Statistical analysis of our current starting 5

[LUKE23]

It's pretty dead around here and we don't see any deals on the horizon, so just thought I'd throw a topic out there for discussion. We all know that Hollinger's analysis has flaws, but I found it interesting that based on our current starting five as of today (Williams/Redd/Jefferson/Villanueva/Bogut), it appears that Hollinger would have us as a playoff team based on is PER ratings, if you go by last year's numbers. Here are his rankings (I'm listing them as opposed to league average at the position):

PG: Williams (+2.06, 74th overall at all positions)
SG: Redd (+3.90, 40th overall at all positions)
SF: Jefferson (+2.46, 65th overall at all positions)
PF: Villanueva (-.01, 126th overall at all positions)
C: Bogut (+2.55, 61st overall at all positions)

For an overall team PER of +10.96 as opposed to the average team. Now, I know this ignores things such as chemistry and defense (which would obviously be a major issue with that starting five), but I just thought it was interesting to look at as things stand today.

[thefloorgeneral]

This line-up looks good. Especially with Dez and Alexander on the bench as fire starters. If we can move CV for a 8+rpg PF w/an inside presence, I think we're playoff-bound easily.

[LUKE23]

All of this said, I believe we cannot have both Mo and CV in the starting five, but I'm not necessarily in the camp that says we have to move both, especially in talent-dump type deals. I don't think we can live with both in the starting five, but one we could depending on who was added.

[paul]

Yeah I agree Luke, whilst it may be interesting this team would only ever be good on paper imo. By the time the moratorium is over we're all gonna sound like broken records but this team needs a banging 4 and a pass-first 1 who can both play defense. If we start the season with this starting 5 I'll be very very disappointed, and it will undo much of Hammond's good work to date imo. It's an upgrade on last year, but there simply aren't enough basketballs to accomodate them.

[LUKE23]

I don't think we will go in with this starting five, however I wouldn't be shocked whatsoever if we kept Mo and see how he did with Skiles, and then moved CV and/or Mason for a physical PF. Mo has defensive issues no question, but he scores very efficiently. They may give him a period with Skiles to see if Skiles can transition his D. Plus, the FA market for PG's is horrendous (Duhon might get 3/10, that shows how poor it is).

Would Hammond/Skiles feel comfortable going into the season with just Sessions/Bell and maybe a crappy FA? I have my doubts on that.

[Isocleas2]

All of this said, I believe we cannot have both Mo and CV in the starting five, but I'm not necessarily in the camp that says we have to move both, especially in talent-dump type deals. I don't think we can live with both in the starting five, but one we could depending on who was added.

I think you want to have atleast 3 guys in the starting line-up who are average to above-average defensively. Jefferson and Bogut fit that bill, we just need one more defender to plug in at PG or PF.

[smauss]

Luke, I can't believe I'm saying this, maybe its the allergy meds, but if both Mo & CV couldn't be moved then I'd rather keep Mo and trade CV. My reasons are two-fold. 1.) I think the type of 4 we need, or at least get by with, is easier to find than a solid 1. 2.) If we got a good defending, physical, rebounding 4, the matador brothers defense could be more easily overcome. I do however reserve the right to change my mind.....

ETA: I also think that Sessions backing up Mo, or maybe taking over the starting role, is a much better scenerio than what we currently have at the 4.

[LUKE23]

Luke, I can't believe I'm saying this, maybe its the allergy meds, but if both Mo & CV couldn't be moved then I'd rather keep Mo and trade CV. My reasons are two-fold. 1.) I think the type of 4 we need, or at least get by with, is easier to find than a solid 1. 2.) If we got a good defending, physical, rebounding 4, the matador brothers defense could be more easily overcome. I do however reserve the right to change my mind.....

I would definitely agree that if we could only move one of the two it would be CV and keep Mo. I realize there is a bretheren of people who would move Mo for basically nothing of value on this board, but for all the deficiencies, the guy is a very good offensive player.

I also agree with your reasoning. The FA market for PG's is horrendous. Finding a PG that is any better than Sessions in a trade isn't that likely either. So how comfortable would Hammond feel going with Sessions and Bell as the only PG's next year? My guess is not very.

I'm not saying keep Mo at all costs. I definitely gauge his value on the trade market. But if I had to pick one to keep between Mo/CV, it's Mo all day.

I guess I look at it like this: if you get a defensive PF in a trade, the frontcourt is set pretty well on defense at RJ/4/Bogut. You have overall a weak defensive backcourt, but I think both Redd/Mo play better D under Skiles than they did under LK (just a prediction, I have nothing to back this on). And even with that defense, Mo/Redd still have an offensive advantage most nights anyway.

[smauss]

Luke, I can't believe I'm saying this, maybe its the allergy meds, but if both Mo & CV couldn't be moved then I'd rather keep Mo and trade CV. My reasons are two-fold. 1.) I think the type of 4 we need, or at least get by with, is easier to find than a solid 1. 2.) If we got a good defending, physical, rebounding 4, the matador brothers defense could be more easily overcome. I do however reserve the right to change my mind.....

I would definitely agree that if we could only move one of the two it would be CV and keep Mo. I realize there is a bretheren of people who would move Mo for basically nothing of value on this board, but for all the deficiencies, the guy is a very good offensive player.

I also agree with your reasoning. The FA market for PG's is horrendous. Finding a PG that is any better than Sessions in a trade isn't that likely either. So how comfortable would Hammond feel going with Sessions and Bell as the only PG's next year? My guess is not very.

I'm not saying keep Mo at all costs. I definitely gauge his value on the trade market. But if I had to pick one to keep between Mo/CV, it's Mo all day.

I guess I look at it like this: if you get a defensive PF in a trade, the frontcourt is set pretty well on defense at RJ/4/Bogut. You have overall a weak defensive backcourt, but I think both Redd/Mo play better D under Skiles than they did under LK (just a prediction, I have nothing to back this on). And even with that defense, Mo/Redd still have an offensive advantage most nights anyway.

Yup, my fear is that the combo of Mo & Redd score 52 but give up 55. I tend not to look at one sided advantages because it's a net existance to be sure. It's a bit like the old supply siders saying: "I'm loosing a nickel per unit but I'll make it up in volume."

[Debit One]

All of this said, I believe we cannot have both Mo and CV in the starting five, but I'm not necessarily in the camp that says we have to move both, especially in talent-dump type deals. I don't think we can live with both in the starting five, but one we could depending on who was added.

I'll agree with you here, Luke. Here are my theories:

1. While we would prefer to have only one bad defender, we can in the short-term live with two.

2. We cannot live with the worst defensive backcourt in the NBA.

3. There is no point in having Richard Jefferson on your team if the ball is never going to leave the hands of the guards.

Therefore, I think that Mo is the guy who must go and we can live short-term with CV at the PF. What is interesting is that it is far more likely that we deal Mo for a big than for another guard, so dealing Mo may bring us the PF who replaces CV.

[LUKE23]

I see what you're saying, but with Skiles coaching and a SF that is actually worth something (for once), do you think we should expect the backcourt to ignore Jefferson? I'm not no sure about that. I agree with the defense, it wouldn't be good, but I do believe in Skiles ability to get the most defense possible out of a players talent.

I just wish I was more comfortable with Sessions/Bell and whatever other crap we get at PG. I can't say I am right now, and I'm a big fan of Sessions.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think CV is more easily replaceable, AND I like Mo's game better because he at least scores the ball efficiently, while CV does not.

[smauss]

Debit, I don't disagree with you reasoning except I don't believe Skiles will be willing to go into the season with Sessions & Bell at the 1. If we can find another acceptable 1, I'm down with it (Hinrich) but I simply don't believe Sessions/Bell will fly with Skiles.

ETA: Sorry for piling on, Luke is obviously a more efficient typist than I am...

[Whiteman]

this team needs a banging 4 ... who can play defense.

Really? You're not the first to say this, many people here want a physical PF who can defend the post and doesn't need the ball much on offense. I'm not sure I agree.

The NBA is full of scoring PF's at the moment (Garnett, Amare, Dirk, Bosh, Brand, West, Jamison, Boozer, Aldridge; Rashard Lewis plays the 4 as well), but how do these guys score? I don't watch enough NBA to know all of them well, but how many of them are low post scorers? Most of them prefer to play facing the basket (or score from the P'nR). When searching for a PF for the Bucks, I'd give more priority to footspeed than strength right now.

Furthermore, RJ is not really an outside shooter, and Bogut barely scores from outside the bucket. I do not want to see a PF next to Bogut who cannot at least hit a midrange jumper consistently. Otherwise opponents can just clog the lane and watch the shooters we do have launch from outside, and we've seen enough of that.

That Otis Thorpe / Charles Oakley type banger PF may have been useful ten years ago, but the game has changed.

[jeremyd236]

this team needs a banging 4 ... who can play defense.

Really? You're not the first to say this, many people here want a physical PF who can defend the post and doesn't need the ball much on offense. I'm not sure I agree.

The NBA is full of scoring PF's at the moment (Garnett, Amare, Dirk, Bosh, Brand, West, Jamison, Boozer, Aldridge; Rashard Lewis plays the 4 as well), but how do these guys score? I don't watch enough NBA to know all of them well, but how many of them are low post scorers? Most of them prefer to play facing the basket (or score from the P'nR). When searching for a PF for the Bucks, I'd give more priority to footspeed than strength right now.

Furthermore, RJ is not really an outside shooter, and Bogut barely scores from outside the bucket. I do not want to see a PF next to Bogut who cannot at least hit a midrange jumper consistently. Otherwise opponents can just clog the lane and watch the shooters we do have launch from outside, and we've seen enough of that.

That Otis Thorpe / Charles Oakley type banger PF may have been useful ten years ago, but the game has changed.

The thing about the majority of the guys you listed there is that not only do they score, but they don't neccesarily give it right back on the other end of the court. Garnett, Bosh, Brand....yeah they can score but these are elite defenders at their position. Even guys like Aldridge (didn't know he was an elite scoring 4, but anyways...) can play a lick of defense...which is better than CV. It seems that whenever CV scores 20+, it doesn't matter if his guy does the same thing.

[Epicurus]

Using WinScores for the last two seasons ( some site does this by the last two years and I am too lazy to do it just for last season, plus I've read somewhere that the last two year average is better than the previous year)then converted to WinsProduced (both from Prof. Beri, discussed here before, which I believe is more predictive than PERs), The starting Bucks, as ennumerated by Luke:

Bogut .165 Winsproduced for 48 minutes and last season 2720 minutes played. If for this coming year those factors hold, then .9.35 wins

Williams .130WP/48; 2410 minutes= 6.53 wins.

Redd .130 WP/48; 2720 min. = 7.32 wins.

Villenuava .081; 1829 min = 3.09 wins.

Jefferson .052; 3200 min = 3.47 wins

Under these assumptions--next season reflecting the performance average of last two years; next year reflecting number of minutes for this past season, the suggested starting 5 produces 29.8 wins.

Will Jefferson return to his performance of 3 years ago or be like the last two (albeit last season was not as bad as the one before)? Will the younger players develop over the off season? Will the new coaching staff do things that will appreciable raise each player's performance? Will the bench add a small positive or a negative to the projective wins ( can go either way historically)?

[LUKE23]

So does that mean that the Bucks as projected only win 30 games next year based on last year's individual player production, or is that not counting the bench?

[bigkurty]

Has anybody ever developed a statistical analysis to see how much a coach can affect wins? I imagine that is pretty hard to do but it would be interesting to see what "Win Score" Skiles would have if there were such a thing.

[Epicurus]

See my last question in the previous post, Luke. From looking at this stuff for awhile it seems some benches add and some subtract (not too profound, I realize, but reality). Rather than hope that a bench will add appreciably, I think it is better to hope the starters get better or better starters are found. Impressionably I think the Bucks will win more than 30 games. Two years ago before the slew of longterm injuries they were headed for at least 40 wins. I think on paper and on maturity this team should easily be better than that one.

[Epicurus]

Has anybody ever developed a statistical analysis to see how much a coach can affect wins? I imagine that is pretty hard to do but it would be interesting to see what "Win Score" Skiles would have if there were such a thing.

Yes, but it is not been published. From the little I know of the study, the authors found that some coaches have made significant contributions to performance, but most really don't when on considers all the players and control for other factors. I am eager to read the study and hope it gets published before the coming season. I think the clear answer to your question (again from the little I have been able to gather about the study) is yes, if the coaches are named Nelson and Jackson.

[LUKE23]

I agree. Just ballparking it, I'd say that starting five would score a lot and give up a lot. I'd say 43-45 wins for that starting five. Obviously, I don't think that will be the starting five when the season starts though.