded through a public works program created by The New Deal. (That's how long these so-called "ready to go" projects take... another reason a massive public works project is a bad deal). The Milwaukee Arena was also a public works project funded in part by federal spending. So its not a pipe dream to think it could happen again. Once public spending starts flowing, it flows into funny places.

Obviously this whole sneaky plan contradicts a lot of my past posts. I've always argued in the past that public spending on stadiums is a stupid boondoggle. But if we have to swallow all this public spending, and we will it seems, why not have a sweetener that will SAVE OUR MILWAUKEE BUCKS.

Bucks lose a winnable game: TWC boxscore from Bucks vs. Sixers

2008-12-18T01:03:00.006-06:00

That Bucks game was painful to watch. The Sixers played zone most of the fourth quarter because the Bucks cannot hit jump shots... or at least they couldn't last night.

But, ironically most of the Bucks played well overall:

Click Here to see my TWC Boxscore from Bucks vs. Sixers

Goats of the Game (according to the TWC boxscore):

1. Andrew Bogut

2. Luke Ridnour

3. Dan Gadzuric

Notes

1. Every minute of court time counts when it comes to the TWC boxscore. There's no such thing as "throw away" minutes. Last night Dan Gadzuric provided an example of that. He played only nine minutes, but was outplayed so badly he recorded a TWC of -0.318. Had he merely played the opposition center to a productive standstill in his nine minutes, the Bucks probability of winning would have gone from 43% to 48%. That's a substantial difference that a guy playing only nine minutes could have made.

2. Michael Redd and Richard Jefferson, the two highest paid players on the team, were the two most responsible for the Bucks poor offensive performance. But I give the tandem credit for their defensive efforts. Their work on the defensive end of the court produced positive Total Win Contributions for the Bucks.

3. Bogut was playing so well before last night... but geez he got DESTROYED by the Sixers tandem of Dalembert, Speights, and Evans. Each is the kind of rough physical player Bogut struggles to contain and to produce against. Did you notice he only took 4 shots last night in about 35 minutes of action? Andrew Bogut desperately needs a physical power forward next to him to help him with that weakness, but for three years the Bucks have done nothing to acquire one.

4. I thought highly of Mareese Speights going into last season's draft. He's struggled with his defense so far, but his offensive production has been where I thought it would be, and he had an excellent game last night, turning in a Win Score per minute of .315, which is excellent. I would have chosen him with the 8th pick instead of Joe Alexander. BTW, Alexander produced nothing but splinters from riding the pine last night.

5. Luke Ridnour may be hurting, or I dont know what his deal is, but his level of play lately is hurting the team. He's playing like a substitute, not a starter.

6. If I were Scott Skiles, I might think about giving some of Dan Gadzuric's minutes to Austin Croshere. I know Gadzuric will flash productivity, but he's wildly inconsistent... so far his overall MWS/48 is negative. Croshere's, in limited action, is positive. Plus, Croshere just seems like the better basketball player.

Why is Skiles so in love with Ridnour?

2008-12-17T23:34:00.007-06:00

Mark this date... its my first official beef with Coach Skiles. Why the hell is he playing Luke Ridnour so many minutes when the productive Ramon Sessions is sitting on the bench? Last night Ridnour was awful (look for my TWC in a minute) while Sessions was at least competitive. Yet Coach decided to play Ridnour 33 minutes while playing Sessions only 15. Bad decision, Coach, and here's why.

At the moment, Luke Ridnour's Marginal Win Score per 48 is -1.1. That's barely above replacement level. A replacement level point guard would be expected to give the team a Marginal Win Score of -1.4.

By contrast, Ramon Sessions has a Marginal Win Score at the point guard position of +2.1. That's a huge difference. Sessions at the moment has a TWCar (Total Win Contribution above replacement level) of +0.319. That's amongst the best on the team. That's a Championship Percentage of 11.6%. Not bad for a second year man... and its better than Michael Redd's or Richard Jefferson's... two guys who make about 22 times the amount Sessions is paid. Sessions is the lowest paid player on the team! That's the warped NBA labor market for you.

Meanwhile, Ridnour, the starter and trusted leader in Coach Skiles mind, and a guy making over 9 times the amount Sessions is getting paid, has a TWCar of +0.033, meaning his play is barely above replacement level. That translates into a Championship Percentage of 1.2%. If you have a starter whose CP is that low, you're never gonna get to the promised land... I promise you that.

Note: Championship Percentage is based on my theory that you have to win about 58.8 games to be a legitimate championship contender. That translates, in Total Win Contribution, to +2.75 above replacement level. Thus, you need to assemble a team that contributes that much... and every player's contribution, meaning every player's TWCar, divided by +2.75, is what I call their "Championship Percentage". I think Dwight Howard, the center, has a Championship Percentage of about 38.5%, for instance. Thus, the Magic need to add player's whose contribution above replacement adds up to about 61.5%. Meanwhile the Bucks best player, Michael Redd, has never had a TWCar above 10.8% since he signed his maximum pay contract. Meaning,the Bucks have all this money invested in a guy, and they still have to find and pay players who can contribute the additional 90% they need to get to the championship level. That's almost impossible to pull off. You can't invest heavily in a 10% CP player and succeed. You just can't do it... its NEVER been done.

Second Note: What Championship Percentage means in a nutshell is this. Teams should invest their money on the rare commodities, good centers and good power forwards. Secondly, they should invest in a good point guard, and they should expend the least amount of money at the small forward and shooting guard positions, because its much easier to find decent SG/SF than it is to find decent players at the other three positions. If you do invest heavily in the 2 or 3 position, the player had better be a superstar, like Kobe or Lebron or you are cooked. Check out the Rockets. They invested heavily in the overrated Tracy McGrady, whose TWCar last season was only +0.246, which translated to a measly Championship Percentage of 8.9%. Its no wonder they struggle to get out of the first round.

Can you win with just defense? The Bucks are testing that theory

2008-12-17T21:56:00.011-06:00

This Bucks season is turning into one of those stories where the jeanie grants your 3 wishes and you dont say them exactly right and you end up with a head made of gold.

For years we were rightfully bitching about the Bucks defense. They refused to play any.

Then Scott Skiles came to town and "Presto" the Bucks become a defensive machine. That's the good news.

The bad news is their offense is just terrible. The untold story last season was that the team's per court player offensive Win Score average (-1.1) was actually slightly worse than their per court player defensive Win Score average(-0.9). When I did my Win Splits at the end of the season, the Bucks offensive half wins were slightly lower than their defensive half wins. Meaning, while we all griped about the defense, the offense was actually worse.

Now, somehow, its gone completely in the toilet. And that's after we added Richard Jefferson to the mix.

Tonight's road game against the Sixers was a perfect example of the Bucks dilemma. The Bucks played AWESOME defense (except at the point guard position where they are suffering for some reason... I'll explore that weakness in another post). The current NBA team Win Score average per 48 minutes is 43.8 (its skyrocketing). Tonight, in Philadelphia, the Milwaukee Bucks held the Sixers to a miniscule Win Score of 35.1. That's championship defense. The problem is the Bucks cashed in with their own puny Win Score of 31.5. And, if you think that's bad, think about this. That's close to their average for the season.

For the season, the Bucks team Win Score average is 34.5 (worse than last season... ugh, that's what I feared would be the Skiles trade-off). If you subtract that from the NBA average, and divide by five, you get a per court player Win Score average per 48 minutes of playing time of -1.8. That's horrible. If you run that through the formula, the Bucks offense has created 5.3 half wins. Meaning, if the Bucks defense matched their offense, the team would be about 5-22 or 6-21.

Luckily, the defensive average is 40.7 (a major improvement from last season's 48.0, but they almost have to get it down into the 30s given their offense). Anyway, that translates into a defensive Win Score per court player per 48 minutes of court time of +0.6. Run that above average score through the formula, you get 16.4 half wins.

So, if the Bucks offense matched their defense, the team would be about 16-11 or 15-12. Headed toward a record that would make Pressey23 smile. Unfortunately, the defensive effort only counts for half.

You put the two together and divide by two, and you almost get an exact translation of the Bucks win count: 10.8 (the Bucks have 11 wins).

So either we have to almost ratchet our defense up to late 80s Piston levels, or we have to somehow get some offense brewing.

I'm going to have a TWC boxscore that will break down the Bucks play in about a half hour. Tomorrow I'm doing a breakdown of the two key offensive categories: Net Possessions and Points per Possession. By doing that, I will try to expose the Bucks offensive weak spots. Or at least I'll do my best to see what's there.

Hang in there Bucks fans. I'm still convinced that better days are coming... if we can get the lid off that GD rim! Someone got an industrial sized can opener?!

Milwaukee Bucks Masonary Union

2008-12-17T20:21:00.002-06:00

I'm watching the fourth quarter here, Milwaukee vs Philadelphia, and the game is there for the Bucks, BUT NO ONE CAN HIT A FRICKING JUMPER!

Last year we were bitching about the defense. Suddenly we have no offense. Oh, this game is there to be won, guys!

TWC after the game.

The 2009 NBA Draft looks well stocked

2008-12-17T09:30:00.008-06:00

Draftexpress.com's 2008 "NBA mock draft" list was topped by players whose productive histories left something to be desired (Bayless, Gordon, that foreign guy the Knicks took, etc). Remember how I bitched and bitched about that last season? Well, the 2009 mock list is looking quite different.

Admittedly, I've never heard of most of these guys (I stick to the Association for the most part), but, like a low level human resources clerk, I scanned their resumes. For the most part, I was greatly impressed. The top guys seem to have WS40's that bode well for their professional potential (Except the stiff looking freshman center from Ohio State they have ranked number two. What the hell's he doing at number two?! He barely plays for Ohio State, and he doesn't produce at all when he does play. Yeah, size is a rare commodity, but this guy looks like the second coming of that Jamal Sampson guy, remember him? The Bucks had him on their roster for a season, just because he was tall and athletic. But he couldn't play a lick, and they finally cut him loose, and he just kicked around the NBA, doing nothing but collecting W2s, for about 4 seasons).

At this point, though, I'm a bit gun shy about recommending anyone. I was burned badly by Michael Beasley's gaudy collegiate numbers. Once he got to the professional ranks, he turned from a power forward into a contact-shy shooting guard. That's happened three times in a row now (Adam Morrison, Kevin Durant, Beasley).

Kevin Love, though, my big white hope from last season's draft, is actually not doing badly at all. I'm sure I'd get an argument from my brother the Twolves season ticketholder, because Love's shooting percentages are brutal. But he rebounds like Wes Unseld, and he's a terrific defender, especially at the center spot. Thus he has used his secondary statistics to pull himself back into positive Win Contribution territory. If the Wolves played him at center more, where his Marginal Win Score is +2.5, instead of power forward, where his Marginal Win Score is +0.6, he be an even bigger contributor. But McHale doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

Curry and Hansborough scare me

The two guys whose great production numbers both interest and scare me are shooting guard Stephon Curry of Davidson and power forward Tyler Hansborough of North Carolina. Both are wildly productive. And consistently productive. But, goddamn it, both HAVE TO BE marked "Caveat Emptor".

Both have the sort of undersized frames that should scream at me "Production Drop Coming!!" after Morrison, Durant, and Beasley. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, something's wrong with my system...

But man, both are SO enticing. Their numbers are huge. And Curry's got the blood lines. But, thankfully, there are plenty of other guys with huge numbers as well. I'll go into detail on them in another post.

New Scouting System

This season, I've detected something. Last season, before the NCAA tournament, I figured every tournament team's offensive and defensive Win Scores. This season, I've noticed that players who come from teams that had very good team defensive Win Scores (Moute, Mayo, Mario Chalmers, Love, Afflalo) tend to have excellent "Counterpart Opponent" Win Scores in the pros.

So now I'm going to use the same techniques I use to estimate the defensive Win Scores of past Milwaukee Buck players to estimate the defensive Win Scores of potential future Milwaukee Buck prospects. I'll let you see the results when I am finished.

Packer fans will enjoy this

2008-12-16T22:30:00.003-06:00

I don't usually do football, especially in the middle of a Bucks renaissance (well, defensive renaissance), but I assume there are many Antlerheads who are also Cheeseheads, so you may enjoy this post by Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats.

Burke basically argues that last season the luckiest team in the NFL was the 13-3 Green Bay Packers. This season the luckiest team is the New York Jets, while the 5-9 Packers are the unluckiest team.

Guess who the common denominator is between the two luckiest teams. Favrey Boy! Old Brett!

However, Burke argues that Favre is not the cause of the luck, but its a funny coincidence nonetheless.

I kind of pull for Favre, though I don't regret the Packers decision. I just didn't like how they went about it. Some of the things I've heard the Packers did to the old magician were a bit tacky (when he tried to enter the locker room for the first preseason game, they locked him out). So good for Favre that he brought a little magic with him to the Big Apple.

I think he's gonna need it...

Mo Williams exposed by the numbers

2008-12-16T21:52:00.003-06:00

Sometimes my temper will outrun the facts. This noon I posted a rant against Mo Williams after I heard him take some sideways shots at the Milwaukee Bucks in an interview with Jim Rome. In that post I said Mo hasn't added much of anything to the Cleveland Cavaliers. When I wrote that, I was going off what I believed at the time. Tonight I ran the numbers to see if I was correct. I was.

Click Here to see a comparison of Mo Williams production this season compared to last season

As the chart shows, he's the exact same Mo Williams! Its uncanny how precisely his numbers in Cleveland mirror his numbers in Milwaukee. He's providing for the Cavaliers what he provided for the Bucks... slightly below average play. (I have to note one thing. In Milwaukee, Williams played all point guard in his final season. In Cleveland he is splitting some of his time at shooting guard. That split is depressing his numbers. If he were purely a point guard, his MWS/48 would be +0.0... which is actually pretty good. It means he's average, and you can't find average players very often. At the 2 guard, however, Mo is -2.5, which is very bad. So deployment is an issue.)

With that all said, the improvement in Cleveland is due mostly to the incredible play of LeBron James. He's having an MVP season. He's also getting great help from Ben Wallace, Anderson Varejao, and Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who I believe is hurt at the moment, but is nonetheless having a magnificent season... his MWS/48 currently stands at +3.8, and his TWC stands at a stellar +0.372.

In the next day or so, I'll do a Win Profile of the Cavaliers to sort things out a bit better.

BucksNation not sold yet... attendance at all-time BC low

2008-12-16T20:37:00.008-06:00

The Bucks probably need to produce a winning record pretty fast. At the moment BucksNation, or at least the periphery of BucksNation, is not yet sold on ScottyBall. Enthusiasm for the team seems a bit low.

If you look at this chart I did (WARNING: you might not want to click on it... you get a bunch of Corel Photo crap... eventually the graph comes up though, if you're interested... sorry about that, I just grabbed the quickest graph program available) of the Bucks NBA attendance rankings in each of the 21 seasons they've played at the Bradley Center (with 1988-89 being season 1 and, of course, this season being season 21), you will see that attendance for Milwaukee Bucks games so far this season has hit its lowest NBA ranking (27th out of 30) since the Bucks moved into the Bradley Center twenty one seasons ago.

What the chart basically shows is when BucksNation is enthused, it can produce top ten attendance rankings. When its unimpressed, as it seems to have been over the last several campaigns, it will produce attendance rankings in the bottom 10. And this season, so far, attendance has hit the lowest of the low. That's disconcerting. But hopefully, as the schedule turns in the Bucks favor, the fans enthusiasm will build and attendance will swell.

Otherwise, if the present downward attendance trend continues, I don't see how the Bucks remain viable in Milwaukee. But, of course, its a two-way street. A good product usually produces good results at the gate. And I think the Bucks are headed in the right direction as far as that goes, so I'm cautiously optimistic things will change for the better.

ALERT: Possible Error: An astute reader has alerted me to the fact that ESPN's attendance numbers for this season do not jibe with the ones I used for my chart. My source was basketball-reference.com. In this case I would be quite happy to be wrong. Either way, though, the chart for the preceding years shows that the attendance trend since the mid-90s has been downward with the exception of the tiny "championship window" that opened and closed in the early Millenium years. We need to move back in that direction to get fans energized again, and I think we are. But thank you to the reader for correcting me.

We were excited to see you go too, Mo

2008-12-16T13:30:00.004-06:00

I was just in my car listening to an interview with ex-Milwaukee Buck point guard Mo Williams on the Jim Rome radio show. Let me "reset" it for you, as Rome would say.

Midway through the interview, Rome asked Williams one of his standard "talk about this" questions. It went something like: "Hey Mo, take me back to the summer when you were traded, you had just signed a contract with Milwaukee, presumably you were happy there, talk about what it was like the day you were traded..."

Here's Williams response, and I'm paraphrasing:

Basically he said, with little girlie giggles in between, heh heh, that he was in Vancouver at the time, heh heh, and when he heard the trade might go down, heh heh, he called his agent like 6 or 7 times before it actually happened (I guess he REALLY wanted it to happen), and you know how most of the time when you're traded, heh heh, friends and family will call you and say things like "Oh, man, that's too bad" or "Keep you're head up, dude"? Well, when Mo was traded, heh heh, no one did that to Mo, they were all calling and saying things like "Way to go" and "Congratulations man!".

Well, Mo, you "No-Defense-Playin'" sonofabitch... when Bucksnation heard that your lazy ass was out of here, heh heh, they were just as excited!! You know how, heh heh, when a good player is traded away from your team, fans will write things like "That sucks" or "I'm giving up my tickets"? Well, heh heh, when the Bucks traded you Bucksfans wrote on my blog things like "Good riddance, you piece of shit", and, "I'm glad we'll finally get some defense from the point guard position." Isn't that funny?

So enjoy your ride on LeBron's and Anderson's and Z's coattails, because the numbers say you haven't added shit to Cleveland, even though simpleton cause-and-effect artists claim you have. We're happy here in Milwaukee without you... in fact, I wish they had traded YOU to Toronto, not TJ Ford. Anyway, we're glad to be rid of your contract... and you!

Our Doubts are Stronger, Wade: TWC boxscore from Bucks vs. Heat

2008-12-15T22:05:00.006-06:00

The Bucks look like they are rolling.

There's a great clip from the Wide World of Sports with Howard Cosell from the 1960's where Muhammad Ali gets pissed at some chump he's going to fight for calling him "Clay". The guy persists in disrespecting the champ, so finally Ali just blurts out, "Mannnnn, I'm gonna punishhh youuuuu!!!!"

That's what it looked like the Bucks collectively said to the Heat at the tip last night... in their house no less!

Mannn, we gonna punishhh youuu!!

Nicely done, Bango! You needed a win like that desperately. Now the challenge is to keep things a' rockin. One and done does not get it done (to use some Ali style alliteration). Not in this man's Association.

Click Here to see my TWC boxscore from tonight's big win

Stars of the Game

1. Andrew Bogut (Again!)

2. Michael Redd (Welcome back, Kotter!)

3. Charlie Villanueva (Keep it goin', big fella!)

Notes

1. I wish Moute would have made the list because he deserved a "Welcome Back Kotter" award too, along with Mr. Redd ("back here where we need ya"). Both had nice return games.

2. Not to be Mr. Gloom in the middle of a decent run for the Green and Crimson (or Bucky Badger Red last night), but I'm starting to get disturbed by some slumping trends, both offensively and defensively, from the point guard spot. This is several games in a row the Sessions/Ridnour tandem has been dominated. Tonight by the exceptional (bucksdiary said he would be) rookie point guard Mario Chalmers. How the F did that guy make it to the second round when the replacement value for point guards is so high??

3. Defense, boys, that's whats getting it done for the Bucks and thats the foundation for the future. Its defense that shut Dwayne Wade down completely... total team defense.

4. That was my first look at Michael Beasley as a pro, and I see the problem. He plays power forward with a shooting guard's mentality. And, despite the fact that he has the length and strength, he does not have the bulk for the position, and I shall be wary of any prospect of that type in the future. Look at the guy's line from tonight... 13 points on only 5 of 11 shooting with one frickin rebound in 23 minutes. Michael Redd says those are secondary statistics to be embarrassed about, Beasley. Adam Morrison thinks you should try to rebound a bit more.

Hollinger has Bucks at 37 wins... and in the playoffs!

2008-12-15T16:42:00.003-06:00

I found another win expectation model, and its better news for the Bucks. Hollinger at ESPN.com has them winning 37 games and then sneaking into the 8th spot in the Eastern Conference, where I presume he has them getting destroyed by Prince James and the Cleveland Cavaliers.

I'm not 100% sold on his methodology however. For instance he has Cleveland as a prohibitive favorite to win the NBA Championship, with the Lakers third. I definitely think Cleveland is in the mix with Boston and Los Angeles for the title, but I don't think Cleveland is head and shoulders above the other two. Maybe Hollinger's trying to account for a tougher Western Conference playoff slate for the Lakers, but that was supposed to be the case last season and never materialized.

Coolstandings also has Bucks at 35.0 expected wins

2008-12-15T16:22:00.003-06:00

A couple of days ago I did a post that projected the Bucks, with their schedule and home/road neutralized, toward roughly 35 wins. I meant to check coolstandings.com, the only site I can think of that also does "expected wins" predictions for the NBA, to see how my numbers matched with theirs.

Coolstandings also has the Bucks projected exactly at 35.0 wins. I'm not entirely sure what their formula is, though. I think its proprietary. I think they use a Monte Carlo simulation, but I'm not sure.

I'm going to look for other estimated win projections to see what I can find.

Introducing new statistic called "Championship Percentage"

2008-12-15T15:09:00.004-06:00

I've been wrestling with how I can better express my basic economic argument against Michael Redd. Its not that I think he's a bad player. Its just that he doesn't justify the investment of resources we've made in him if our ultimate goal is a championship. I think I've come up with a way to express what I mean.

I call it a player's "Championship Percentage". Its based on the following. In order to win a championship, at least in the last 18 non-strike seasons, a team has had to average 58.8 wins. In terms of cumulative Total Win Contribution, that means you must post around +1.250 as a team.

Now, if a team fielded a squad of replacement level players, in other words, scrubs they could readily acquire at low or no cost, that team could expect to win about 21.4 games. The cumulative Total Win Contribution of a replacement level team is therefore -1.500. (And remember, the replacement costs at each position vary, with SG being the lowest, then SF, then PG, then PF, then C being the most expensive.)

To have a legitimate chance to win a championship, a team must therefore accumulate a squad of players whose Total Win Contribution is +1.750 above replacement level. Each player's contribution toward that goal is what I refer to as the player's "Championship Percentage". I would argue that a team should not sink maximum money into any player who has not shown the consistent ability to achieve a Championship Percentage of at least 15%.

This of course places a special burden on swingmen to justify their value, since their two positions, SG and SF, have the lowest replacement costs. Accordingly, I would only sink maximum money into elite swingmen, not merely above average swingmen like Michael Redd. Those contracts tie down too many of a team's valuable dollars, and lead a team down the road to mediocrity.

For example, since signing his maximum dollar contract several seasons ago, Michael Redd's "TWCar" (Total Win Contribution above Replacement) has never exceeded +0.286 and has been as low as +0.126. Thus, his "Championship Percentage" has never exceeded 10.4% and has been as low as 9.8%.

By contrast, swingman Kobe Bryant last season posted a TWCar of +0.752, which represents a Championship Percentage of 27.3%. So he's clearly worth the money. So is small forward LeBron James, who last season posted a TWCar of +0.789 for an even higher Championship Percentage of 28.6%.

Besides telling a team how to invest their money, "Championship Percentage" can also tell them how to construct their roster, and how much of a "supporting cast" their best player requires to get them to a championship. For instance, I estimate that in 1971 Kareem Abdul Jabbar had a TWCar of roughly +1.671 for a Championship Percentage of 60.7%, so he didn't need much. Oscar and Bobby D were plenty. And in many of Wilt Chamberlain's best seasons, he had Championship Percentages of nearly the same (he just had a bunch of mince meat surrounding him) so it was unfair to compare he and Russell solely on the basis of championships.

I'll flesh this statistic out a bit more in future posts. With the Bucks off tomorrow night, I intend to do a complete statistical comparison of Michael Redd and Ray Allen since the infamous Allen-for-Payton trade for Wednesday. It should be interesting.

Huge night for Bogut and Villanueva; TWC boxscore Pacers vs. Bucks

2008-12-14T12:40:00.004-06:00

Andrew Bogut must have been licking his chops when he found out the Pacers were starting rookie C Roy Hibbert instead of veteran reserve Jeff Foster. Hibbert is struggling big time in his first professional season whereas Foster has been very productive and very underrated throughout his career.

Click Here to view my TWC boxscore for the Pacers vs. the Bucks

Bogut cashed it in, too. Bogut had perhaps his biggest night as a professional (I don't know for sure). His Marginal Win Score was a whopping +10.4, and his Total Win Contribution to the Bucks was a Kareem-like +1.776. Charlie Villanueva also had a large night, posting a Marginal Win Score of +5.5, and a TWC of +0.836.

In fact, the only Bucks that had "red" (ie, "below average") nights were Luke Ridnour (only slightly outplayed by TJ Ford) and, of course, Charlie Bell. Bell announced his return to the rotation with his typical rotten game, producing a Win Score of -3.5 in only 14 minutes of action. Otherwise the Bucks absolutely destroyed the Indiana Pacers in every way.

Special mention should also go to Austin Croshere who had his best night as a Milwaukee Buck, taking 3 shots in 7 minutes and turning them into 7 points while grabbing 2 rebounds. Very efficient and productive per minute game for Croshere.

Correction: I said only Ridnour and Bell had below average games. In fact F Luc Moute also had another poor game. He's strung together several bad performances now, so I'm starting to become concerned.

Log 5 says Bucks home win probability vs. Indiana Pacers is 81%

2008-12-13T16:18:00.004-06:00

Basketball.reference.com has the Bucks win probability for tonight's game against the Indiana Pacers at 55%. I think they're way off. They don't explain their methodology, so I can't tell you specifically where they went wrong, but I think they're off by about 26 percentage points.

Here's how I figured that. I took each team's expected winning percentage based upon their home (Bucks) and road (Pacers) efficiency differentials and punched those numbers into Bill James "Log 5" one game winning percentage formula.

The outcome I got was: Milwaukee Bucks (81%) - Indiana Pacers (19%).

Basketball-reference must not properly adjust for home/road because the Pacers expected road winning percentage currently stands at .227, so I don't know how one can say they have a 45% probability of winning in Milwaukee. Maybe they're using some sort of "Milwaukee Yucks" escalator.

Losing Lucius probably DID cost the Bucks a second World Championship

2008-12-13T14:12:00.005-06:00

In my spare time, I'm working on an historical abstract for the Milwaukee Bucks franchise, using the sabermetric formulas I use on this blog to determine how many wins each Buck produced for the franchise, what each Buck's Total Win Contribution was each season, etc. (I'll explain in another post how I've overcome the lack of defensive information and other statistical deficiencies of the early Bucks years. Basically it involves using the known information to estimate the unknown... inductive reasoning I guess).

I eventually want to use the resulting abstract to write a magnum opus on the franchise's 40 plus seasons patterned after this book. If I do, I'm sure it will absolutely rock the NYT bestseller list (I think the highest selling Bucks specific book on Amazon is like 3,000,000 something).

Anyway, I'm up to the 1973-74 season, the year the Bucks won the Western Conference Championship and sniffed their last golden basketball, only to be upset by a Boston Celtic team with a vastly inferior efficiency differential. Because of that differential, it could be argued that the Celtics 1974 championship was the biggest upset in modern NBA Finals history. But my Win Profile of the 73-74 team explains the loss and explains why, given the circumstances at the time the Finals was played, it probably wasn't that much of an upset at all. (note: The explanation will be familiar to Bucks fans of the era.)

Click Here to see my Win Profile of the 1973-74 Western Conference Champion Milwaukee Bucks

72 games into the '73-'74 season the team lost point guard Lucius Allen to a devastating knee injury. Many Bucks fans from back then have told me that loss cost the team the '74 title. They were probably right.

Lucius Allen was the second best player on the '73-'74 Bucks. I estimate his regular season Win Contribution at +0.241. If you take Allen off the team and give his regular season minutes entirely to backup Ron Williams, that's a Total Win Contribution loss of -0.301. That's not a devastating dropoff, but it is one that suddenly levels the Bucks with the Eastern Champion Boston Celtics (the Bucks team TWC drops to +1.203 from +1.504; the Celtics team TWC for the 73-74 season was +1.190). And that's basically what we saw in the Finals... a dead even series that the Celtics won in 7 games. To illustrate just how razor close the series was, two of the seven games went into overtime (including the greatest game in Bucks history... Game 6... which went into double OT) and the visiting team won 4 of the seven, including the final two.

It should be noted that the great Oscar Robertson did his best to help fill in at the point when Allen went down, but injuries and the physical demands of an old school career had basically sapped him of his once legendary point guard skills. The iconic highlight from the 1974 Finals showed that clearly. In the footage Oscar loses the ball and looks glacial attempting to recover it whilst a young speedy Dave Cowens dives on the floor to make the steal (and quite obviously travel... he skidded about 20 frickin' feet!! BTW, its the second clip on the linked video).

Note: My historical abstract uses completely different methods and completely different assumptions for distributing wins among players than the methods and assumptions behind basketball-reference's "Win Shares" metric. Nevertheless, if you scroll down this page to the "Advanced" column and compare the results they got with the results I got in my above linked Win Profile, the similarities are amazing -- especially given the statistical shortcomings. I think it means my methodology is solid. As I said, I will go into greater detail about that methodology sometime in the future. I'll also post my results season-by-season.

Second Note: You can watch highlights from Game 7 of that historic Finals... played at the Milwaukee Arena... right here. If you do, please note the sweet, sweet, barbershop pole 70's tearaways the Milwaukee Bucks warmed up in.

Here is the Bucks "true" winning percentage

2008-12-13T00:40:00.006-06:00

Before I start this post, let me clarify a misconception about me. I think alot of you have an impression of me as a stat head or stat nut obsessed with a calculator. In fact, until I read Moneyball by Michael Lewis, statistics were anathema to me, and like most redblooded Americans I did all I could to avoid mathematics whenever I could (which is probably why we are on the brink of losing our entire manufacturing base in this country).

If you want to draw a picture of me, think of me as sort of an iconoclast, the one asshole in the room who will stand up and argue that the sky, in fact, isn't blue... it just appears to be blue. I'm that kind of prick. And that's sort of what draws me to statistics. Nothing exposes lamebrained conventional wisdom better than statistics (or historical precedent... but each must be applied logically or they themselves are bullshit). And there is no greater force for bullshit nonsense on this planet at this moment than the worldwide monopolist, ESPN... and thus bullshit pervades the sportsworld and our beloved NBA.

Here's a quick example of my last point. Yesterday on ESPN I heard Skip Bayless argue that the New Orleans Hornets were just now "rounding into shape". He explained their "slow start" (note: he picked them to win the Western Conference, so therefore he considered their 12-7 record a "slow" start) by stating, without proof, that the Hornets believed they could just "show up and win" and that they were playing poorly because they were not used to being "the hunted".

Okay, can you recognize the utter LAMEBRAINED BULLSHIT he shoveled into those two meaningless statements? Let's dissect. He says the Hornets just thought they were gonna show up and they would win. What team in the history of history has ever thought that? And what's his evidence for that statement? He has none. Next. He claims the Hornets were not used to being the hunted. I confess: I have never understood what the hell the "hunter/hunted" analogy even means. Does one team purport to be licensed while the other isn't? I've never understood that one. Two complete bullshit statements being passed off as "expert opinion". That's ESPN in a nutshell.

Sure, on this blog from time to time I will spit out emotionally driven literary diarrhea... bullshit just disguised as my opinion. And as you've noticed I'm not too keen on peripheral details (who's ACTUALLY on a roster, how a player's name is spelled, etc). But by and large what I like to do is ask questions and then find the evidence needed to answer those questions. The little mistakes I count on the readers to catch. I try to focus on the larger questions. And in basketball most all of the solid evidence you need to answer any question you have is contained in numbers. There's no other way to keep track of the game's important events. So, writing a basketball blog, I've become comfortable working with numbers. But I'm not a stathead by nature and I have no formal statistical background. Whatever knowledge I have of the processes I've picked up through reading... which is the best way anyway. On with the show.

The Bucks "true" winning percentage

The Bucks schedule to begin this season has been brutal. Not only have they faced stiff competition, they have done so by and large on the road. And the two sports with the strongest home advantage are the indoor sports of hockey and basketball. So it stands to reason the Bucks may be better than their record indicates. The question is, "How much better"?

To find out, I calculated the efficiency differentials for every team the Bucks faced according to venue (home or away). I then flipped the numbers over (so that the Bucks opponents defensive numbers would be in the Bucks offensive column and vice versa). Then I took the resulting averages and ran them through the "expected winning percentage" formula I mentioned in the last post.

It turns out that if the Bucks were an average NBA team (a team headed for a 41-41 record), they would have won 10.5 of their first 24 games. So the Bucks, at 9-15, are about 1.5 games below average.

Now lets adjust their winning percentage to reflect that. If the Bucks were headed for a .500 season then given their schedule they should have a 0.437 winning percentage at the moment. The Bucks actual winning percentage is 0.375. Adjust that by .062 (theorizing that 0.437 is the team's actual "0.500 level" given their schedule) and you come up with a "true" winning percentage for your Milwaukee Bucks... fully adjusted for strength of schedule and road bias... of 0.438.

As such, I would argue that the Bucks adjusted winning percentage suggests they are headed for about a 35 win season, which is what most all of our models are saying at the moment. That's an improvement I would accept as satisfactory.

But I guess they would still be classified as hunters, but maybe one day they'll be lucky enough to qualify as the "hunted". Of course if that happens they better do more than just show up and expect to win.

Bucks road trip not THAT horrible

2008-12-13T00:11:00.003-06:00

I heard Dennis Krause describe the Bucks recent 0 for 3 West Coast road trip as a "disaster". You know me, I don't respect statements, I respect proof... so I decided to put DK's assertion to the test.

I'm currently reading a fabulous book called Baseball Between the Numbers written by the authors of the website baseballprospectus.com. Great book. The chapter exposing how the promises made by those who push for publicly funded stadiums are empty shams had me screaming "Amen" at every other sentence (I have to do a post on that subject someday soon).

But for the purposes of the instant post, the book contains the famous "Log 5" formula somehow created by Bill James in his spare time back in the early 80s to determine the likelihood that Team A would defeat Team B given each team's winning percentages. I won't bore you with it here, its long... but its a little slice of genius. And I applied it to the Milwaukee Bucks and their opponents on their recent road trip to determine how likely it was that the Bucks would lose all 3 games on the trip in the manner that they did. It turns out the chances of that happening were better than a toss-up, which makes the trip a little less than a disaster.

To be specific, the odds of the Bucks losing all 3 road games in succession to the Lakers, the Suns, and the Warriors was 52%. Here's how I came up with that figure.

The Lakers "pure" home winning percentage (meaning their winning percentage as derived from running the team's home efficiency differential through this expected winning percentage formula) . Then I did the same for the Suns and Warriors. Then I used the same method to calculate the Bucks "pure" road winning percentage. Then I plugged all those numbers into Bill James formula. Here's what I came up with.

The probability that the Bucks would beat the Lakers in LA was 6.2%, the probability that the Bucks would beat the Suns in Pheonix was 27%, and the odds that the Bucks would beat the Warriors in Oakland was 23.5%. (Note: I thought the Warriors game was the "gettable" game of the bunch... turns out it was the Suns game. The Suns are a mediocre home team.).

So, in order to figure the likelihood that the Bucks would lose all three, I simply multiplied together the seperate likelihoods that the Bucks would lose each. Thus the formula was .935 x .765 x .730... which equals about 0.522. So, the Bucks had a slightly better than even shot at losing all three.

Thus, while the road trip was disappointing, I don't think I would refer to it as a "disaster".

What do I mean by Redd's replacement value?

2008-12-11T23:48:00.008-06:00

I got a couple of emails asking what I meant when I wrote yesterday that Andrew Bogut was more valuable than Michael Redd because he had a higher "replacement value" than Redd did. Let me expound.

The concept of "replacement value" is the creation (as far as I know) of the writers at Baseballprospectus.com. They created it to determine the relative value of each baseball player at each position by comparing each player to a "readily available player" at the same position who could be acquired "at little or no cost" to the player's team.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to apply the same concept to value professional basketball players. So using my own "win profile" statistics, I established"replacement costs" for each of the 5 traditional basketball positions. Here, in brief, is how I did it.

Basically, I followed the cookbook recipe set out by baseballprospectus with a few adjustments. Since baseball and basketball differ in their basic substitution patterns, I could not simply take a survey of all basketball reserves as the baseball writers did when they determined the replacement value of baseball's position players. I had to take an approach closer to the approach the baseball writers used to value bullpen relievers, meaning I had to gauge "readily available" according to some minimal use standard.

So I arbitrarily picked 14 minutes of playing time per game at the high end of my definition of a "readily available" player, and I required the player to have played at least one percent of his team's total player minutes as my low end. My rationale was that if a player is used less than 14 minutes a game he's probably not in his team's "regular rotation" and therefore he can be acquired by any other interested team at, probably, little cost to that team (with exceptions, obviously, for special cases such as "projects" and others), and I wanted him to have played at least 1% of his team's overall minutes to avoid sample size distortions (Joe Useless comes in for 3 minutes at garbage time, plays like Wilt Chamberlain and is never heard from again).

Finally, I only wanted to measure the production of players who would be considered suitable by most NBA team's to man the given position. So I required that each played I measured played at least 30% of his minutes at the given position.

With all that done, I came up with the following replacement costs for each position (expressed in terms of "Marginal Win Score per 48 minutes"):

PG: -1.4

SG: -0.9

SF: -1.0

PF: -1.6

C: -2.6

Those numbers are about as you would figure, given the physical and skill demands of each of the respective positions. After all, centers and power forwards have certain physical requirements that necessarily limit their pools of talent, whereas point guard has certain skill requirements that limit its.

And as you can see, the two main positions manned by Michael Redd (SG/SF) can be replaced at the lowest cost to the Milwaukee Bucks. Therefore, there is a higher burden upon him than there is upon, say, Andrew Bogut, to deliver above a certain premium in order to justify his labor cost.

Fantasy owners understand this concept well. If you can replace a certain position easily, you will be less willing to expend resources on that position. Instead you will marshal your resources and spend them where the talent is most scarce.

So even though Michael Redd generally delivers a slightly better Win Contribution each season than Andrew Bogut, Bogut is still the far more valuable commodity, because the difference between Bogut and "some random center" is far greater than the difference between Redd and "some random swingman".

This is why I would argue that Redd ought to be shopped. Not only is he not worth what we are paying for him in absolute terms (the market value of a win in the NBA last season was about 1.6 million. Thus Redd owed the Bucks 9.1 wins, but he delivered only 5.5 -- if you except my numbers), he is not worth what we are paying him in relative terms... we could replace him with Mr. Scrub and not be that much worse for wear (indeed, the team's trajectory was not that much worse with below replacement level Charlie Bell than it has been with Redd).

The Hidden Game of Basketball: TWC boxscore from Bucks v Warriors

2008-12-11T12:53:00.003-06:00

Last year I went to a Minnesota Timberwolves game and walked away thinking Sebastian Telfair was a sweet point guard. In fact he was one of the costliest players in the Association.

Last night I went to bed thinking Michael Redd's godawful collection of scoop shots were what killed the Milwaukee Bucks. In fact... and I kind of knew this... it was Andrew Bogut's unwillingness to make any attempt to box out Andres Biedrens -- or to defend him properly -- that really cost the Bucks.

Redd actually had the best game of any Milwaukee Buck last night. He and Richard Jefferson were the only two players who made a positive difference. The rest of the team was in the red.

There is no other sport where the winning ingredients are so difficult to discern as basketball... at least in my opinion. And yet, ironically, there is a book titled The Hidden Game of Baseball and a book titled The Hidden Game of Football, but no book titled "The Hidden Game of Basketball". Go figure.

Click Here to see my TWC boxscore from Bucks at Warriors

Notes

1. Redd was slightly aided, though, by playing against one of the least efficient players in the Association -- former New York Knickerbocker Jamal Crawford.

2. Does anyone else notice that Joe Alexander looks and moves like a younger Austin Croshere and Austin Croshere now looks and moves like a vintage Randy Breuer? I just noticed that last night.

3. Luc Moute is continuing to fade. He is still a solid defender, but he has to find some semblance of an offensive game. Just some move or some shot he can rely on.

4. Sessions has been up and down as well... I guess that's the perils of playing younger players.

5. Charlie V once again had a big night rebounding the basketball, but a terrible night with his offensive efficiency. He turned it over too much and he shot just 27% from the floor.

6. Why does the Bucks television network include blocked shots on their "Hustle Board"? Speaking from my own experience, most of the time when I'm blocking shots its because I'm playing lazy man defense, not because I'm hustling...

Is it time for the Bucks to wash their hands of Mr. Redd?

2008-12-11T10:21:00.004-06:00

Maybe this is just a frustrated Bucks fan thinking out loud, and I invite criticism and beratement from all quarters, but watching last night's game, I just couldn't help thinking "I've seen one too many of Michael Redd's nonsense shots... just what is this maximum dollar guy bringing to the party?" I'm starting to think its time for him to move on.

Now, last season I said the Bucks ought to shop Andrew Bogut, and I was dead wrong. I did not take into account replacement value. But in Redd's case I have. Yeah, he's a decent player, but where's the bang for the buck? He plays at the most readily replaceable position, and frankly... HE AINT KOBE BRYANT!

I just think, watching the team without him and now watching it with him, there's no discernible difference. Either way, they're about a 34 win unit (provided you replace Redd with Sessions and not Bell). I say save the money, look to the future, and toodaloo Mr. Redd.

Of course, that may just be the hangover talking. And I don't mean booze hangover. I'm talking about the hangover I got from watching the Bucks get blown away in the fourth quarter by an absolute carnival outfit like the Golden State Warriors and watching them get clowned by an absolute carny player like that f'ing Bernelli or whatever the f his foreign name is!! (Why didn't someone put him on his f'ing ass at least once!! I would have dropped him after his first hot dog stunt!)

I'll have a TWC Boxscore in a bit.

Skeets cracks me up

2008-12-10T13:58:00.004-06:00

Sometimes the NBA Blogosphere is simply brilliant. If you didn't see JE Skeets of Yahoo Sports take on the bizarre crying episode by Baby Davis, check it out. (Had no one ever criticized him before in his playing career? What the hell was he crying for? Get him on some Prozac!)

The best part of the post, though, is below the clip where Jeff Clark of the outstanding Celticsblog predicts (rightfully, I would say) that the two involved parties -- Davis and KG -- will eventually hug it out Ari Gold style and basically let bygones be bygones (although the Celtics better make sure they use Socker Boppers rather than regulation size boxing gloves in any future dealings with Baby Davis... he's thin skinned).

Anyway, the part that almost made me wet my pants laughing was JE Skeets reply to that where he said "... but I'm still holding out hope they'll fight after school down by the cemetery." Awesome! Perfect description of the level of nonsense. Plus, replace "down by the cemetery" with "behind Hansen's Dairy" and he basically described about a quarter of my high school existence. Brilliant stuff.

Total Eclipse of the Yucks: TWC Boxscore for Bucks vs. Suns

2008-12-10T12:59:00.003-06:00

At points last night, the Bucks seemed to be in the game, but that was mostly a mirage. The team was thoroughly outplayed at several positions and never really had a decent "window" for victory. In other words, the Bucks were playing "uphill" all night.

Click Here to see my TWC Boxscore for the Bucks vs. the Suns

Notes

1. There were only 3 "black" games turned in by the Bucks, and only 2 legitimate ones: Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva (I discount, generally, the results produced by a player who plays less than 1.5% of the total playing minutes... thus Tyronn Lue's black game is less than legitimate). Both Bogut and Villanueva were excellent against stiff competition (combined TWC: +1.253). Their slew of replacements at the 4 and 5 (Moute, Elson, Gadzuric, and Croshere) were less than awful (combined TWC: -1.597).

2. The one constraint upon the "Win Score" metric is available statistics. I think of this every time I watch Steve Nash play. There ought to be what I refer to as "Plus Statistics". By that I mean, the stats keepers ought to distinguish between an ordinary assist and an assist that only Steve Nash could make... assists that are mainly created by his keen passing. The same is true of rebounding, scoring, shot blocking, steals... there are ordinary statistics and then there are extraordinary statistics. I think at some point we have to distinguish between the two and then run more regression models to determine the precise impact "Plus" players have on the game. But at this stage, that's just a thought bubble in my head. (It would really help at the collegiate scouting level as well. It would allow teams to discount artificially inflated production numbers and through that process derive better predictive models for professional production).

3. Tonight's game against Golden State is the one the team should have been targeting all along. Its a winnable game, and they must win it. The odds of them beating Los Angeles or Phoenix on the road were quite long, but Golden State, home or away, is a beatable team for the Bucks.

Ooops... I'm either clairvoyant or really stupid (probably the latter)

2008-12-09T17:28:00.005-06:00

Uhhh, I know I make some really nice mistakes on this blog, but a couple of days ago I made my all time best. Apparently I was commenting as though Antonio McDyess had already rejoined the Pistons, when in fact he just rejoined them today!

Here's my extremely flimsy defense: I thought I read somewhere that he had returned to the team. Seriously...

Anyway, I usually own my factual mistakes, but not that one. I completely edited the comment out of my Pistons post. Its a question of credibility... of which I have very little and would have had none if I left that nonsense up there.

Besides, the basic analysis of the Pistons decline still stands. Although apparently Antonio McDyess was playing very poorly well before the trade ever happened. Which makes Joe Dumars look slightly better for having traded him... then again he just resigned McDyess knowing how badly his play had declined, so go figure.

From now on I'm going to scrutinize my commentary as thoroughly as I do my math.

Bucks are improving: Updated Comprehensive Milwaukee Bucks statistical review

2008-12-09T10:51:00.004-06:00

Despite the beat down in Los Angeles on Sunday night, the Bucks have improved in the last seven days.

Click Here to see my updated Comprehensive Milwaukee Bucks statistical review

Notes from the Updated Review

1. As you can see, "Total Win Contribution" is a more accurate forecaster of Wins Produced than "Wins Above Average"... that's because I use a quick and dirty method to calculate approximate Wins Above Average, but use the full mathematical formula to calculate wins produced based on TWC.

2. The Bucks have shown the value of the old cliche "addition by subtraction". Simply sitting Charlie Bell and replacing his minutes with minutes for Michael Redd improved the team's fortunes, even though Michael Redd's play since returning has dipped severely. That's obviously because Bell's play was so atrocious, all Redd had to do was produce average level play to constitute a huge improvement. Error Message: Actually, that is not true yet! If you look at the change in TWC over the last seven days, the depreciation in Michael Redd's play has so far precisely negated any "improvement by subtraction" dividend the team should get by sitting Charlie Bell. But, if Redd can stabilize, that will change.

3. Dan Gadzuric's improved play has also helped the team. In my last review, his play was below replacement level. It is now above replacement level.

4. Andrew Bogut's play is regressing back toward his career numbers, as I guess I secretly feared it might. Hopefully, though, he can level off right where he's at.

5. On the other hand, Joe Alexander's play has improved, although it still languishes below replacement level... but not quite as far below, which is good.

6. RJ's play has gotten back to average, which -- if you take a look at my seven day comparative column -- provided a huge boost to the Milwaukee Bucks. Remember, +0.000 represents average, and average player's are actually pretty good. Just remember what we had last season at the 3 and I think you'd agree with that statement.

7. If you notice, at the moment the team's most valuable player is Ramon Sessions, and he doesn't even start.

Where the Bucks offense is deficient

2008-12-08T15:43:00.004-06:00

If you watched the Bucks loss to the Lakers last night, it was like a microcosm of their season. Pretty tough defense, but that defense was backed up by an absolute James A. Naismith inspired "Peach Basket" YMCA offense. As a result the Bucks were blown out so badly I didn't even bother with a TWC boxscore because most of the second half was a farce. The Bucks ultimately scored 92 points and lost by 13 points, but for most of the revelant points in the contest they were headed for 64.1 points and a loss in the range of 22-34 points. So a TWC boxscore would have been deceptive.

The larger question which I do want to take up is where is the deficient Bucks offense most deficient? If you break down NBA.com's 14 hotzones, and then compare the NBA average in each zone to the Bucks average in each zone, and then break that down further into point per attempt differential, here is how the Bucks compare to the NBA, using zone number designations, as I do here:

Zone 1: -o.o68 pts per attempt

Zone 2: -0.124 pts per attempt

Zone 3: +0.184 pts per attempt

Zone 4: -0.070 pts per attempt

Zone 5: +0.008 pts per attempt

Zone 6: -0.120 pts per attempt

Zone 7: +0.110 pts per attempt

Zone 8: +0.128 pts per attempt

Zone 9: -0.208 pts per attempt

Zone 10 (3pts): +0.456 pts per attempt

Zone 11 (3pts): -0.015 pts per attempt

Zone 12 (3pts): +0.228 pts per attempt

Zone 13 (3pts): -0.186 pts per attempt

Zone 14 (3pts): +0.000 pts per attempt

FTAs: -0.003 per attempt

From the data, it appears the Bucks maximum point values come behind the three point line on the left wing, and in the middle (except not right at point blank range... which may speak to the lack of athleticism of their big men). Specifically, the Bucks offense thrives on looks in the middle of the court, and generally suffers when they get looks on the right side of the court. The Bucks worst percentage zone at the moment is just inside the 3 point arc on the right wing.

A corollary to my last post: Is "Hack-a-Shaq" a smart strategy?

2008-12-08T14:52:00.007-06:00

One last point I forgot to make in my last post. If you accept the numbers as given, and you take the NBA free throw average of approximately 0.767, then it follows that the defense is rarely helped by committing shooting fouls.

Shooting fouls afford the offendee two free throws, which have a combined point value on average of roughly 1.53 points. The lone exception to that rule would be if the alternative were an uncontested dunk or layup, which would be worth about 1.91 and 1.73 points per attempt, respectively. In either of those cases you're better off fouling. (But the old basketball saw is correct: never, never, never foul a jump shooter!)

Now, an interesting question raised by the numbers is whether "Hack-a-Shaq" is actually a sound strategy. I guess it depends.

On the one hand, you could argue that the point value to Shaq's team when you deliberately hack Shaq is 1.05 points -- that's based on Shaq's career free throw average of .525 -- and that represents more value than a shot attempt would from 10 of NBA.com's 14 hotspots. From that perspective it seems like a bad strategy.

On the other hand, you could argue that the NBA average points per possession stands at 1.06, and therefore it represents a slightly decent strategy.

But not this season. Shaq is hitting a robust 0.574 from the line, thus making the "Hack-a-Shaq" stupid, because its less valuable to Hack Shaq (1.14 points) than it is to just let Phoenix have their normal possession (1.08 points).

The Value of a Shot Attempt from each of the NBA's 14 "Hotspots"

2008-12-08T13:56:00.003-06:00

A few weeks ago I did a post extolling Coach Scott Skiles "Umbrella" defense. By that I meant, his defensive emphasis on choking off three pointers and trying to minimize uncontested lay-ups. At the time I was just roughly speculating about the numerical value of such an approach, now I have the numbers to back me up.

I discovered a couple of days ago that the NBA keeps a nifty little stat page that tracks every team's shooting percentages from 14 different "Hotspots". While I would prefer the Association broke their numbers down to even tighter "hotspots", and also discriminated between contested and uncontested attempts, the hotspot information proved valuable nonetheless.

I used the information to calculate the Association-wide shooting percentage from each of the 14 hotspots. Now, before I show you my findings, I must warn you that you are about to witness kindergarten level art work... but it gets the point across nonetheless.

Click Here to view the NBA FG%s from each of the 14 NBA.com "Hotspots"

Okay, so you can see that, obviously the highest percentage shots are those in the lane and from around the free throw line. But what shots carry the highest value?

Click Here to view the "Value per attempt" from each of the 14 NBA.com "Hotspots"

As you can see, the value per attempt of a corner "wing" 3 point shot is actually higher than the value of a point blank shot in the lane! Thus, teams that "overreact" to penetration, such as the last two editions of the Milwaukee Bucks did, pay a heavy penalty, because they leave their wing 3s wide open.

The correct strategy is to contest the interior, but only with your bigs. Have the wings stay put on 3 point shooters, even if it means allowing a penetrator.

Beyond that, the obvious strategy would be to force shots in "No Man's Land" as I call it... the area outside the lane but inside the three point area. Those shots carry by far the lowest point per attempt total on the floor.

I'm not certain why, but it seems as though the worst area to shoot from is the two "near wings" of No Man's Land... in other words Zones 2 and 4, the ones just removed from the lane. I have two theories about why these are the lowest value shots.

One is that perhaps shots from those zones are more apt to be contested, and thus their lower points per attempt are not really reflective of inherently more difficult shots. But then how do you account for the higher points per attempt you get from Zone 3 shots? Those ought to be just as contested as the shots taken in Zones 2 and 4.

I have an alternate theory based on my own experiences. Those are simply harder shots. Unless you are adept at using the glass, you have to take something off your release (or, in basketball vernacular, apply "touch" to your shot) and its not the easiest thing in the world to do.

But those are just two theories. By and large, the point of this post is that a modern defense must play a sort of "Umbrella Defense" or "Apple Defense"... a defense that is hard on the very exterior and at the core, but perhaps soft in between those points. Its just what the modern rules of NBA basketball dictate.

Want a laugh? Here's the Bucks generic Win Probability vs. the Lakers

2008-12-07T19:05:00.005-06:00

I knew the Bucks were playing tonight but I forgot whom. I looked on NBA.com and saw they faced the Lakers in Los Angeles. I mentally computed a loss, but then I thought... what are the exact odds that a loss will occur?

Using the Bucks road efficiency numbers and the Lakers home efficiency numbers, and then running them through Professor Berri's winning percentage metric, I computed the Bucks road winning percentage being .370 and the Lakers home winning percentage being .920.

Thus, if you multiply the likelihood that the Bucks will win by the likelihood that the Lakers will lose divided by the likelihood that the Bucks will win (the so-called "multiplication rule"), you come up with a generic win probability for your Milwaukee Bucks. That would be 7.9% for those scoring at home.

I call it a "generic" Win Probability because I didn't adjust for strength of schedule (which I normally do using "Point Value over Average", but those who followed my abortive "NBA Advanced Power Ranking" blog will know I have fallen way behind on my numbers... its hard keeping up with all those calculations). BTW, basketball-reference.com sets the Bucks Win Probability at a somewhat brighter 11%.

Explaining numerically the decline of the Detroit Pistons

2008-12-07T16:48:00.007-06:00

The Detroit Pistons traded Chauncey Billups and Antonio McDyess to the Denver Nuggets for Allen Iverson. Since then they have gone from a championship contender to a mediocre team. Indeed, they just lost to the woeful New York Knickerbockers.

I crunched the numbers to discover how much of the decline can be attributed specifically to that trade, and it appears as though it can be almost entirely attributed to the trade.

Click Here to see a Total Win Contribution comparison between this season's Pistons and last season's Pistons

Notes

1. If you add up the difference in TWC made by the three principals in the trade, it totals -0.773. The overall decline of the Pistons this season totals -0.887. So the trade explains most of the decline. And if you add in the additional playing time afforded to PG/SG Rodney Stuckey and the consequent increase in his negative TWC (which amounts to about -0.077) as well as the point guard minutes given to Will Bynum (-0.012)... well there it is -- just about -- in a nutshell.

2. EDITED OUT

3. With all that said, there are good things to point at for Pistons fans. Aaron Afflalo, for one, seems like a comer. And Jason Maxiell is improving season by season. To maximize Maxiell's potential, however, I would suggest playing him more at the center position. At center, his MWS/48 is +3.0. At power forward, the position he plays about 62% of the time, his MWS/48 is a bit below average at -0.8. Of course, Rasheed Wallace also performs better at the center position, so that provides a lineup dilemma.

4. As a further indictment of the generalmanagership of Joe Dumars, I don't think it was wise for him to tie up money in Richard Hamilton, as he recently did. For one thing, Hamilton's minutes take minutes away from the more productive and younger Afflalo. For another thing, Hamilton's production has, historically, been about average, and when you consider his main positions are the two positions with the lowest replacement costs in basketball, his relative value to the Pistons declines even further. As the Bucks have found out with Michael Redd, you don't really want to tie alot of money down at the SG/SF position unless the fellow signs the contract "Kobe Bean Bryant".

The Skiles Effect... proven through number crunching

2008-12-07T11:47:00.008-06:00

By my calculations, the Bucks defense last season produced a measly 23.4 half wins, and the offense produced a slightly better 26.8 half wins, for a grand total of 25.1 wins produced (the team actually finished with 26 wins).

Thus far this season, the offense has (incredibly) gotten worse, while the defense has improved immensely.

The NBA average Team Win Score per 48 minutes currently stands at 41.2. The Milwaukee Bucks average Team Win Score per 48 minutes is 33.6. Per player that averages to -1.52. If one does not consider defense or "Opponent Win Score", the Bucks ought to have 2.6 wins and 18.4 losses, and ought to be headed toward a season record of 20.1 wins and 61.9 losses. Obviously, that is not the case.

As I have argued in the past, you must consider the other half of the court, the defensive end, to get a complete picture. By my reckoning, defense ought to count for "half" of the team's overall win total (hence the "half win" construct). And it seems to work out.

The Milwaukee Bucks average Opponent Win Score per 48 stands at 38.9, which works out to +0.46 per court player. This represents an immense improvement... of almost shocking proportions... over last season and the season's before that. And its the sole reason the Bucks are not completely underwater already this season.

Last season the Bucks defense created, as I stated earlier, 23.4 half wins, which obviously works out to only 11.7 wins over the course of the entire season. By contrast, the Bucks defense this season can already be credited with more than half that total... 6.1 wins (the offense has produced, as I wrote above, 2.6 wins, for a total of 8.7 wins produced).

The defense is on course to produce roundabout 47.8 half wins, or 23.9 wins... more than double the defensive wins produced last season. Stunning. But it was what I rather optimistically predicted would happen... based upon historical precedent... when the Bucks wisely hired Coach Skiles.

Unfortunately, the offense is obviously worse than last season, which has thus far dragged down the team's win trajectory. The team's current win trajectory stands at 33.9 wins +/- 2.5 wins. Thus I can say with 95% certainty the team will win between 31.4 and 36.4 games if its Team and Opponent Win Score averages remain where they are.

By contrast, if the team were merely operating at last season's poor offensive efficiency, the team's win trajectory would be headed toward 37.3 wins, +/- 2.8 wins. That means they would be headed with 95% certainty to a record of somewhere between 34.5 and 40.1 wins. In that case, my prediction of +11 wins, made in the above linked June 27 post, would have been spot on.

I guess the point is, the Skiles Effect is stunningly real... but we need the offense to get clicking if we are to get to the playoffs.

RJ leads the way: Bucks TWC boxscore vs. Bobcats

2008-12-05T23:24:00.003-06:00

I don't have much time to comment on tonight's win, other than to say its another example of the Bucks winning a game they had to win. You simply cannot lose to a team like the Bobcats at home if you want to be taken seriously. And to their credit, the Bucks didn't. They didn't play as well as I would have liked, but they didn't lose.

Click Here to see my TWC boxscore from Bucks vs. Bobcats

Stars of the Game:

1. Richard Jefferson

2. Andrew Bogut

3. JOE ALEXANDER!!

Notes on the game

1. Since the Bucks have been struggling all year with offensive efficiency, I am now tracking each player's personal offensive efficiency numbers in the TWC boxscore.

2. The only position that kept the Bobcats competitive was the point guard spot. DJ Augustin, the rookie, had an excellent game.

3. Luc Moute is starting to get lost. He had another bad game, and he only got limited playing time for about the third or fourth game in a row.

4. Charlie V could not follow up his excellent Bulls game with an above average Bobcats game. Once again, his effort was alright -- he had 6 rebounds in only 19 minutes of action -- but his offensive efficiency was poor. Tonight it wasn't missed shots, it was his other bugaboo -- too many turnovers. Charlie used 9 possessions in the game, and 3 of those possessions resulted in turnovers. That's way too many. Way too many.

5. On the other hand, Dan Gadzuric and Malik Allen each followed up good Bulls games with good Bobcat games. Very encouraging.

6. I'll bet the public impression is that Michael Redd has been responsible for the past two wins. That's simply not the case, although he played an above average game and therefore contributed to the win tonight.

7. I think that was the first above average game I ever scored for Joe Alexander. He and Jefferson... well, mainly Jefferson... dominated the Bobcats small forward trio of Jason Richardson, Gerald Wallace, and El Busto Adam Morrison.

Lakers regressing toward the mean

2008-12-05T11:27:00.003-06:00

I know I already declared the Los Angeles Lakers NBA Champions for 2008-09, I think like 2 games into the season. That may have been premature. Early on, they looked incredible, but things have changed.

The good news for the rest of the NBA is the Lakers' incredible production numbers of early November have fallen off across the board. They are still headed for an outstanding record, but they no longer look like an all-time great team.

Compare the two sets of data below, the first produced yesterday, the second produced in mid- November:

Click Here to see my Los Angeles Lakers Total Win Contribution seasonal comparison

Click Here to see the Los Angeles Lakers Win Profile from mid-November

LA coming back to Earth

If you look at the TWC numbers from the two charts, a couple things stand out. First, the TWC numbers for every Laker have declined. No big deal. You would expect that to happen.

If you notice, though, the one Laker whose numbers declined the least are Kobe Bryant's. Indeed, his numbers at present jibe with his career norms. That suggests he will sustain his production level throughout the season. But the Lakers big start was powered by other Lakers... namely, Andrew Bynum and Trevor Ariza. And those 2 have fallen off.

I wouldn't be that concerned about Andrew Bynum. Had he not been injured last season, his TWC would probably have ended up where it is now (TWC is a product of a player's Marginal Win Score and his percentage of his team's overall playing time... it captures value by rewarding productivity as well as longevity). Thus, he can probably sustain himself at his present production level. I'm not sure about Trevor Ariza, though. Ariza's numbers are still high, but they have declined sharply. If I were a Laker fan, I'd be worried. Ariza's numbers are still well above his career norms, so his "bottom" is really uncertain.

The Lakers also have problems at the point guard position. Jordan Farmar's production has dropped off substantially, and is now below average, and Derek Fisher no longer seems capable of providing the Lakers with even "replacement level" production (if you go back a few posts, based on last season's numbers, I pegged the "replacement level" Marginal Win Score for NBA point guards -- in other words the average production a team could expect to get from a readily available "scrub" point guard -- at -1.4. Fisher is currently producing a Marginal Win Score of -2.6.)

One final note. Pau Gasol has been below average as a power forward (MWS/48 at power forward: -0.5). His positive Marginal Win Score has been produced entirely at the center position (MWS/48 at center: +3.0). That suggests Gasol is suffering diminishing returns as a result of Andrew Bynum's presence in the lineup. And indeed, that seems to be the case. When Gasol is playing the power forward, his rebounding numbers decline significantly... from 15.8 per 48 at the center position to 9.9 per 48 at the power forward.

By and large, Bucks are gettin the gettables

2008-12-05T09:49:00.003-06:00

Traveling around the state, its obvious alot of sports radio commentators don't know or don't care to inform themselves about this season's Milwaukee Bucks. They are not "the same old Bucks" as I keep hearing. People who make such statements are ignorant and should shut up.

The Bucks are crawling their way back to respectability. They've played a brutal schedule with a shorthand roster and yet they are still poised to improve upon last season's win-loss mark.

What they are doing that is so satisfying to this Bucks fan is they are "getting the gettables". What I mean by that is, the first mark on a team's journey back to contention is to win games they ought to win. By and large, the Bucks are doing that.

They ought to defeat all but the top 10 teams at the Bradley Center (that's being generous... given the NBA's historic 64/36 home road winning percentage, it probably should be the top 7, but I'll leave my marker at top 10 for now). And, the Bucks should be defeating the bottom half of the NBA on the road (that might actually be too stringent, but I'm just drawing thumbnail sketches here).

By those standards, the only losses I might quarrel with this season are the Toronto home loss early on (although Toronto was at full strength at the time and arguably a top 10 team), and the Detroit loss on the road. I'm tempted to throw the Atlanta road loss in the mix, but its hard to tell what the Hawks are at the moment. They started out looking like a top 5 team, then everything bottomed out for them.

Anyway, the bottom line is the Bucks are basically coming close to "shooting par" so far this season... in my book. By that I mean, when they go on the road against a Memphis or Charlotte, they win. When they get a Chicago or a San Antonio at home, they win. That's what they need to do as a first step back, and they seem to be doing it. Props to Coach Skiles.

BTW, did anyone else hear Bucks television voice Jim Paschke utter the phrase "Skiles Effect" prior to the Chicago Bulls game on Wednesday night? Where in the world did he get that phrase from?

Comparing this season's Celtics to last season's

2008-12-04T22:21:00.007-06:00

So far the Celtics seem to be getting the same results, recordwise, as they got last season. But I know from doing previous calculations that the marginal production of two of their biggest players -- Garnett and Pierce -- has fallen off. So I was curious how exactly the Celtics of this season compared with the Celtics of last season.

To answer that question I did a modified Win Profile of this season's team, using only Total Win Contribution, in order to compare those numbers to the numbers the team produced last season.

Click Here to see my Win Contribution comparison between this season's Boston Celtics and last season's Boston Celtics

Here's the story so far, as I see it. The Celtics are getting improved production from 3 sources: Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, and Kendrick Perkins. Allen is up substantially, Rondo is up quite a bit, and Perkins has improved to a lesser extent.

But overall the team is still off from last season's lofty standards by about -0.408. That is largely because of diminished contributions from 4 players: Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Eddie House, and Baby Davis. Garnett and Pierce are still well above average, but they are off substantially from their outstanding numbers of last season. House and Davis, on the other hand, have gone from above average and average last season, to average and below average this season.

The rest of the Celtics are off last season's pace as well, but to a lesser extent.

All in all, the dropoff in marginal production puts the Celtics on a 60-22 win-loss trajectory, or 6 games off last season's pace. That's still outstanding, but if you take into account the improvements made by their rivals, it will make repeating as World Champions pretty difficult.

Strange Heroes: Total Win Contribution Boxscore from Bucks vs. Bulls

2008-12-04T20:22:00.003-06:00

If you got annoyed with the terrible broadcast signal FSN was sending out from last night's Bucks vs. Bulls game (was someone purposely unplugging the cord?), you might have read this morning's newspaper or online scorebox and then automatically assumed the Bucks won because: A.) Andrew Bogut was back; B.) Michael Redd was back; C.) Richard Jefferson was back on track; or D.) Ramon Sessions continued his outstanding play.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Those four all had subpar games. If the Bucks had relied solely upon them, they would have lost. (Redd had a decent shooting night, but the rest of his statistical line was: 1 assist. Come on! Your getting paid maximum money and that's the sum total of your secondary contributions? You can't bother yourself to grab one rebound? That will not get it done.)

The four players who won the game for the Bucks were, in order of importance:

1. Dan Gadzuric

2. Charlie Villanueva

3. Malik Allen

4. Luke Ridnour

Substitute Tyronn Lue for Luke Ridnour, and that list would form the answer to the question "Which 4 Bucks would you least expect to win any game for Milwaukee in 2008-09?" Yet they delivered last night big time.

Click here to view the complete Total Win Contribution boxscore from the Bucks vs. the Bulls (both teams)

Special mention must go to Gadzuric, or as Coach Skiles refers to him "Danny G". Last night Gadzuric was simply the best player on the floor. He demolished the Bulls frontline. He was so good, he didn't even play half the game and he still provided a TWC of +1.500. How a guy can run arctic cold most of the time, and yet can get boiling hot on occasion -- as Gadzuric does -- I have no idea. But I can assure you of this: if he plays his regular subpar game last night, or if he just plays an average or even slightly above average game, the Bucks lose a home game they absolutely had to win.

Also, Charlie Villanueva showed just how much more effective he is when he shoots around 50% from the field. As I stated in an earlier post, scoring efficiency is his Achilles Heel. If you look at his comparative numbers, he produces more points than his opponents, and he outrebounds his opponents. He's slightly deficient in turnover margin and personal fouls, but the area that really sinks his Marginal Win Score average is shot usage. He takes 9 more field goal attempts per 48 minutes than his opponents.

And, unlike past seasons, its not because of his defense. He's holding his opponents to a just slightly above average eFG%. In years past, his defensive eFG has been much worse. No, the problem this season is Villanueva's eFG%... its hovering around 40%. That's atrocious.

If Villanueva can just get his eFG% back up to his career norms... which is around 48%... and if he can simultaneously maintain his defensive eFG% improvements, he would turn himself from a highly negative Win Contributor into a positive Win Contributor for the Bucks.

Bucks should inquire about Richard Hendrix

2008-12-02T15:43:00.004-06:00

Remember Richard Hendrix, the power forward from Alabama? Last June I called him the most underrated prospect in the NBA Draft. His collegiate production numbers against the best competition he faced, as well as his physical measurements (his standing reach is 9'1, and his weight and strength make him the equivalent of an NBA center) seemed to suggest he could be a very productive professional.

Not many agreed. It was well into the second round before Golden State chose him. And they apparently weren't too impressed with him, either. They sent him down to the NBDL around the middle of November without giving him even a second of NBA playing time.

The question is why? He was quite productive during the preseason, and he's absolutely dominating the NBDL right now (remember, that's where Ramon Sessions first showed what he had). His NBDL Marginal Win Score in his first 3 games is something like +8.1.

He's just an incredibly productive, efficient player who could be an outstanding backup at either the 4 or 5 position, something the Bucks need desperately.

The Bucks should at least ask the Warriors if Hendrix might be available. I doubt Golden State would ask for much, and his value to the Bucks, when compared with their current motley crew of big men backups, could be immense.

I'm sure it won't happen, but it ought to happen.

Beasley another huge bust?: Statistical Analysis of the NBA Rookie Class

2008-12-02T14:51:00.004-06:00

First Adam Morrison, then Kevin Durant, now Michael Beasley. 3 highly drafted players who were wildly productive at the collegiate level but have not been able to translate that production to the NBA. Beasley, last summer's second pick overall, has been so bad that he is on pace to produce 4.2 fewer wins than the Miami Heat could have gotten from a scrub level player. That's terrible.

In each of the 3 aforementioned cases, the unusually large dropoffs in production all seem to be caused by: a sharp decrease in the player's gaudy collegiate rebounding statistics, a greater propensity to commit turnovers than the player evinced in college, and a sharp decrease in the player's collegiate scoring efficiency.

It seems each of the three players benefited from some hidden inflation in their collegiate statistics that went beyond the norm. It may be time to consider evaluating collegiate statistics differently. For instance, it might be time to discriminate amongst the quality of rebounds gathered and the number of points produced as a result of uncontested shots. Just a thought.

Click here to see my statistical analysis of the contributions made so far by the 2008-09 Rookie Class

Notes on the rest of the rookie class

1. The race for Rookie of the Year looks like a battle between Greg Oden and Derrick Rose. I would give the edge to Oden at the moment. If Oden received as much playing time as Rose it would be no contest. In terms of Marginal Win Score, Oden is by far the best rookie performer so far.

2. The steal of the draft has been Miami's second round pick, Mario Chalmers -- the point guard from Kansas. Although he won't get it, at this point he also deserves consideration for Rookie of the Year.

3. The Bucks seem to have blown it with their first choice, Joe Alexander, but... like Miami... they seem to have hit on their second round pick, Luc Moute.

4. The worst performing rookie so far, in terms of Marginal Win Score, has been Roy Hibbert, center for the Indiana Pacers. He has been awful.

5. Kevin Love has been disappointing, when one considers his collegiate numbers, but he hasn't been a bust. Hes still above average. Statistics show he is much better at the center position. If the Timberwolves played him at center more often than power forward, his numbers would be much better.

How are the NBA's 20 most valuable players performing this season?

2008-12-01T18:29:00.004-06:00

Spurred on by an excellent post on the WoW Journal, a post that mentioned the decline in production of Boston Celtics PF/C Kevin Garnett, I decided to investigate the productivity this season of each of the player's I designated the 20 most valuable NBA players last season (I determined the list according to the highest "Total Win Contributions").

Click here to see how last season's 20 most valuable players are producing this season

Notes on the List

1. The two largest dropoffs in production from last season's 20 most valuable players have been Manu Ginobli (-0.420) and Deron Williams (-0.419). Ginobli's dropoff has been due mainly to his lack of court time because of injury. Williams has also been injured, but he hasn't been nearly as productive when he has played. His Marginal Win Score per 48 is just barely above average.

2. On the other hand, the biggest uptick in productivity belongs to old man Jason Kidd (+0.182), who is quietly having a superlative season, and Amare Stoudamire (+0.146), who is also having an MVP type season down in the desert.

3. When you talk about the Lakers success, don't forget to mention the play of Lamar Odom. He's been demoted to sixth man, but despite that he's making an even greater Win Contribution to the Lakers this season (+0.108). Its no wonder the Lakers reserve unit has a higher "+/-" per minute than any team's starting unit.

4. The WoW Journal was right. Kevin Garnett's productivity is way off this season, but the same is true for Paul Pierce. Together the two are responsible for a decline of -0.535, a lot of which has been made up by Ray Allen's improved contribution. I did a post on that subject a couple of days ago.

5. Earlier this season I was ragging on Chris Bosh of Toronto because he was actually making a negative Win Contribution. He's turned that around completely, mainly because he's moved back to the center position. When manning the power forward position, Bosh actually has a negative Marginal Win Score per 48. At the center position, his MWS/48 is very positive, accounting for his complete turnaround.

6. Don't blame Antawn Jamison for the mess in Washington. His Win Contribution is up substantially this season, and it was excellent last season. He is not only producing quite well, he's logging a ton of minutes. I wonder how long he can hold up.

Comprehensive Milwaukee Bucks statistical analysis

2008-12-01T13:55:00.004-06:00

With roughly 1/5th of the season gone by, I decided to do a comprehensive analysis of the Milwaukee Bucks season so far, to try to trick out the team's strengths and weaknesses as well as its most valuable and costliest players. As always, my analysis is based upon the Win Score metric, translated through % of playing time into what I refer to as each player's "Total Win Contribution" to the team. TWC is a rough gauge of each player's contribution toward making the Bucks an above 0.500 team.

I have also added a new wrinkle... a comparison of each player's contribution with the contribution the team could have gotten from a "replacement level" player, meaning a player the team could have acquired at little or no cost. This, I believe, provides the ultimate statement about the player's worth. If a player is providing the team with fewer wins than the team could have expected from the average "scrub" player, then that player is doing unnecessary damage to the team's bottom line. And the Bucks have several such players.

Click here to see my Comprehensive Milwaukee Bucks Statistical Review

Notes on the Review

1. The Bucks do not have a single player on the roster who has played above average basketball at small forward. Starter Richard Jefferson has recently dipped below average, and every backup: Michael Redd, Luc Moute, Charlie Bell, and Joe Alexander, has produced below the opposition when manning the position. That position is really costing the Bucks at the moment.

2. At the moment, the Bucks have 3 main Win Contributors: Andrew Bogut, Ramon Sessions, and Luc Moute. Without those 3, you essentially have last season's Bucks: a team headed for 24 or 25 wins. Instead, the team is headed for about 34 wins, which is a decent improvement.

3. The rumor is the Bucks are planning to shut down Charlie Bell now that Michael Redd is back. Good move. No player has been costlier to the team. At the moment, Bell is playing well below replacement level. His play has been completely unacceptable.

4. Along with Bell, there are 4 other very costly Bucks, Joe Alexander, and the trio of backup big men: Dan Gadzuric, Malik Allen, and Francisco Elson. If the team merely replaced those players with scrub level big men replacements, the team would be, I project, above 0.500.

5. The team's highest paid players have so far not delivered. Richard Jefferson has been just barely above replacement value, which is an unacceptable contribution from a guy making as much as he makes. And Michael Redd, while very good when available, has made a very small positive impact due to his lack of availability. Again, I wonder how much of that unavailability was caused by the wear-and-tear of another off-season of international competition. Redd's primary responsibility should be to the Milwaukee Bucks, and I'm not sure if it is.

Crushed up front: TWC Boxscore for the Bucks vs. Cavaliers

2008-11-30T14:06:00.003-06:00

How much of a difference does Andrew Bogut make to the Milwaukee Bucks? That seems to have been answered last night.

A further question, though, is how long can Luc Moute hold up at the power forward? Remember, he's outweighed on average by 32 pounds a night, and he's outreached on average by about 5.5 inches. That's tough sledding. He's done a good job, no question, but he's showing signs of fatigue.

Click here to view the TWC Boxscore from the Bucks vs. the Cleveland Cavaliers

Notes

1. One good thing that happened last night, Ramon Sessions crushed Mo Williams once again. Anyone who says Cleveland is better because they added Mo Williams doesn't know what they're talking about. He's been below average, and the Bucks are better off now and in the future with a thriving Sessions at the point.

2. The thing that hurts about last night's loss is LeBron James was just pedestrian by his lofty standards. He produced Win Score at 0.168 per minute, which is 8.0 per 48, which, considering he also played part-time at power forward, is below average production. So, forget the 32 points, LeBron wasn't really LeBron and yet we couldn't get a home win.

3. The Cleveland trio that killed us was Big Z (I'm not spelling his name), Ben Wallace, and Anderson Varejeo. Ilgauskas had a huge night (0.682 WS per minute), and Wallace (0.377) and Varejeo (0.477) had large nights as well.

Ranking NBA Starting and Reserve Units by "+/-" per minute

2008-11-30T12:43:00.003-06:00

I'm not a huge fan of the "+/-" statistic when it comes to evaluating individual players, but I think it offers some insight when evaluating entire units, and I'm using it today to rank each team's starting and reserve units.

I did the rankings by converting each team's raw "+/-" starter-reserve stats on 82games.com to a per minute "+/-" for each unit and slotting the teams accordingly.

Click here to see my Ranking of NBA Starting Units according to "+/-" per minute

Click here to see my Ranking of NBA Reserve Units according to "+/-" per minute

Notes on Rankings

1. Clearly, the Bucks have depth issues that need to be resolved before they can step to the next level. Of course, injuries have to be accounted for as well, but I think by and large its a depth of talent issue.

2. I don't know what to think when I see teams like the Bulls and Jazz... teams that get far more positive results from their bench personnel than they get from their starting units. Does this mean the teams coaching is derelict? Or does it simply mean their reserve units are better than other reserve units, but that their starting talent does meet snuff? I'm inclined to think the former is closer to the truth. You want your best people on the floor for the maximum amount of minutes, and that doesn't seem to be happening for those teams.

3. Teams with positive production from both units include: the Lakers, the Cavaliers, the Celtics, the Blazers, and the Heat. These teams have to be considered amongst the strongest contenders in the NBA.

4. Here's something scary: not only do the Lakers have the best starting unit on a "+/-" per minute basis, their bench has a higher "+/-" per minute than any starting unit. That's unbelievable.

Comparing Andrew Bogut to Chris Paul using Replacement Value

2008-11-29T11:39:00.005-06:00

Yesterday I figured out the value of the average replacement player at each given position (replacement player being defined as "a readily available substitute which the team could acquire without much cost" and being statistically defined by me as any player who spent at least 40% of his time at the given position and who took up at least 0.5% of his team's playing minutes but not more than 6.0%). Not surprisingly I found that it is more costly to replace the center position than any other position, with power forward being next costliest, point guard next, then small forward, and finally shooting guard.

With that information in tow, I decided to revisit the Andrew Bogut/Chris Paul debate to see whether, adjusting for replacement value, Bogut might look a little better pick in hindsight.

Click here to see the Total Win Contributions, season by season, of Chris Paul and Andrew Bogut after adjusting for replacement value

Well, slightly... but not much. Chris Paul is still the far more dominant Win Contributor in every season. So there's still a huge gap. And even as Bogut's play has arisen to new levels, so has Paul's, thus the numbers this season give no aid and comfort to Bucks fans.

But how were we to know? The guy is maybe 6'0, and how much does he weigh? How could you project him to be so dominant?

Of course, if you were to compare Bogut to the real "other" choice in that draft -- Marvin Williams -- its no contest for Bogut.

One other thing... this is the first time I've gone back in time with Total Win Contribution. There is a consistency to the numbers for both guys that suggests legititmacy for the whole concept of "Defensive" or "Counterpart Opponent" Win Score, so I was happy to see that.

Quantum of Suckiness: Milwaukee Bucks TWC Boxscore vs. Pistons

2008-11-29T00:45:00.004-06:00

I put together a Total Win Contribution boxscore for the Bucks loss in Detroit last night after I got home from seeing the new James Bond, 007, movie. Very good movie, although others I was with seemed less than impressed. Not me. That dude is my kind of Bond... kickin ass everywhere. Lets put it this way -- he was drinking beer in this movie, not sipping martinis. So thumbs up from me.

Click here for the TWC Boxscore: Bucks at Detroit Pistons

My review for the Bucks, on the other hand, is a big thumbs down. Red numbers all over the place on the TWC Boxscore. In fact, the only players to post positive games were, strangely enough, Dan Gadzuric and Tyronn Lue. Gadzuric had a monster night, and let's hope he keeps it up. Lue was okay in 15 minutes of action. Other than that, RJ fought to a standstill, and the rest of the team just didn't have it.

I guess if you want to pin specific blame, by my calculations the 3 guiltiest parties were Charlie Bell, Luke Ridnour, and Charlie Villanueva... in descending order.

But really, the majority of Bucks had poor games, and as a team they didn't play defense as they have been playing defense. They must do better.

Bucks Win Contributions compared to replacement level players

2008-11-28T18:18:00.004-06:00

After I did yesterday's post, I was thinking about which positional deficiency on the roster is least excusable. I had a hunch, but I wasn't sure. To test my hunch out, I applied the baseball concept of "value over replacement player" to the situation.

Why? Well, when I do Total Win Contribution, that is a measurement against a hypothetical "average player", with the average set at zero. But "average players" are actually very good players and quite hard to come by. So the statistic captures the player's impact on wins, but it doesn't completely capture his overall value to the team.

"Value over Replacement Player" does. It tells you each players relative value by telling you how much he's contributing compared to the contributions a qualified scrub could provide in the same minutes. A "scrub", or in other words a "Replacement Player", is officially defined as a player that the team could acquire with little or no cost.

For my purposes, I defined the Replacement Level Player at each position as any player who played at least 0.5% of his team's overall minutes but not more than 6%, and who spent at least 40% of his time at the given position. I figured if a guy is being used for less than 15 minutes a game, he is pretty expendable and thus easily acquirable, and I established the 40% floor to insure that the player was someone most teams would utilize at the given position.

Once I established those replacement values (using last season's NBA Win Profiles), I compared the Win Contributions the Bucks were getting at each position against the Win Contribution they could get at the position using only Replacement Players, and thus I established the Bucks Total Win Contribution over Replacement Level for each position.

Click Here to see "Bucks Total Win Contributions over Replacement Levels"

New Findings

1. Not surprisingly, the position easiest to replace is shooting guard (making Michael Redd's max contract even more indefensible), followed by small forward, point guard, power forward, and then center. I think I told someone recently that the center position was easy to replace, but my head must have been out to lunch. Obviously, given the physical requirements of the position, that is going to be the position MOST DIFFICULT to replace, and indeed it was.

2. Seen under this light, the Bucks deficiency at small forward is totally inexcusable. They aren't even getting scrub level play out of that spot, and when you consider that Jefferson is playing above average... well you kind of know we got problems at backup.

3. Seen under this light, the contributions we are getting from center aren't horrible, and the contributions from point guard and power forward are superlative.

4. In the next couple of days, I am going to compare each individual Bucks value over a replacement player, so look for that.

Here are the Bucks weak positions

2008-11-27T10:42:00.004-06:00

All props to the Bucks for their start, but as Coach Skiles said in his press conference last night, "We need to be real." The Bucks are 7-10 and in last place in the Central Division, and if you break it down by Win Contribution per position, you find out why.

Click here to see my Win Contribution by position chart

Notes

1. The Bucks are getting killed in 3 areas: shooting guard, backup small forward, and backup center.

2. Joe Alexander must step his play up if the Bucks are to improve, and we need Michael Redd back badly. I'm not sure what you can do at this point regarding the backup center position.

3. The irony of ironies for the season is the greatest positional Win Contribution is being provided by the one position we believed would be most deficient when the season began: power forward. That's thanks in large part to the surprising contributions of rookie Luc Moute.

4. The Bucks are also getting pretty fair play from the point guard position, another position of uncertainty when the season began. That's due to stellar play from Luke Ridnour, and the rising improvement of Ramon Sessions. Strange how things sometimes work out.

I figured out the secret to Skiles success

2008-11-26T22:58:00.006-06:00

So how the hell did Scott Skiles do it? How did he take virtually the same roster that was the NBA's worst defense for the last two years and turn it into one of the NBA's best defenses? Voodoo, bodysnatching... what the fuck? No, its so easy, I can't believe I didn't see it earlier.

Skiles is a number cruncher or, more likely, he's good at craps. Because his defense is all about playing the odds.

According to the numbers, the Bucks defense isn't that much better inside. But the effective field goal percentage is way down.

Its all because of what I'm going to call Skiles "bubble" defense. That is, he's got the Bucks challenging every single three, and every layup. If you do those two things, your defense has to improve.

Its a common misconception that basketball defense is about preventing shots. Its about regaining possession of the basketball as quickly as possible without the other team scoring points. Sometimes that means inducing the opposition to shoot... low percentage shots.

The best way to do that is to marshall your resources against the opposition's best "point value" opportunities.

In the modern NBA, the two greatest point value opportunities are open 3 point shots and uncontested layups. If you concentrate on preventing those two things, your defense is going to be good.

Why? If you look at it statistically, NBA players have become just as proficient at making jump shots from behind the 3 point arc as jump shots in what I call "No Man's Land" the area outside the paint and inside the arc. According to 82games, the median field goal percentage on 3 point shots is just a hare below the median field goal percentage on "2 point jump shots"... 37.7% vs. 38.8%.

But do the math. The return gotten by the median 3 point shooter in the NBA is 1.2 points per shot, whereas the return gottent by the median No Man's shooter is just 0.7 points per shot. The difference is enormous.

That's why the bubble defense makes so much sense... stretch out and challenge any three attempt, and foul anyone... if you have to... rather than giving up an open layup. If you do those two things you will be a good defense. And Coach Skiles knows it... or should I say "James Cagney in The Public Enemy" knows it? (did you see his boss brown pinstripe suit in Atlanta?... he looked just like Cagney in one of those gangster films!)

Villanueva is the NBA's worst inside player

2008-11-26T22:32:00.002-06:00

There is no problem at all this season with Charlie Villanueva's effort. In fact, watching the Bucks game against the Atlanta Hawks tonight, I was chuckling at how funny it looked to see him hustle so hard.

The problem is the results... no, the results in one bizarre area.

I always complain that Charlie V's fatal flaw is he is allergic to the paint. But, now that I think about it, that's not entirely true. He's not Ralph Sampson... his reboundings totals alone prove he's not a power forward who dreams of being 6'5''.

The problem with Charlie's inside game is its so damn ineffective. In fact, among players with at least 100 attempts, Charlie Villanueva is the worst "inside" shooter in the NBA. I'm not saying the worst among big men, either. I'm talking about THE WORST IN THE ENTIRE ASSOCIATION... point guards, midgets, everyone included. And it makes zero sense. There's just no easy explanation for the incompetence of his interior game.

Sure, Villanueva isn't the greatest athlete ever. But neither is Bogut, or Mehmet Okur, or Brad Miller... they all make a far greater percentage of their inside shots than Villanueva.

And he's got excellent size. His bulk is above average for a power forward, and his standing reach of 9'00 almost qualifies him as a center.

And he's a decent "pure" shooter. His free throw percentage is quite good, and he can obviously hit the three. Which may be the problem.

Here's my theory. He's been ruined by the three. He found he could make them pretty proficiently early in his career and so he neglected to spend the hours and hours it took guys like less athletic but yet still effective inside players like Larry Bird and Kevin McHale and Tim Duncan to perfect their craft.

Think about the inside moves those guys featured. Bird often used the glass, or his perfected fadeaway, or a variety of one handed shots. McHale was the master of the inside move. He was something to behold. And Duncan has perfected the bank shot.

What does CV have? Not much. He kind of tries a jump hook, but he usually bricks those. If he can just perfect something, anything, any kind of "pet move" he can go to, he would be a far more effective inside player and a far better Win Contributor.

Apparently Bucks efforted Camby last summer

2008-11-26T20:36:00.004-06:00

According to Yahoo Sports, Bucks General Manager John Hammond made inquiries with the Denver Nuggets last summer regarding the availiability of Marcus Camby. Unfortunately, Yahoo's report doesn't explain what the Bucks offered, or why the Nuggets rejected the Bucks overtures and dealt Camby to the Clippers instead. They really got nothing in return from Los Angeles, so their motives are puzzling.

I almost wish I didn't read that. What a HUGE addition Camby would have been. Ohh!

But I'm glad I did read it, because it tells me something good about John Hammond. He's aware of what the team needs and he apparently tried to provide it with what would have been an enormous addition. The team is under adult leadership now.

But damn it. Can you imagine the lineup?

No, I'm just going to let it go.

I would argue Bucks defense is 7th best

2008-11-26T19:44:00.005-06:00

In absolute efficiency terms, the Bucks defense is 9th best in the National Basketball Association... that's astonishing enough considering the team ranked 30th in defense six months ago.

But, if you are one of the 25 people who have visited my new "NBA Advanced Power Ranking" blog since I started it a week ago, you will no doubt know the Bucks defense could arguably be even better than that.

If you adjust the efficiency numbers to account for strength of schedule and venue, as I do using my "Point Value over Average" system, the Bucks are the 7th best defense in the Association. They are allowing -1.8 points under their opponents adjusted offensive efficiency averages, meaning 1.8 points per game less than the rest of the NBA would be expected to allow given the same opponent and circumstance.

Only the Lakers, Celtics, Pacers, Nuggets, Rockets, and Sixers have better Defensive PVOAs.

Whether you accept the logic behind PVOA or not, you have to admit this much... the Bucks defensive accomplishments so far are legitimate -- built on brick and mortar, not smoke and mirrors.

The Miracle Worker needs to conjure an even larger miracle

2008-11-26T19:06:00.005-06:00

Scott Skiles has, in one month, done what no previous Milwaukee Bucks coach had done in nearly 20 years. He got the Bucks defense into the upper half of the NBA rankings. I'm dumbfounded at the suddenness of Skiles influence. It boggles the mind. JE Skeets (Nehemiah?) of "Ball Don't Lie" was right when he described it as "pretty flippin' sick".

But now I think the Basketball Gods are asking too much. For the next 10 days the team will be without its top scorer (Michael Redd), its starting point guard (Luke Ridnour), and its most valuable player and ONLY viable center (Andrew Bogut).

What's that line by Bob Dylan? Its a hard rain gonna fall. I can't see the Bucks pulling out even one game with that shorthanded a lineup. They just have to do the best they can, and don't let it squealch their attitude and intensity.

Andrew Bogut has come of age

2008-11-25T18:28:00.004-06:00

The beauty of Marginal Win Score is that its the same concept as Offensive/Defensive Win Score, only better described.

There were two problems with "Defensive" Win Score. It was a misnomer. Many of the statistics recorded by Win Score have nothing to do with defense.

Second, I didn't know if it was fair. Each player doesn't always defend his counterpart opponent all of the time.

Marginal Win Score wipes those problems away. Basically, Marginal Win Score says to each player "It is your duty to play a more efficiently productive game than the guy the other team plays at your position. We don't care how you accomplish it, we just need it done. If you do it -- you help us win, and the longer you do it, the greater that contribution."

Now my statistical system is straightforward and less confusing... yet just as accurate. Plus I can quit adding those caveats to every discussion that annoy Blake. (Though, if I compare the player's counterpart opponents Win Score against the NBA average and its lower, it will stand to reason he's doing it through suppression... which I reserve the right to refer to as "defense" from time to time).

Which brings me to the Andrew Bogut story.

Bogut for MVP?! Eat that Charley Rosen!

Andrew Bogut is having his finest NBA season bar none. His impact on the Bucks is where fans expected it to be (somewhat unrealistically) when the big man entered the Association as the number one overall pick in 2005.

His Marginal Win Score is currently +2.8 and rising. For comparison, his MWS last season was +0.0, and was negative the season before. If you combine his MWS with his 13.5% of the Bucks playing minutes, his Total Win Contribution to the Milwaukee Bucks stands at +0.385. That projects to +5 games above average, and is better than Yao Ming, Shaq, and Kevin Garnett... although Chris Paul's is currently at +0.770... damn you little fella!

How's he doing it? Easy... on the boards and against his men.

Most of Bogut's basic statistics are exactly the same as last season except his per minute rebounding is way up, and his counterpart's effective field goal percentage is way down. Basically those two facts account for his plus margin. (Note: his per minute scoring is actually down, which shows what defense can do).

And that plus margin is a big reason why the Bucks have been able to play a difficult early schedule without key players and still produce a near .500 record. Good day, mate!

Now Bucksfan, show him some love. Bang that frickin' All-Star ballot at the arena and at NBA.com. We actually have an All-Star worthy player. Let's make him one.

Time to put Ray Allen in the MVP conversation

2008-11-25T00:33:00.005-06:00

This is going to have to be a teaser post. I'm too tired to lay out the evidence right now, so I will give you the executive summary instead and finish up tomorrow evening.

Basically, the point I want to make is this: last season Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce carried the Celtics during the regular season. Ray Allen was good, but just above average. The former two were spectacular. Therefore, of course, lazy sportswriters assume that since the Celtics are doing well again this year, the same thing must be happening.

It isn't. Instead the roles have totally reversed. The junior partner in the Three Amigos, Walter Ray Allen, is carrying water for the entire trio. He is having a hellified season in terms of Win Production and on both ends of the basketball court... an absolute renaissance year for one of the smoothest players of all time. His numbers are astonishing, and I will lay them out tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Garnett's numbers have slid a bit, and Pierce's numbers are well down (in fact Andrew Bogut is currently having a more valuable impact on the Milwaukee Bucks than either of them are having on the Boston Celtics). That's not to say either player's numbers are "bad"... they just aren't what they were last season.

Yet, I look through all the "MVP Talk" and I don't see the name Ray Allen anywhere. If I were Allen, I would be getting a little pissed right now. This is not the first time he's been overlooked. He should have been the runaway MVP of the Finals last season, but somehow that award went to Paul Pierce.

And so, unbelievably, stories that should have been written about how Ray Allen is building upon his Finals MVP with a fast start to the 2008-09 season are being written about Pierce... when he should not have been the MVP, and is actually slumping out of the gate compared with his production last year!!

Anyway, more on this tomorrow. I intend to do my second piece taking apart the stupid NBA.com "Race to the MVP" listing.

Revisiting the currently one-sided Iverson for Billups trade

2008-11-24T23:57:00.004-06:00

Thus far the Allen Iverson for Chauncey Billups trade is looking one-sided in favor of the Denver Nuggets.

Billups is playing MVP caliber basketball while AI has been below average. Why would Joe Dumars make such a foolish blunder? I still cannot figure that out.

And don't start talking about "salary cap space". You can stow that patter. Besides Shaquille O'Neal -- and he had Hollywood aspirations -- what other significant free agent transfer signing has occured in the salary cap era? I can't think of any. Oh, I can think of a lot of teams who have cleared "space" for players who never came... the Clippers for Kobe, the Bulls for Duncan. That's about all these exercises ever amount to. "Covering fire" for the owners real agenda -- clear the books of some hefty labor costs. In fact, I think all this "clearing space for LeBron" nonsense is going to be looked back upon as what it was all along -- costcutting in hard economic times.

And therefore I'm afraid all Detroit has done by trading Billups is officially slam its championship window shut. That's kind of stupid if you ask me. In basketball windows don't open that often unless you wear Kelly Green or Purple and Gold. Sure, lots of fans think they do. But they don't.

The fact is, in basketball, rebuilding sucks. Free agency? The lottery? Good luck. Basically, rebuilding in basketball means you wait around and hope that Lady Luck kisses you again someday. All you can do in the meantime is put the pieces in place so that if and when she does you are ready to accept her advances... like Ainge was in Boston. That's about all you can do.

What's happened to Kevin Love?! (and my other rookie mistakes)

2008-11-23T21:40:00.004-06:00

I've been bashing John Hammond for using the Bucks lottery choice to select Joe Alexander. Let's examine my less than stellar record.

Last June I guaranteed three of the prospects in the NBA Draft would be big win contributors; Michael Beasley, Kevin Love, and Derrick Rose. Thus far, I'm wrong on the first two. Only Rose has a marginal Win Score that would qualify him as a positive win contributor (+0.017). Thus far I think he's the Rookie of the Year. Meanwhile Beasley has been horrible and Kevin Love looks like a man who is seeing ghosts.

In tonight's road victory over the Detroit Pistons, Minnesota's best game of the season thus far, Kevin Love regressed even further. He took two shots in 17 minutes of action and both came back to him stamped "Return to Sender". That basically sums up his central problem. He's getting more of his shots blocked than he is used to, and he has no clue what to do about it.

My question is this. Where is Kevin McHale? If there was one thing McHale was genius at, it was altering release points on his inside shots. How come he's not passing any of his knowledge on to Love? Or is he, and it just hasn't sunk in? Either way, I'm not totally bailing on Love, but he's looking frighteningly like Sheldon Williams.

A rundown of my draft mistakes

Here is a brief rundown of the mistakes I have thus far made on last year's draft, with each player's Marginal Win Score per minute in parenthesis. Remember, any positive number indicates above average Win Contribution, any negative number indicates below average Win Contribution:

1. Michael Beasley (-0.077)

This guy is a much bigger disappointment than Kevin Love. Love hasn't lived up to expectations, Beasley has been awful. He's not rebounding very well, he's not shooting very well, and he's turning the ball over way too much. That's the trifecta of disaster.

2. OJ Mayo (+0.004)

I said this guy would be a bust, because of his poor collegiate production. So far, he's been an average player, which is pretty good for a rookie. Basically, he's doing it with defense and by limiting his turnovers. As I said in the runup to the draft, defense is one area that is very difficult to assess... I have to think of some way to do so.

3. Brook Lopez (+0.039)

Technically, I said this guy was a "mixed bag" prospect, but he's hardly been that. He's been excellent. Mainly, again, what he's been doing is suppressing his counterpart opponent's production. His offense, and particularly his rebounding, has been underwhelming. But his defense, particularly his eFG allowed, has been superlative. He's allowing his covers to shoot a paltry 41%. That'll get it done.

4. Mareese Speights (-0.110)

Here, its defense again... this time complete lack of it. Speights offensive production has been excellent. Unfortunately, his counterpart opponents can say the same thing... only much louder. His covers are shooting a nearly astronomical 65% from the field, and are rebounding at Moses Malone rates. In my defense, however, I think had he been drafted by the Bucks Coach Skiles might have coaxed a better effort out of him than that.

5. Javalle McGee (-0.007)

McGee has looked much more competent than I would have expected. He had all the tools, I just questioned whether he could produce. So far, he's done all right.

6. Chris Douglas-Roberts (-0.162)

He's only played 35 minutes, but he hasn't been all that great in those 35 minutes.

7. Roy Hibbert (-0.159)

Struggg-ahhh-linnngggg....

Here are the rookies I "sort of" hit on:

1. Ryan Anderson (+0.095)

To be honest, I was pretty luke warm on Anderson. I said he looked like he could be a contributor because of his production in college. So far he has been.

2. Anthony Randolph (-0.050)

I begged the Bucks not to pick this guy. But I guess so far he's been better than Joe Alexander, so I guess I should be careful what I wish for. Although I'm actually more comfortable with Alexander than I think I would have been with Anthony Randolph.

3. Jerryd Bayless (-0.157)

Actually, I don't think this call was anything special. I mean, he's a skinny, undersized shooting guard who doesn't shoot a real high percentage from the field. How tough was it to foresee him struggling?

Memo to Coach Skiles: The Bucks best line-ups

2008-11-23T17:45:00.003-06:00

Bucks fans, you can criticize my reasoning, my productivity, my sense of humor, my basketball acumen... but never say I'm not working overtime to bring you the best Bucks information I can muster.

Panning through the available Bucks information, I think I came up with another nugget: Marginal Win Score per player by position. This statistic reveals, in theory: (a) the Bucks best lineups; (b) the best position for each Buck; (c) the cost of playing certain Bucks at certain positions; and, (d) the Bucks lack of depth at several key positions.

Click here for my Milwaukee Bucks Marginal Win Score per position chart

What is Marginal Win Score?

In my little world, the key to success in basketball is for the five players on the court to collectively produce more Win Score statistics than their five "counterpart opponents". That margin, divided by 2, is what I refer to as "Marginal Win Score". The greater that margin, the more games above .500 a team can expect to finish.

On my chart, each Milwaukee Bucks player's Marginal Win Score is expressed as a "per minute" phenomenon. Any value above +0.000 is an above average Marginal Win Score.

The Rule of 65%?

I just dreamed this one up, and it may not hold water, but it seems to me a good way to project a team's win potential is to add the Marginal Win Scores of its starting five, average those out, project the record the lineup would be expected to produce over a full season, and then multiply that by 65%.

How did I come up with 65%? Basically by observing that the maximum amount of playing time you can expect to muster out of 5 players is 75% of all playing minutes. But that's unrealistic. What normally happens is each of your starters consume about 13% of the playing minutes at his given position, which adds up to 65%.

If you take last season's starting five, that unit projected out to 41-41 over a full season. 65% of that is a little over 26 wins, which is right where they finished. I'll continue to test this theory and let you know if it holds spit.

Notes

1. I'm going to go back in time to check this out, but I believe Michael Redd should not be played at small forward under any circumstance. The marginal advantage Redd normally enjoys at shooting guard not only disappears, it turns decisively to the opponents advantage... causing double damage to the Green and Crimson. Same thing occurs when you move RJ away from small forward.

2. Charlie Villanueva's primary shortcoming as a power forward is his inefficient shooting. He enjoys a marginal advantage over his opponents in every key category except shot attempts. When you get to that category, CV loses decisively. Which supports my theory: a power forward with an outside game is only valuable if he can produce as many points per shot as a power forward with an inside game. If he cannot, its like bleeding wins.

3. The Bucks have no viable backup to Andrew Bogut. None. If he goes down, the team will be sunk, no question about it. And the tragedy is, you can find "Greg Kite" type backups... guys who will get you rebounds at least and therefore won't get decisively outproduced... at less than market value.

4. Gadzuric, Elson, Lue, and Allen have all been terrible. Just brutal.

5. The Bucks, in theory, have no backup at small forward either. There's more hope there, though, because I think Moute's poor numbers reflect some very difficult matchups he's had there (LeBron in particular) and I still hold out hope that Joe Alexander will square himself away.

6. Bogut's having a terrific season. That's not even debatable. He's playing with tremendous determination.

7. Notice how many lineups the Bucks can put together this season that are each theoretically much better than the starting five they employed most of last season?

Revisiting my quirky Bogut stat

2008-11-20T19:20:00.003-06:00

Last week on the Channel 32 Sports Roundtable, I heard some guy from WTMJ Radio say "Andrew Bogut's got a better jumpshot than most people think". Ahh, that assertion would be DEAD-ON only if most people mistakenly believed Andrew Bogut is missing both his arms. On the other hand, if most people believed Andrew Bogut could make jump shots, but just doesn't do it very often, then that statement is pure bunk.

Do you remember last summer when I was bored and I decided to estimate what Andrew Bogut's win production would be if he would merely forego jump shots altogether? And remember how I speculated Bogut would be an elite level center if he were to do so? That logic still holds... and so does my recommendation.

According to 82games.com and their staff of unusually anal retentive basketball observers, Bucks center Andrew Bogut has attempted 18 jump shots this season and produced 8 points from those attempts. If you're counting, that's a net minus 10 Win Score, or the equivalent of 10 unnecessary turnovers of possession to Bucks opponents.

As a result, even though Bogut's current offensive Win Score per 48 is a robust 12.4, it could be an even better 13.2 if he would just merely kick the jump shooting habit!! And remember, his jump shot "turnovers" increase exponentially with his overall shot attempts, meaning the Win Score production deficit will continue to grow as the season wears on.

Why don't the Bucks take my suggestion -- RIGHT NOW -- and institute a series of fines against Bogut... for his own good... any time he attempts a shot without having both of his feet within one step of paint?! We don't pay the guy to shoot jump shots!! They harm the team!! Aren't the Bucks interested in disincentivizing activities that harm the team?

The problem, of course, is the modern belief that centers are just overpaid clods unless they can "step out" and hit outside shots. What a bunch of bullshit!! There's a reason the greatest players of all time normally played close to the basket... its easier to do productive things there.

You know what I actually heard ESPN commentator Jon Barry suggest last night? He suggested the Chicago Bulls "push Greg Oden" away from the basket, because he can't make shots out there.

Okay, first of all, have you ever seen a team successfully "push" anyone away from the basket by anything more than an insignificant amount? No, its a foul... its called "riding"! Second, the obvious counter move by Oden is to continue to do what he's been doing... hanging around the basket where he can be most productive.

That's the strategy, by and large, that Andrew Bogut uses. I just want him to take it to its logical extreme.

Bucks doing better than you think, Buckfan

2008-11-20T18:43:00.003-06:00

Last season around this time BucksNation thought the Bucks were off to a hot start. In fact they weren't. Now I'm hearing commentary suggesting this season its the "same old Bucks". Its not.

Last year's seeming fast start was an aberration. When I exposed it by publishing the team's Point Value over Average numbers (which suggested that even though the Bucks had a winning record they were actually playing well below average) people wondered if I ought to adjust my methodology. Actually it was dead-on. By Christmas I had the team had a PVOA rating of -6.91, which foretold their season ending efficiency differential of -7.25 pretty accurately.

This season, the story has reversed. Even though the Bucks have lost 6 of 8, I believe, they are by and large playing near average basketball... which is a huge improvement for this franchise of late. If you're following my "NBA Advanced Power Ranking" blog, I have the team situated near the middle of the NBA.

Yeah, they've had some stinker games, like the severly below average defense in the loss to Denver this week... where the defense was brutal... but not many. And their clunkers haven't really even clunked that bad (in Denver the offense was above average).

Most of the games this season have been like last night's game against Utah. The Bucks lost, but by PVOA standards the team played slightly above average on both offense and defense compared to the rest of the NBA. They just happened to be playing one of the toughest home teams in the Association, and, unfortunately, an average performance at Utah will always equate into a loss.

But overall, if the team continues to play at the level it has been playing at, I would project them to be around a 35-36 win team. Which is not the "same old Bucks" of the last two nightmare seasons.

I am launching a new NBA power rankings blog

2008-11-18T16:45:00.005-06:00

I'll be doing limited Bucks basketball blogging for a day or two. All of my free time is being invested in the launch of my new basketball blog which I am calling "NBA Advanced Power Rankings".

The new blog is gonna be pretty sweet, and I promise that once I get it up it won't take away from my Bucks writing in any way. In fact I believe it will enhance the NBA experience for Bucks fans and NBA fans in general.

The new blog will provide an objective, continuously updated, NBA Power Ranking list based entirely upon my "Point Value over Average" relative performance grading system. The ranking list will be updated every morning... or right after I calculate the PVOA's for the last night's games and then compute the required averages.

The blog will also provide a PVOA analysis of each individual NBA game, going back to the games played on November 11, 2008. The analysis the score of the game, the estimated number of possessions in the game, each team's overall Point Value over Average total based on the possession estimates, and each team's offensive and defensive PVOAs.

Finally, the blog will include a weekly "Trend Report" which will provide fans with the percentage of below average performances (Overall, Offensive, and Defensive) by each NBA team in that particular week.

Initially "NBA Advanced Power Rankings" will simply be a crude source of the above referenced information. Eventually I want it to be a high functioning cousin to similar football blogs like FootballOutsiders.com (the inspiration for the PVOA system) and AdvancedNFLStats.com. In other words, a reliable source point for objective information about the relative strength of each team in the National Basketball Association.

My NBA Manhattan Project

I also have one other project in the works, which I'm calling my "NBA Manhattan Project". I am going to try to build a database of seasonal Win Profiles for every NBA team dating back to 1960.

I never thought I could do Win Profiles for any season prior to 2001 because of the lack of necessary statistical information. But two things happened that made me believe it could be done.

First, I realized my Offensive/Defensive Win Score system (the system I use to generate "Win Profiles") hinges entirely upon each player's Marginal Win Score. That means I can calculate any given player's Win Totals for any given year without knowing the NBA positional averages in that given year.

But I still didn't have the statistical information I needed, such as: a. each player's counterpart opponents' statistics and, b. essential Win Score statistics the NBA didn't keep before 1976-77.

I figured out how to overcome those limitations with the help of baseball essayist Bill James. In his "Historical Abstract" he makes the argument that Jackie Robinson was underrated. As part of his argument, he cites Robinson's excellent "zone rating" at second base during the 1948 season.

"Zone Rating" is an ultra-modern baseball defensive statistic that estimates each fielders defensive performance according to the number of balls hit into the fielder's "zone". Making such an estimate requires information that was not gathered until recently. So how did James know Robinson's 1948 rating?

Reading further, I figured it out. Bill James estimated Robinson's zone rating using existing information to deduce the required but unknown information. (Specifically, he found a strong relationship between the number of "assists" recorded by a team and the number of groundballs.)

That's when it hit me. I could do the same thing with Win Profiles. I can estimate each player's defensive statistics by simply adjusting modern statistical averages and then projecting them backward. Furthermore, I can estimate each team's Win Score and Opponent Win Score by establishing consistent relationships between the available statistics and all of the unknown statistics.

Obviously, that means everything before 1977 will involve two layers of estimates. That won't be a problem, though. I did mock Win Profiles for last season using only the information available in 1960. I then compared the results to my actual Win Profiles from last season. The two sets of numbers had a 90% correlation.

So I decided to do a full NBA Win Profile abstract database, which I will complete over the course of the next year. Once it is complete I intend to use the information produced to write a book that will examine historical debates (was Chamberlain actually better than Russell? Did Magic Johnson ever have a season equivalent to Oscar Robertson's famous "Triple Double" season? ) and will compare players across eras and across positions. It will be similar in nature to Bill James baseball abstract. Stay tuned.

Despite the results, the Bucks had a very good week

2008-11-16T15:22:00.004-06:00

The Milwaukee Bucks went 2-2 last week, but their performance level was much better than their record indicates. What Scott Skiles has done in his short tenure to completely change the culture of the team, as well as its performance and effort level has been nothing short of astonishing.

According to "Point Value over Average" which measures the Bucks offensive and defensive performance per possession against the average performance per possession (adjusted by home and road) against the given opponent, the Bucks averaged +2.0 for the week. Using my overall PVOA power rankings as a yardstick, that average... if sustained... would land the Bucks in the top third of the NBA.

Here is how the Bucks performances broke down according to Point Value over Average. The Bucks had one "plus" offensive game, and three "plus" defensive game. In total, the offense was -0.5 points below the NBA average for the week, but the defense averaged -2.5 points less than the NBA average. So the defense continues to carry the Milwaukee Bucks this season. However, for the season as a whole, the Bucks offensive average this week actually represents an improvement for the team, while the defensive average represents a slight decline.

The Bucks best game by far was their home game against the San Antonio Spurs. Their defense in that game was awesome. On the other hand the team's only bad game of the week, by PVOA standards, was last night against the Boston Celtics. The Bucks hung with the Celtics because of heart and determination... not performance.

What does the team's PVOA mean?

Point Value over Average essentially asks what a team's "efficiency differential" would be after accounting for the strength of their opposition. Theoretically, a team's PVOA at any point can be considered the equivalent of its "pure" efficiency differential... and that can then be used to project how the team would finish the season if they maintained that level of play.

So, using last season's efficiency differentials as a guide, if the Bucks were to play +2.0 basketball for an entire season, they would likely win 48 games (Golden State won that many with a +2.1 differential for the season). So you can fairly say the Bucks had an exceptional week last week.

The interesting speculation is this. The Bucks are playing exceptional defense, but mediocre offense. So what will happen when Michael Redd, the Bucks team's most efficient offensive player, returns? Can he shore up the offense... without harming the defense? If he can, the Milwaukee Bucks could be a playoff team.

Bucks go toe-to-toe with the World Champs

2008-11-16T13:53:00.006-06:00

Sorry its taken me so long to post this Total Win Contribution Milwaukee Bucks boxscore from their game last night against the World Champion Boston Celtics. I went to the Wisconsin Badgers football game yesterday afternoon, and I was basically too tired after the Bucks game to do anything.

Before I make a few comments on last night's game, let me make one administrative note. Last night watching the Bucks game, I was flipping at timeouts to the Alabama Crimson Tide vs. Mississippi State football game. At one of the timeouts I made a revelation that has led to a permanent policy change for this blog.

You know how I always refer to the Bucks as "The Green and Red"? Looking at the Bucks uniforms, and the Bradley Center floor paint, and then comparing it to the colors on display at Alabama, I decided that designation is incorrect. The Badgers are Red... the Bucks are more like Green and Crimson. So that's how I will refer to them henceforth. Besides, its cooler when a sports team has really unusual sounding color designations (like I heard Lee Corso on a Home Depot commercial say he was going to paint his kitchen Florida State "Garnet and Gold").

So wear Green, think Crimson. Now on to the game.

Comments on the Game

1. I'm going to stop commenting on how impressive Luc Moute has played. But last night the undersized power forward outplayed one of the best power forwards of all time, Kevin Garnett. I knew Moute would make a contribution this season to the Bucks, but not this large a contribution. Right now he's their most consistently positive contributor.

2. The Bucks outpointed the World Champions last night at 3 of the 5 positions, but they were bested at shooting guard, and beaten decisively at the small forward. Paul Pierce was back to last season's level. He crushed Richard Jefferson, and that was the difference in the ballgame.

3. The offense last night was hard to come by on both sides. Nevertheless it was a great game to watch. It had an old school "every possession counts" intensity to it that Bucks games always used to have.

4. Coach Skiles says every player can choose to be either aggressive or passive. I guess Andrew Bogut has chosen to be aggressive. He went toe-to-toe with a very rough, physical Celtic frontline, and had the best game of any Milwaukee Buck.

5. Last night I was reminded of Sollozo's line from The Godfather, "The Don was slipping. In the old days I could never have gotten to him." A year ago, the Bucks could never have closed a double digit Celtic lead enough to extend the Celtics to overtime as they did last night... even at home. The gap has closed between the teams, there's no question about that. Some is due to Celtic slippage, most is due to Bucks gains. And, of course, Coach Scott Skiles.

6. Last night was another step forward for Bucks rookie Joe Alexander. He's rounding into a contributor.

Ramon Sessions...TO...THE...RESCUE!

2008-11-14T22:51:00.004-06:00

I'm not even going to go into the fact that the Bucks had this game on ice with 3 minutes left, and then nearly gave it back to a Memphis team that didn't want it all that badly by putting together about three straight horrible possessions in the last two minutes of regulation. I think there was a long stretch there where the Green and Red did not even get a shot off. But, its forgotten. Besides, I give them a pass, the unit out there at the end was dead dog tired. And they had a right to be. They played some incredible defense to get the Bucks back in the game.

But Thank God for Ramon Sessions. That was a huge 3. But how bout Memphis' defensive strategy? Ahhh, when your up 3 with a couple seconds left... I'm no genius but that seems like a great time NOT to suck your defense way in. But Memphis did. There wasn't anyone within 6 feet of Sessions on the game tying three. Sessions got an unbelievably clean release.

Click here to see the TWC boxscore for Bucks vs. Grizzlies

Stars of the Game

1. Luc Moute +1.345

2. Richard Jefferson +0.622

3. Andrew Bogut +0.452

Honorable Mention: Ramon Sessions (+0.406)

Random Notes on things I observed

1. Has Rudy Gay ever seen a shot that doesn't look good to him?! He almost sucked the air out of the ball. I mean, RJ played tireless defense, but Gay... just...kept...shooting. To which I say: Thank you, sir.

2. As soon as we got Charlie Bell off OJ Mayo, he kind of went away. Well, with the help of Rudy Gay, that is. Mayo's pretty good, though. He's not as great as Jalen Rose thinks, though. Doesn't he look a hell of a lot smaller than he did in college? It seems to me you see that often.

3. How about Luc Moute with his Moses Malone act in Memphis? 17 boards, and a lot of them were high, high degree of hustle rebounds. He's awesome.

4. Guess who showed me something tonight with some hustle, athleticism and smart play? Joe Alexander!!! I shit you not!!! He looked like he might have something to offer...

5. Luke Ridnour was awesome in the extra frame, especially with his foul shooting, but he will NOT take the open shot. Its one thing to be pass first, but he's passing up wide, wide open shots and it sometimes bogs down the offense.

6. This was my first look at Marc Gasol. What's Spanish for "slightly overweight"?

7. Hakim Warrick is the skinniest power forward I've ever seen.

8. Did you realize Bogut has a complete neck beard? I mean, there's nothing on his face, its all on his neck. I don't know why I haven't commented on that bad boy sooner.

9. Great win for the Bucks... who the hell made out the schedule, though? The Celtics in a back-to-back job? This is looking unnecessarily sadistic. Give us a chance.

10. Hey, we finally had an Austin Croshere sighting... and that was about all we wanted to see. No, he should be okay.

11. Gadzuric is now officially a member of the NBA's witness protection program. As part of his new identity, his last name has been changed back to the college pronunciation... GAD-zur-ICK. Of course, Coach Skiles would say, "You know... emphasis on Ick is what I guess I would say to that". (You ever notice how Coach Skiles always sounds so nonchalant in all his soundbites and always lead them with "Well, you know..." and then mixes in an "I guess" somewhere mid sentence?)

LakerNation, Kobe isn't even YOUR mvp

2008-11-14T09:43:00.003-06:00

Everyone is anointing Kobe Bryant the 2008-09 NBA MVP frontrunner because of the Los Angeles Lakers incredible start this season. They figure he's the best player on the best team so he must be the Most Valuable Player. But that's intellectual laziness.

A little bit of reasoning will lead any fan to conclude Kobe probably isn't even the Los Angeles Lakers Most Valuable Player. After all, he's been with the Lakers for how many years, and he's been playing at a high level of efficiency for most of those years... and yet they've never played this well. It would seem Kobe's marginal room for improvement isn't nearly high enough to account for all or even most of the Lakers stunning improvement. And it turns out that it doesn't.

Its the Supporting Cast (starring Trevor Ariza)

To find out what exactly is behind the Lakers incredible surge out of the gates this season, I did a Win Profile to date for the entire team. Click Here to see my Los Angeles Lakers Win Profile to date.

It turns out the Lakers runaway MVP so far this season is small forward Trevor Ariza (I suspected Andrew Bynum or Pau Gasol, but Ariza makes sense, too.) He is playing at an incredibly high level right now.

In fact, so is nearly EVERYONE on the Lakers. Every player on the roster projects to add "Wins Above Average" (wins above the 41-41 mark) except Luke Walton and Derek Fisher. And of those two, only Fisher plays significant minutes. As scary as it is to consider, the Lakers could be an even better team if they flipped minutes between Jordan Farmar and Derek Fisher.

I have to admit, however, my model probably doesn't entirely capture the intrinsic defensive value of Andrew Bynum. After all, the Los Angeles defense has taken a quantum leap forward from last postseason, and he is the only significant difference between the two rosters.

Then again, he was healthy and playing full time for the first part of last season, and their defense was about the same as it was in the postseason. So it may just be that every Laker has bought into the idea that defense wins NBA championships.