The 80 / 20 rule in the NBA

[jn]

What about Ginoblli and Z?  Weren't they both drafted in the past 10 years? That's 3 more All Star appearances for the fuzzy little foreigners.  

[Reality]

I agree with dbods -- it's more like 60/40 -- not 80/20.  And I will state that even the best players in the league will even be better under a system (mainly because role players will be better support because of that system) -- MJ is a great example, he would have still flourished but the Triangle offense made his teammates better which meant it was more difficult to double/triple team.

I'll go with 70/30  B)
So true that coaches can hinder or accentuate a players skills.

Look what Van Grunty is doing in Hou with Yao-Tmac etc.
Hou had it going on for a while this year, 17-6 stretch was tied for league best during that stretch.  They cracked 100pts 1/2 the time during the stretch.  Now i see Grunty has them back to 80-85 pts in 3 straight losses.

To the point of the post tho I'll go with 30% of NBA could play on any team.
The rest it absolutely makes a difference what "situation" they are put in on both O and D.

Hasn't everyone here played hoop with friends or good teamates in which their cooperation and teamwork made all the difference in how the game and specifically your game turned out?

[ziggy]

What about Ginoblli and Z?  Weren't they both drafted in the past 10 years? That's 3 more All Star appearances for the fuzzy little foreigners.

Ah yes JN, my mistake.

[JoMal]

This is a fascinating topic, isn't it?

Ziggy, this issue could easily be broken down by position. Point guards, for instance, are always high in demand; even the mediocre ones. A good cross-over will get you at least on the end of the bench. Power forwards are also not getting into the NBA at all if they are not big enough, for one, or can at least do one of the following well: rebound, block shots, pass, shoot a mid-range jumper, play a decent low-post game. Being slow probably means no NBA for you, kid. I already talked about centers.

The swing positions are where you will find the extremes at both ends of this 80-20 split. The absolute best all-round atheletic players found in the NBA are SF/SG types - the guys you plan your defensive schemes around stopping. At the same time, you can find these "tweeners" all over the League with their fingernails dug deep into NBA benches, trying their damnest to hang on for just another five minutes of playing time somewhere.  
 

[Reality]

and yet besides the "tweeners" you have clearly defined role players like Speedy Claxton going to GS who in turn pick up DFisher and NVE.  :crazy:   Granted they traded NVE but still.

A Jamison always has been one of the best SF IMO.  Hands down.  Yet he goes to Dallas who already has a SF in Dirk and AWalker and while AJ plays a lot, is 6th man of the year, he is still a 6th man.  Now that he is back starting you see him putting up the same excellent #s he did in GState.  I would have loved and still would love to snag AJam onto the Spurs.  It aint gonna happen but he is my kind of forward.

Some of the rosters make no sense at all.  This is where the player and his agent would do well to be very selectful in where they go or don't go.  Speedy Claxton should have stayed put in SAS.

NBA careers can me made or broken depending on which teams and systems a player plays on.  If not the extemes of "made" or "broken" then certainly altered.

Randoph spoke correctly when he talked of MJ getting into Tex Winters system.  To an even greater extent look at what a system and coach like Phil Winters did for Steve Kerr.  If Kerr gets stuck on Golden State do we even hear much about his career?  

[ziggy]

This is a fascinating topic, isn't it?

Ziggy, this issue could easily be broken down by position. Point guards, for instance, are always high in demand; even the mediocre ones. A good cross-over will get you at least on the end of the bench. Power forwards are also not getting into the NBA at all if they are not big enough, for one, or can at least do one of the following well: rebound, block shots, pass, shoot a mid-range jumper, play a decent low-post game. Being slow probably means no NBA for you, kid. I already talked about centers.

The swing positions are where you will find the extremes at both ends of this 80-20 split. The absolute best all-round atheletic players found in the NBA are SF/SG types - the guys you plan your defensive schemes around stopping. At the same time, you can find these "tweeners" all over the League with their fingernails dug deep into NBA benches, trying their damnest to hang on for just another five minutes of playing time somewhere.

Which position matters the most?

Jomal, you are quite the sage.  Here is an article from 82games.com that looks at the various positions, and it supports a lot of what you are talking about.


At 82games we track a number of stats on a "production by position" basis, both for teams (see Pacers positional numbers for example), and for individual players (see Tim Duncan's stats by playing position).

There can be complexities in evaluating which players on court in a game are playing which position at that moment, but by scaling the roster of a team from “most point guard” to “most center” you can organize a group into logical positional placement. For instance when the Kings have Bibby-Christie-Peeler-Stojakovic-Webber on the floor, Webber is acting as the center, Stojakovic is the power forward, whereas in a lineup of Bibby-Christie-Stojakovic-Webber-Miller, Webber is now at the four spot, and Stojakovic is playing the three.

Moreover, we track the stats of the opposing counterpart position, which enables us to build out all kinds of tables with information comparing the net production for each team and player.

One of the many research projects underway and continuing through the off-season will be to assess the correlation between various statistics and the wins accrued for the team in actual reality. While there are many stats we track for position production purposes, by turning to the ratings based on the excellent PER formulas developed by John Hollinger (and as detailed in his Pro Basketball Prospectus books), we get to a summary rating that tackles the heart of the matter.

1) Correlation of Team Positional Production and Wins
We'll first focus on just the team's actual player PER rating (ignoring the counterpart of the opposition), and have three views based on the 2002-03 season, the 2003-04 season, and the two seasons combined.


Position 02-03
Correlation 03-04
Correlation 2Yr
Correlation 95% CI
PG .53 .42 .49 .27 to .66
SG .21 -.17 .07 -.19 to .32
SF .19 .27 .23 -.03 to .46
PF .42 .38 .40 .16 to .60
C .28 .40 .33 .08 to .54

First off we are dealing with only 29 observations per year, so not a giant sample to work with. Not surprisingly then, the standard errors are such that using a 95% confidence interval, we cannot say with total conviction that Point Guard production has been more valuable than Shooting Guard play, since the "best case" SG is 0.32 correlation, while PG is 0.27 in the "worst case."

Still the correlation values from year to year are pretty consistent for PG and PF, and overall it comes in as PG-PF-C-SF-SG in order of importance. Now, before all the GM's rush out to trade their high priced Shooting Guards, perhaps what we are seeing is merely a reflection of the NBA currently and not a long term indication of true worth of positions. For instance, when Jordan was in his prime and ostensibly a shooting guard, it seems likely that the SG production would correlate somewhat more substantially with Wins! These days it is the Power Forwards and Point Guards getting the most notice -- Duncan, Garnett, Kidd and co are some of the stars of the immediate pro basketball era. However, if another crop of Jordans comes along who's to say that the SG's won't become the dominant "correlators."

2) Correlation of Opponent Positional Production and Wins
This time we'll look at the production allowed to opponents by position:


Position 02-03
Correlation 03-04
Correlation 2Yr
Correlation 95% CI
PG -.42 -.48 -.44 -.63 to -.21
SG -.54 -.65 -.58 -.73 to -.38
SF -.57 -.59 -.56 -.72 to -.36
PF -.40 -.38 -.39 -.59 to -.14
C  -.37 -.52 -.44 -.63 to -.21

For the opposing production by position, the order of importance according to the correlation comes in as SG-SF-PG-C-PF, which is interesting to say the least. Whereas having a great shooting guard is downplayed, being able to defend the opposing two guard is significant!

(And no, this study was not funded by the agents of Bruce Bowen, Trent Hassell, et al.)

It's tight though among the positions for this look however, suggesting the ordering could easily change with a different sample of years.

3) Correlation of Net Positional Production and Wins
Finally, we'll run the numbers for the net production, or "PER Difference" to use the term being popularized in certain quarters.


Position 02-03
Correlation 03-04
Correlation 2Yr
Correlation 95% CI
PG .61 .60 .60 .41 to .74
SG .39 .36 .38 .13 to .58
SF .43 .62 .53 .31 to .69
PF .58 .48 .53 .32 to .70
C .38 .52 .45 .21 to .63

For the net production by position, it's PG-PF-SF-C-SG, but again with the wide standard deviations, the 95% CI does not allow for any conclusive stance on one position over another.

At the same time, we can infer from the data that for the past two years, the teams with high producing point guards and forwards have been faring better than those with juggernaut two guards or centers.

Perhaps the most relevant mention of this could be seen in the current Spurs-Lakers playoff series (with San Antonio up 2-0 at this time), where the Spurs have been fabulous in the PG battle (Parker running wild against Payton) and the PF spot (Duncan over Malone), while the Lakers haven't extracted wins from their edge at SG and C.

Anyway, the above tables have served as the warmup...we'll be back next week with the real test when we run regressions on the PER team stats for all positions at once!

 

[Reality]

Perhaps the most relevant mention of this could be seen in the current Spurs-Lakers playoff series (with San Antonio up 2-0 at this time), where the Spurs have been fabulous in the PG battle (Parker running wild against Payton) and the PF spot (Duncan over Malone), while the Lakers haven't extracted wins from their edge at SG and C.

Anyway, the above tables have served as the warmup...we'll be back next week with the real test when we run regressions on the PER team stats for all positions at once!

Will there also be a movie coming out on this?

Actually it is very interesting the who is on the floor together production stats.
Is that what this is talking about lol!  

[JoMal]

Figures, this IS science.

Naturally,math can be used to compare the various positions. What is most interesting about it, is that the position can likely vary over time, depending if dominant centers are currently playing in the NBA, or shooting guards.

It also backs up the supposition that you build your team's offense around the type of players you have, and if your superstar plays small forward, he gets the ball more. Shooting guards Jordan or McGrady will be their respective team's focal point, Iverson his, but guys like Nash or Kidd will always have a power forward or center who gets credit for his team winning more.

Interesting.

[rickortreat]

Ah, but what happens now that AI has Cwebb on his team.  Will he still be the focal point, or wwill Cwebb become the dominant player?

I actually think AI won't be diminished by the persence of Webber, I think it will enhance  people's perceptions of him.  He'll still score a large percentage of the Sixers points, but he will also get more assists.  Webber will take pressure of off Iverson, and spread it out to the other teamates.  Igoudala and Korver will get more opportunities thanks to Webber's passing and the attention he demands.

This move could make Iverson the best point guard in the NBA.  I expect him to move up to the top of the assists list now.  

[JoMal]

Ah, but what happens now that AI has Cwebb on his team.  Will he still be the focal point, or wwill Cwebb become the dominant player?

I actually think AI won't be diminished by the persence of Webber, I think it will enhance  people's perceptions of him.  He'll still score a large percentage of the Sixers points, but he will also get more assists.  Webber will take pressure of off Iverson, and spread it out to the other teamates.  Igoudala and Korver will get more opportunities thanks to Webber's passing and the attention he demands.

This move could make Iverson the best point guard in the NBA.  I expect him to move up to the top of the assists list now.

What if teams based who on the team will be the focal point strictly on salary? The more a player earns, the more he will have the ball in his hands. The Sixers would be force-feeding the ball into Webber three possessions to every two for Iverson then.

Now, if that were the case, it would surely be in the interests of teams to pay similar salaries out to players at each position to guarantee the ball gets passed around more.

[rickortreat]

Actually JoMal, that's the way it is.  The reason most players get higher salaries is the result of their play.  Not that a point guard worries about how much this guy or that guy gets, but how open is he, and how easy is it to get him the ball.

The players who work harder to get the ball, get it more, have more chances to shoot and score and get more money.  If players don't shoot well enough, they don't get the ball as much and end up getting under utilized.  No team want to keep passing the ball to  player who isn't scoring.

Some players deserve based on their shooting percentage to shoot the ball more, but don't always get the opportunity.  Andre Igoudala comes  to mind for the Sixers.  If he would shoot more the Sixers would shoot a higher percentage collectively.  I wonder how many other players in the league deserve more shots and don't get them because of the way their teams play.