First, a plug. Go read Devin’s latest post (see here). Back? excellent.
Over the last few days, I’ve been playing with the Championship Equation. The point of the equation is to identify necessary conditions to be met by any team wishing to contend for a title. So far I have:
- Win 52 or more games (Houston is an aberration that can be explained in one word: Hakeem)
- Have two star points (either >2 Stars, > Star + Superstar or > 2 Superstars) in your Playoff Top 6
- Have at least one .140 WP48 player who plays PF or Center in your Playoff Top 6 (credit to some dude)
Do this and you could win the title.
In the comments to the last piece, Reader Neal Frazier asks:
“I am wondering if there is not some floor of combined WP48 for the top 6 guys that may matter more than the number of star points – this may explain the houston phenomenon – so I am wondering what the lowest sum of WP48 for the top 6 guys from the champs from the last 30 odd years is and if that metric does a better job of narrowing the field of contenders than the star points system? Ultimately, are there fewer teams with the necessary sumWP48 than there are teams with 2+ star points and 52+ wins produced?”
I had a Derrick Rose post with all the numbers ready to go, but this is just too good a a question to pass up. I’ll save that piece for next week. Let’s take a look at Neal’s question. Basics first.
Basics (skip if familiar)
This article uses Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] to evaluate player’s performance.* This measure uses three key components to evaluate a player:
- The player’s per minute box score statistics
- The player’s team’s per minute box score statistics
- The average performance at the player’s position (PG, SG, SF, PF or C)
A full explanation can be found here. To give a general scale, an average player has a WP48 score of 0.100. The very best players in the league usually have a WP48 over 0.300. To put this in perspective; an average player who plays a full season at 40 minutes a game would generate around 6.83 wins for their team. In contrast, a player posting a 0.300 WP48 would generate about 20.5 wins at 40 minutes a game over an 82 game season.
I consider 400 minutes in a season a significant sample
I consider:
- a <.000 WP48 player a waste of a roster spot
- a .050 WP48 player a bench player
- a .100 WP48 player a starter
- a .200 WP48 player a star
- a .300 WP48 player a superstar
I may also talk about the half-baked notion and Wins over replacement Player (WORP).
Answering the Question:
The question is what is the lowest sum of WP48 for the top 6 guys from the champs from the last 30 odd years and does that tell us anything? To answer, I compiled:
- Qty of Players in the Playoff Top 6 in Minutes who were Stars (.200-.300 Wp48) or were Superstars (>.300 Wp48) in the Previous Regular Season. Star Points were awarded 1 for a Star, 2 for a Superstar.
- For those same 6 guys the Cumulative WP48 for the previous season,that season and the playoffs.
In table form, this looks like:
What can we take from this? All the teams with less than .800 WP48 from their top 6 coming into the season had a superstar. All got breaks (rookies, people stepping) but they had a superstar to make it possible. If you have a superstar in the NBA, you have a shot at the title.
So the new rules are:
- Win 52 or more games (Houston is an aberration that can be explained in one word: Hakeem)
- Have two star points (either >2 Stars, > Star + Superstar or > 2 Superstars) in your Playoff Top 6
- Have at least one .140 WP48 player who plays PF or Center in your Playoff Top 6 (credit to some dude and we’ll call it the Suns Corollary)
- A superstar puts you in the conversation if you can make it in and surround him some talent (credit to Neal Frazier and we’ll call it the Hakeem Factor).
So based on this, if we look at the Stars/Superstars again:
And account for Bigs over .140 Wp48 (or the lack thereof). The contenders list looks like this:
Favorites: Miami,Portland,Lakers,Spurs (no change there)
Contenders (have everything in place) : Orlando,Boston, Chicago, OKC, Warriors
Missing something teams : Phoenix ( a big), Charlotte,New Orleans, Minnesota (have a superstar but nothing else yet), Denver (one more star).
Phoenix drops because of not having a quality big. Charlotte is interesting but I don’t trust them yet. New Orleans and Minnesota could pull a Ginobli out of their hat somehow. Denver is the most realistic to move to the contenders group if they get a star back for Melo.
Arturo's Silly Little Stats v2.0 
some dude
10/03/2010
ooh, i like this. I also like being famous.
Hm, who is the OKC big above .14?
Also, you have golden state on the contender list twice.
Just need to the the GSW out of this contender list somehow. Perhaps we need to add the monta ellis corollary?
*cannot have a player with a below .1 WP48 and >25% usage rate in top 6*
arturogalletti
10/03/2010
I know right. Credit where credit is due 🙂
Ibaka using prof. berri’s minutes split (which treat him as a PF not a center). His WP48 is .164 and after that LA series it’s really hard to argue hes not a good young big.
I’ll fix the GSW thing in a bit. They can get rid of Monta so I can’t disqualify them for that 🙂
Pity. “And sub-zero WP48 players in your playoff rotation give you rabies” would’ve been a great followup piece.
Chicago Tim
10/03/2010
I would be interested in a list of which teams with young, under-24 players (Bulls, Oklahoma, Portland) who could still grow into the role of star or superstar. I would also be interested in a list of teams who have old stars or superstars (Spurs, Boston) who might experience a decrease in performance this year.
arturogalletti
10/03/2010
I might be able to do something about that. I’ll put it together.
Chicago Tim
10/03/2010
You’re wonderful!
And I eagerly anticipate that post about Derrick Rose. I do hope it says more than “he’s overrated.” Maybe a glimmer of hope that he will grow into his reputation? There have to be other 21-year-olds who took a while to reach star production, right?
Raspu10
10/06/2010
under 24, or 24 and under? Clearly, I’d be more interested in the latter. 🙂
Chicago Tim
10/03/2010
*%#&^%#*&^%
Boozer out eight weeks with a broken hand.
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5644724
arturogalletti
10/03/2010
Did you see the twitter feed. It’s only three wins (might be less if Taj grows ).
Chicago Tim
10/03/2010
Thanks. It’s just so strange how Boozer comes up with these freak injuries.
neal frazier
10/04/2010
Wow, I ask a question hoping to debunk the idea that superstars matter a lot, and the data shows just the opposit – thats why these WOW sites are so much fun, you get to bounce your gut feelings off the facts – thanks.
arturogalletti
10/04/2010
Number are funny that way. I thought Magic was overrated when I was a kid (I don’t anymore, underrated more like).
nerdnumbers
10/04/2010
Until you accept that a team of five Magics would beat a team of five Barkley’s you still have him underrated in my book.
arturogalletti
10/04/2010
Barkley would score on him at will.
Raspu10
10/04/2010
I love the utter disbelief that the Warriors could win a championship. Especially with Nellie gone, and no Parego. Biedren’s “terrible year” last year was still star level, and if he returns to form he could once again hit superstar level. Lee is a star at a minimum. dWright came very close to star last year. Reggie and Steph were “above-average starters” (as rookies, mind you) using this breakdown, and Monta would be a “bench player”. Going from a top-6 combined .521 to .972 (using last year figures) is a huge leap.
Come April, we’re likely to see a whole slew f articles about he “surprising” Warriors. With this lineup, the only surprise for me will be if they don’t seriously contend.
arturogalletti
10/04/2010
Remember, I called it first 🙂
Raspu10
10/05/2010
How could I forget? 🙂
Chicago Tim
10/06/2010
Did you call it before Prof. Berri?
arturogalletti
10/06/2010
I think the guy who wrote the review called it first (close to 50 wins). I’m calling them out as a contender in the west.
jbrett
10/04/2010
Dre,
I’m with you. We can theorize that Barkley could have played all five positions well; we saw Magic DO it, in the NBA finals, when he was a 20-year-old ROOKIE, and dominate a great Sixers team. Not everyone can play point. Chuck would have had to run the triangle; can you imagine that? Not sure I can.
arturogalletti
10/05/2010
That is all.
Devin Dignam
10/06/2010
Arturo – I tried playing that game a while back, but I couldn’t really get into it (I’m not really an RPG guy, for the most part). But at least it was well-made and hilarious.
arturogalletti
10/06/2010
I’m an old school rpg guy and I also loved NBA Jam. The humor is just totally in my wheelhouse.
neal frazier
10/07/2010
Could the rumored addition of Dampier to Phoenix chamge their contender status? Would this addition allow Pheonix to meet Some Dude’s Sun’s Corollary?
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/20238/erick-dampier-still-deciding-on-next-team
If linking other articles is a no-no, then please delete – this is just where I heard the rumor…
arturogalletti
10/07/2010
Neal,
Yes. Actually the two teams that are interesting there are the Suns and Bulls. Suns immediately meet the criteria for contender. The Bulls get more Noah/Boozer injury insurance. At 2 million both teams should make that deal.