The Hornets played the 7th best defense in the league last year, acquired defensive wizards James Posey, and emitted various hoo-ha's about not trying to acquire "non-defense playing" guys like J.R. Smith. Of course, that made us all feel good about our defensive prospects for '08-'09. Posey makes us tough! Let's go out and D up like the Celtics! Woo!

Yeah. Hasn't happened.

The defensive efficiency has has taken a dip for two major reasons: we're starting to foul too much and we're allowing opposing teams to light us up from the field. Over a one or two game stretch, it might not be too worrisome. But over a 10 game period, these increases are indicative of a larger problem.

Rising allowed eFG% and allowed FT are generally caused by the same issue- leaving opponents open. Defenders must either let open players shoot the ball or foul them to prevent them from shooting the ball. The Hornets have done that time and time again, regardless of the quality of their opposition. Why are so many opposing players wide open?

Poor penetration defense and poor perimeter rotations. Those two things were on prominent display versus Sacramento. Udrih, Salmons, Greene, you name it, were driving to the rim at will. I decided to mess around with some video software and highlight a couple examples from the Kings game. This is my first time doing any video, so sorry about the choppiness in some parts.

Watching those two plays in real speed, it's difficult to tell what went wrong. On the first one, it almost looks like it might be Peja's fault- why didn't he rotate to cover the ball? Only when you slow it down and watch West immaturely go for the steal does it become obvious. Ditto on the second play. At game speed, it looks like good passing from Sacramento just created chaos in the Hornets' D. In actuality, Chris Paul randomly decided to follow the ball (totally unnecessarily) and leave his man. I included these two plays because they were microcosms of our defense in general. If there's one thing to take away, it's this: our defense is struggling because of small, minute, mistakes. These are rookie mistakes. These are things you see defensively undisciplined teams do. Gambling. Ball watching.

Above all, these are coaching downfalls. A good coach sees Paul do that and bangs it into his head that he needs to stay at home. There's nothing he can do rotating underneath the hoop that Tyson Chandler and David West can't already take care of. A good coach sees West try for that steal and admonishes him for playing defense with his hands instead of his feet. These subtle mistakes manifest themselves in seemingly overarching and unsolvable issues- ridiculously high allowed field goal percentages, high rates of fouls. Until the coaching staff and the players recognize that good defense starts at the smallest of scales, this team will continue to struggle.

Sacramento 108 (5-8)  |  New Orleans 96 (5-5)

Ugly. That's a pretty good word for it.

Tonight the Kevin Martin-less Kings outplayed a healthy Hornets squad, who wasted a 20 PT, 15 AST, 4 STL performance from Chris Paul. Without Kevin Martin. Kevin Martin did not play. Oof.

Actually, outplayed isn't really the best word for it. The team stats were almost identical in every category with one solitary exception: 3 pointers. New Orleans dropped a horrific 2 out of 13 from beyond the arc, while Sacramento made a merely average 7 of 19. But last night, average was enough. And that's really the difference when it comes down to it.

Ok, so that's not really the whole story. In all honesty, we could have won this game. Keep in mind that we did outscore them in the first half without a single trey. So, a victory was imminent despite the poor percentage from deep if only a few other things had happened:

A. David West had pulled down more than 1 (ONE!) rebound and

B. John Salmons hadn't beat Rasual Butler off the dribble on every possession, ending the game with 29 PTs after going 13 of 18 from the field.

Seriously, Byron? You're not going to try a different defensive scheme when a mediocre 2 drops 30 points on you? Were you really that mad at Morris that he truly deserved 0 (ZERO!) minutes?

It's doubly frustrating that we lost this game considering that we could have jumped Houston in the divisional standings after they dropped a game without the services of any of their big 3.

Regardless, I'm not pressing the panic button yet. Remember that this Hornets squad dropped a game to Sacramento at the end of last season in a crucial quest to land atop the Western Conference standings. We missed that 1 seed by a single game.

Continue reading this post »

The season is barely a half month old. It's so early, the Knicks are 5th in the East, and the Kings are in the West playoff picture. Marvin Williams leads the league in three point shooting, and Tony Parker is 3rd in scoring. Things are going to even out; there's a long way to go.

I've always believed that the Hornets would win a championship. A month into Chris Paul's career, I was sure of it. The kid was just too incredible; surround him with even marginally above average talent, and the Hornets would surely win it all, I thought. The past couple years did nothing to change my perception. As you might imagine, they probably strengthened that notion. The surrounding cast was falling into place, the big name free agent was snatched from eager suitors, and the guy that had inspired all that hope in the first place was unthinkably better than he was on draft night. When the Spurs eliminated the Hornets last year, it seemed a beginning far more than an end.

This summer, one of my friends asked me something interesting.  Had I ever wondered if maybe the Hornets don't ever win a championship? If the Lakers' ascendence to power just happens to coincide with and supersede the Hornets' rise? It seems silly, but I'd never really thought of it in terms of other teams. It was definitely a plausible idea; the regular season was just so far off at the time, I didn't give it much thought.

Then Wednesday night happened. Sure, New Orleans came back. Sure, Chris Paul was Chris Paul. But anybody watching that game could've easily told you who the better team was. Teams don't build 20+ point leads and sustain them for multiple quarters by fluke. Niall's post-game comment sort of put into words an idea I'd been slowly coming to terms with: "Phil Jackson has put together a well-oiled machine. And the most depressing thing is, I'm not sure what we can do to get to that level and compete with them this season. Unless something drastic happens, there's no way I can see us beating them in a 7-game series. It's mid-November and I'm pretty sure I already know how the season will end."

I felt that exact same sense of disappointment. If they're so much better than us now, then why should we believe that New Orleans will magically make up that gap in a handful of months?

I slept on that idea for a bit. People enjoy sports because sports are random. Every game involves a better team and a worse team. Sports are fun because the better team will not win every time. The Lakers are clearly the better team. Sports are about taking the hand you're dealt, and maximizing value. The Lakers surely have the better hand. But there's a reason a player like LeBron James can almost singlehandedly topple a vastly superior team like the Detroit Pistons. The sport of basketball in general is more conducive to single player dominance than any other team game.

For me, it all comes back to what gave me so much hope to start with- Chris Paul. Virtually every major statistic worth its salt agrees on one thing: there's LeBron James and Chris Paul, and then there's the rest of the league. Those are the two best players in the game. If LBJ can lift a decidedly mediocre team past a perennial title contender, why can not Chris Paul lead a very good team past a title contender?

The Lakers are the better team, no question. But in a sport as individual centric as basketball, and with the Hornets in possession of arguably the best player in the entire league, I'm not ready to write this team off.

Los Angeles 93 (7-0)  |  New Orleans 86 (4-3)

There were bad omens all night. The lighting system went snafu during the team intros, Hugo lost an antenna during one of his timeout routines, and the Hornets looked just this side of abysmal for a solid 24 minutes to open the game. 

Despite an impressive late comeback in the fourth, the Lakers never once relinquished the lead. They opened with a 7-1 run, then the Hornets pulled the score closer at 10-9. The Lakers then responded by making it 15-9. And that's a pretty good encapsulation of the night. Lakers go up, Hornets cut the lead, Lakers go up again. Later, down 21, the Hornets opened the third with a 12-2. Six minutes later the Lakers were back up by 19. Second verse, same as the first.

At some point in the first quarter, I wrote, "we look good, they look better." That stance was later amended (in the second and third quarters) to "they look great, we look awful." 

But in the fourth quarter, things changed. The lineup looked rejuvenated and CP looked driven. After cutting the lead from 21 to 3 in only ten minutes, the Hornets looked poised for an upset. But with 1:07 remaining on the game clock and 1 second on the shot clock, Kobe nailed the dagger shot from 26 feet away with Posey all up in his business. No way you can defend better on that series. Kobe is just... well, he's Kobe. 

And that was it. You've got to hand it to the fans for sticking this one out with the team. The mass exodus midway through the fourth against Atlanta was just embarrassing. But not this time. The Hive was off the decibel chart (gauge? meter? I know nothing about science) as the fans got on their feet and gave it everything they had for the final four minutes or so.

Continue reading this post »

Miami 89 (3-3)  |  New Orleans 100 (4-2)

Welcome back, Hornets. The disoriented, sloppy crew who gave us two painful losses (one of which was inexcusable) did not show up to play Miami. Rather, something much closer in kin to last year's 56 win team arrived to take down D-wyane Wade and company.

CP was his normal, stellar self putting up 21 points, 13 assists, 7 rebounds, and 4 steals in 37 minutes of play. The Chef's dishing skills put 6 other Hornets in double-digit points (ok, Rasual only had 8 points) and none of those players was named James Posey. Basically, the Bees played some of the best team basketball I've seen in a while, with everyone contributing. We looked good.

Chris' performance made him the first player in NBA history to start a season with 6 consecutive 20-10 games, passing Oscar Robertson's 5.

What's better is that we saw the return of the Chaos Effect (first postured by mW of Hornets Hype). We had Chris dashing in and out of the lane, confusing the defense, drawing fouls, and finding insane looks all over God's creation it was a pretty thing. I mentioned in the last post, that CP shakes me on half of his fakes, and this game was no exception. In fact, at one point he was juking a player and half tripped over his own feet before recovering and driving to the hoop. This prompted my buddy Frank (one of the Super Bees) to remark that "sometimes Chris' head freaks his legs out". 

The Heat, on the other hand, looked decent, if not a little out of sync. Posey and Peterson played D. Wade pretty well, though the stat line doesn't show it (because he's Dwayne Wade, dammit). He finished with 30 points, 10 assists, 6 rebounds, 2 blocks, and a steal. You know, I like this team in 2 years. The core of Wade, Haslem, Beasely (who will become a beast and sometime soon), and Chalmers is quite promising. But not for this season.

Continue reading this post »

Continue reading this post »

Basketballjohn's FanPost (below) inspired me to finally do a post I've been pondering all summer. Who are the best point guards in the NBA? I've seen quite a few of these lists floating around the tubes. But most of them involve nebulous terms like "proven leader" or "knows how to win." Very few of them offer legitimate logic and reasoning for why one player is specifically more valuable than the other.

The irony is perhaps quite thick. A Hornets blogger purporting to make a logical, non-biased point guard list? It's fair to sneeze rather loudly. When was the last time you saw a Jazz fan call Chris Paul the best point guard in the NBA or a Hornets fan call Steve Nash the best point guard in the NBA? Probably never. That said, this list is based on plainly verifiable facts.

I've decided to present it differently from how such lists are normally made. Each player's blurb explains why he's better than the guy above him. It's the basketball version of the Straight Talk Express. On steroids. Before the whole "Running for President" thing.

10. Devin Harris

#11 for me is Andre Miller.

Scoring: One of the biggest gripes against Miller is that he has no range. He went 3 for 34 from three last year, to follow up 1 for 19 the year before. Harris offers a 32% stroke from three. While Andre is pretty good at everything else he shoots, so is Harris, who ranks among the better lay-up finishers in the league. The slight advantage in scoring goes to Harris, by virtue of his better true shooting and effective field goal percentages (56% to 53% and 50% to 46%).

Passing: 6 years ago, Miller was perhaps the best passer in the league, leading the NBA in assist rate at nearly 50%. His rates have plummeted since then, while Harris' increased with New Jersey and figure to rise again in his first full season with the Nets. Miller has also turned the ball over a tad more than Harris (16.7 rate to 16.2 rate), and again, I expect Harris' rate to decline this year as he gains familiarity with his system. It's clear who the better passer/ballhandler will be in a couple years, but for now it's a tie.

Defense: I'm a bit torn on this one. Pre-season, John Hollinger called Harris the best defensive point guard in the league, but Devin definitely struggled defensively during his time with Dallas and Jersey last year. He has the lateral quickness to be a Rondo-like defender, and his block rates and steal rates surprass Dre's. Harris is the better defender, and he could eventually become a significantly better defender than he is right now.

9. Gilbert Arenas

Scoring: This one's not even close. Gil has proven himself to be a scorer in the ilk of the Kobes and Lebrons of the world. His field goal percentage took a precipitous drop last year, but when he's been healthy, he's been a monster on the court. His 36% three point shooting dwarfs Harris 32%, his 7.1 free throws/36 dwarfs Harris' 5.1, and he's attempted about 10 field goals per game more in his career than Harris. Really no question here.

Passing/Ballhandling: Gilbert's a surprisingly accomplished passer, given how much he shoots the ball. His career 26.4 assist rate is actually higher than Harris' 25.5. No doubt Harris' assist rates will increase over the next few years as he becomes the man in New Jersey, but up till now, Gilbert has helped out his teammates a tad more. Gil also takes care of the ball quite well. Toss out his injury ridden season last year, and he hasn't posted a turnover rate worse than 11.8 since joining the Wizards. The edge again goes to Arenas.

Defense: This is one of those that more advanced defensive metrics would really help out with. I probably watch about 10-15 Arenas games a season (obviously not last year), but I really can't make a read on how great of a defender he is over an 82 game stretch. See above for my take on Harris's defense. I think, a few years down the road, Harris will definitely be the better defender. For now, I'll call it a push.

Other: Tossing Arenas into this list was easily the hardest thing to do. Healthy, I have him much, much higher than #9. Definitely top 5, if not top 3 or 4.

8. T.J. Ford

Scoring: Ford's ability to put the ball in the bucket will never be the focal point of any offensive attack. He struggles with the trifecta (29.4% last year), doesn't draw fouls at rates his quickness indicates he should, and his career high .484 eFG% last year is lower than Arena's career eFG% of .488. Toss in the fact that Arenas has scored 29.3 and 28.4 ppg in separate seasons with little to no loss in efficiency, and it's clear who the better scorer is.

Passing/Ballhandling: Ford's always been a great passer, starting with his years in Texas. The last two seasons, he's posted assist rates of 44.4 and 44.8, behind only Chris Paul and Steve Nash last year. On the turnover side, he started his rookie campaign as one of the wildest PG's in the league (24% TOV rate) but has improved every year since. While Gil posts surprisingly high AST% figures himself, they pale in comparison to Ford's. Arena's career 14% TOV rate is very similar to Ford's last year. All in all, Ford is the better playmaker.

Defense: Opponent counterpart production suggests that neither is the greatest defender at his position, but that the two are pretty equal. End of the day, I'd probably want Gil defending my goal simply because he's got a 30 pound advantage on Ford.

Other: In a pure talent sense, it's virtually impossible to argue that T.J. Ford is better at playing basketball than Gilbert Arenas. Both have had pretty extensive injury histories throughout their careers. The difference, though, is the nature of those injuries. Ford has suffered two freak neck and head injuries that really have nothing to do with conditioning or bodily wear and tear. Arenas, on the other hand, has what appears to be a recurring knee problem- one that has some analysts questioning whether he'll ever return to his prime again. On that basis, Ford's the pick.

7. Baron Davis

Scoring: Davis and Ford are probably far closer in scoring ability than their raw statistics indicate. Take a look at their per/36 minute scoring stats, and it's clear that the 10 point point per game difference in 2008 has more to do with the minutes Ford played than field goal efficiency. But while Davis might not be that much better at scoring than Ford, he still has the edge in three point shooting and an even greater edge in getting to the foul line. They're not as different as you might imagine, but Davis is still the better scorer.

Passing/Ballhandling: One of the defining trends of Davis' career is a marked decrease in turnover rate. He started wild but gradually improved at taking care of the ball. Last year, that trend culminated in an 11.9 TOV%, the lowest by any point guard in the NBA. Ford is also on that path, but he has a ways to go before reaching Davis' level. Ford has posted better AST% numbers, but Davis' turnover rates more than make up for it, making him the better passer/ballhandler.

Defense: Davis has long been accused of laziness and losing interest over the course of a long season. It happened in New Orleans, and even in Golden State where Coach Don Nelson benched him. But when he's playing inspired basketball- something that happened more often than not in GS- he simply has more physical tools at his disposal than does Ford.

Other: The biggest fear for the LAC is that Davis sits on his fat contract and gets lazy. Everything else- scoring, passing, and defensive ability- indicates that he's better than Ford.

6. Tony Parker

Scoring: I don't know of a better finisher in traffic and around the hoop than Tony Parker. Dwayne Wade makes some circus layups every now and then, but Parker routinely has a couple of those per game. While Parker is not really known for his range, his career 3P% is relatively close to Baron Davis' (.314 to .325). Moving away from the hoop, Parker routinely ranks among league leaders in field goals attempted 5 feet from the hoop and closer as well as total FG%. I doubt that Parker could shoulder the scoring loads and usage percentages that Davis has had to in his career, but his incredible efficiency comes close to negating that. Scoring is a push between these two.

Passing/Ballhandling: While Davis was the best point guard in the league last year with an 11.9% TOV rate, Parker was right there with him at a miniscule 12.1% rate. Parker's career assist rate is at 30%, while Davis hovers at 35.4%. It's Davis by the thinnest of hairs.

Defense: It's probably a little bit unfair to look at statistics on this one, simply because Parker has Tim Duncan behind him while Davis did not. But Parker also has the fundamentals of defense down pat far more than Davis. He moves his feet well to stay with quicker players. He fights over screens rather than ducking around. Davis could afford to stay under because his Golden State teammates were quick enough to stay with guards (Jackson, and even Harrington). However, Davis does have some of the best hands in basketball. His 2.8 STL% dwarfs Parker's 1.6%. Again, neither guy has a significant advantage.

Other: Parker's a career 71% free throw shooter to Davis' 69%. Davis has gotten to the line a career 4.4 FTA/36 to Parker's 4.2. Davis has a rebound rate of 6.4 to Parker's 5.5. It's difficult to imagine two point guards closer in talent and execution. At the end, the edge goes to Parker for durability. Over 7 seasons, Parker has averaged 77 games a year, and over 9, Davis has averaged 67, including various accusations of "dogging it." 10 games a year is enough of a difference to offset Davis' other advantages.

5. Jose Calderon

Scoring: Like Parker, Calderon isn't really called upon to carry a heavy scoring load. In fact, in Toronto's system, less is expected of him than of Parker in San Antonio. But when he calls his own number, he's just as, if not more deadly than Parker. For one, he shot 43% from downtown last year. His effective field goal percentage of .575 dwarfed Parker's .502- and Parker's considered the best in the business not named Steve Nash. Toss in a 91% free throw stroke (to Parker's 71%) and it's clear that Calderon is the better scorer.

Passing/Ballhandling: Calderon has a ways to go before reaching Parker's turnover levels. He has improved his ball control every year (22.3 to 16.2 to 14.2) so it's quite possible that he improves to the 12% range this year. But for now, Parker's the better bet. However, Calderon did post a 42.3 AST% last year. His career low 29.1 rate (rookie season) is virtually the same as Parker's career assist rate. So passing/ballhandling is a push; if anything, Calderon's advantage in passing is bigger than Parker's advantage in ball control.

Defense: Calderon's biggest weakness defensively is that he struggles to keep quick point guards in front of him. Tony Parker has no such problems, but he gives up 30 pounds to Jose. The two play as stylistically different defenses as possible. This is one of those situations where I wish we had more advanced defensive measurements. It's really impossible to say who's the better defender here. I don't imagine that one is wildly better than the other at defense, but it's possible. Push, if for no other reason than lack of data.

Other: Both are average rebounders (actually the exact same rebound rates), so Calderon's scoring edge ends up giving him the overall edge.

4. Steve Nash

Scoring: Nash's shooting percentages have come to represent the standard by which all point guards are measured. Players that Nash had a higher true shooting percentage than in 2008: Tyson Chandler and Andris Biedrins. For the unacquainted, those are two guys that essentially catch the ball and dunk. On every field goal attempt. So for Nash to be outshooting them is quite a feat. And by the way, he outshot (TS%) every single player in the league in 2007 and 2006. Calderon is no slouch, but Nash hasn't shot below 40% from three since 1999. Nash wins scoring handily.

Passing/Ballhandling: Nash's passing is pretty much the stuff of legend, as he led the league in assist rate in 2006 and again in 2007. That said, he's also one of the most prolific turnover-ers in the NBA. Only Jason Kidd posted a worse turnover rate among point guards last season. For some reason, this aspect of his game doesn't get nearly the press his passing does. So while Nash can make a ton of flashy passes, Calderon is virtually even on passing/ballhandling by virtue of his 14.2 turnover rate to Nash's 21.6. This one's push.

Defense: Nash' defense has reached such a stage where he no longer guards point guards in the ilk of Deron Williams, Chauncey Billups, Chris Paul, Tony Parker... I could go on. He's simply assigned to a different guy whenever possible. Complain all you want about Calderon's inability to keep guys in front of him. But I'd rather take that than a point guard who won't, or rather can't, guard point guards.

Other: He might not play D, but Nash still has a hell of a lot of value because of his offensive game. Unfortunately, guys don't magically cut down their turnovers 12 years into a career. With a lower turnover rate, Nash might be considered among the greatest guards of all time. With his current rate, he's definitely among the contemporary greats, and definitely more valuable than Calderon for now.

3. Chauncey Billups

Scoring: Billups is one of the few point guards in the league that can challenge Nash both from three and from the charity stripe. Nash does have the slight edge in terms of 3P% and true shooting percentage. But Billups makes up for those deficiencies in another way: getting to the free throw line. Through his 11 year career, Billups has visited the stripe an average 5.2 times per 36 minutes. During his time with Detroit, that average is in the 6's. Nash, meanwhile, only shoots free throws 3.3 times per 36. So while both Nash and Billups are incredible foul shooters, Chauncey actually takes advantage of his abilities far more than Nash. The extra points generated by Nash through his superior field goal efficiency virtually cancel the extra points Chauncey generates at the line. Call this one a push.

Passing/Ballhandling: Billups is closer in assist rate to a Tony Parker than Steve Nash, and he's really no match for Nash's 39.0 career assist rate. However, he makes up for a lot of it by taking care of the ball well. Last year, he posted an excellent 13.0 turnover rate, his worst in three seasons. Nash's career best turnover rate as a starter (15.8) would be far and away Billups' worst as a starter. Nash owns passing, Billups owns ballhandling, and no matter what the media and flashy highlight reels would have you believe, it's another push.

Defense: Even at his advanced age, Billups is among the best defenders at his position. His biggest strength is being extremely physical with opposing point guards. He knows when to push, when to bump, and how not to get penalized for his physicality. It's amazing that Billups only gets called for 2.4 fouls/36 compared to Nash's 2.1 fouls/36 even though Nash is among the least physical defenders in the league. You often hear commentators refer nebulously to the "smart" defender. Here's a living, breathing example of one. That 2.1-2.4 stat just amazes me.

Other: One guy plays one half of the game extremely well while the other plays both halves very well. That Billups has better steal rates, block rates, and rebound rates is just icing on the cake.

2. Deron Williams

Scoring: Owner of perhaps the best crossover this side of Allen Iverson. Stylistically, Williams plays a very similar game to Chauncey Billups. He looks poised to equal Billups in true shooting and three point percentage in a few years. For now, he's a hair off on both those figures (.549 to .574 and .374 to .385). Billups also retains the foul drawing advantage, getting to the free throw line more proficiently than Williams. Throw in that Billups is a significantly better foul shooter than Williams, and the scoring advantage goes to Chauncey.

Passing/Ballhandling: Perhaps the most criticized part of Williams' game is his ballhandling/turnovers. He really hasn't shown much improvement in turnover rate in 3 years (actually getting worse from 14.4 to 16.9 to 17.7). So Billups wins that battle with his 13.4 rate. Deron is the better passer, surpassing a 40% assist rate in back to back seasons, something Billups has never accomplished. Passing/ballhandling is a push, with maybe a slight edge to Williams.

Defense: Judging from his fouls/36 rates (3.6 as a rookie, then 3.1, 2.4 last year), Deron is gradually mastering the skill that Billups excels at- playing physical defense without fouling. Deron obviously has the fresher legs at this point, so I'd say defense is a push.

Other: So Billups is better at scoring, even with Williams in passing/ballhandling, and an equal defender, but is ranked worse. Why? Overall work load. Billups played only 32 minutes a game last year to Deron's 37, and with the emergence of Rodney Stuckey, I don't expect that to change this year. Five minutes a game might not sound like much, but over an 82 game season that's about 400 minutes of basketball. Also known as: a lot.

1. Chris Paul

Scoring: The difference in shooting ability between Paul and Williams was quite marked in '05-'06, the pair's rookie year. Paul looked tentative, afraid to shoot threes, while Williams attempted about 40 more threes, at a 42% clip. Three years later, Paul is rapidly closing the gap, connecting on 37% of his threes last year, and both taking and making more threes than Williams last year. At this point, Deron is still the more accomplished three point shooter. But in that time frame, Paul also perfected a move that Tony Parker has used successfully for years- the floating one hander. It's allowed him to close with 0.02 points on true shooting percentage of Williams. While Williams has posted higher efficiency in his scoring, Paul has shouldered a greater scoring load, taking about 16.1 field goals per game last year to Williams' 13.6. This one's a marginal advantage at best for Deron, and probably a push.

Passing/Ballhandling: This is where the difference in the two players really comes to the forefront. For one, Paul's 52.2 assist rate last year is higher than any player in NBA history not named John Stockton. Williams' career high 43.6 assist rate in 2008 is still lower than Paul's career assist rate. In terms of ball handling, Paul's career worst turnover rate (13.7) is 7 points worse than Williams career best turnover rate during his rookie year (14.4). Their ball-handling abilities are headed in opposite directions. It's something Deron needs to fix, no matter how pretty his crossover may be, if he hopes to catch Paul. In 60 years, no player had ever crossed the 50% assist rate threshold with a turnover rate lower than 19.1% (Stockton, '90). Last year- Year 61- Chris Paul posted a 12.1 turnover rate to go with his 52.2 assist rate.

Defense: CP3's defense has been much maligned, not only by fans of opposing teams, but also by myself. I do consider Williams the better defender at this point; his frame and size advantage over Paul enable that. But people that say "Chris Paul only plays one side of the ball" are quite mistaken. By virtue of his steals last year, Paul got 126 defensive stops above the average defender (Williams, by the way, finished exactly league average on steals). Paul also offers a significant increase in defensive rebounding over Williams (12.1 to 8.7). So for Paul to have been even an average defender (let alone a defender so horrible as to cancel out his historic offensive contributions), he would've had to give up an outrageous field goal percentage- think in the 70% range- to his opposition- something the numbers suggest he did not.

Other: Fine, Chris Paul has played his worst basketball against Deron Williams. But if you look it up, DWill hasn't played too well against Chris Paul either. At the end of the day, I'll take the guy that destroys 28 NBA teams over the guy who destroys the guy who destroys the other 28. Every player has his nemesis; CP's just happens to be the guy he's compared with all the time.

I've declined to mention overarching stats like PER, Wins Produced, or Win Shares a single time in this post, if only because I wanted to analyze things on a much subtler level. But I will say this. John Hollinger projects a 20.98 PER for Deron Williams this year (a notable increase from last year). Chris Paul posted a 22.1 PER... as a rookie.

Today we have an interview with sports economist and statistician David Berri. He kind enough to give us his thoughts on a variety of topics, including Chris Paul v. Deron Williams, what James Posey brings to the team, and whether Hilton Armstrong may pan out yet. I'd introduce him more thoroughly, but he does a pretty good job of it himself...

At the Hive: Let me start by thanking you for taking the time to talk to us. For Hornets fans who don't know who you are, who is Dave Berri?

David Berri: Most importantly, an Associate Professor of Economics at Southern Utah University.  In other words, I am just a college professor.  Beyond that, I am also vice-president of the North American Association of Sports Economists, lead author of The Wages of Wins (Stanford Press), author or co-author of over 20 academic articles on the economics of sports, and the primary writer at The Wages of Wins Journal

@tH: Have you always been a basketball fan? If not, how were you drawn towards analyzing it instead of, say, football?

DB: Well, I analyze football also.  But I started looking at basketball in graduate school.  When I started looking at the economics of sports, most articles looked at baseball. It seemed to me that basketball had not been examined as much, primarily because measuring performance was more difficult.

@tH: Can you give us a quick summary of Wages of Wins? How does the approach you use to arrive at "Wins Produced" differ from other current basketball statistics?

DB: When people think about The Wages of Wins, they tend to think about basketball.  It’s our work on basketball that caught the attention of Malcolm Gladwell, as well as many other reviewers.  But the book is about quite a bit more.  Essentially the Wages of Wins takes work we wrote on a variety of subjects in sports and economics from academic journals to the general public.  The book begins with a discussion of labor disputes and sports, then moves on to the link between payroll and wins, the measurement and determinants of competitive balance, and then the value of star power in the NBA.  All of that is just the first half of the book.  In the second half we introduced Wins Produced and Win Score (our measures of player performance in the NBA), discuss the ability of NBA players to "step-it-up" in the playoffs, and discuss the consistency of performance in football, baseball, and basketball.  The book concludes with a look at decision-making in the NBA, presenting evidence that scoring is over-valued by coaches and general managers in basketball.

 Wins Produced is detailed in Chapters Six and Seven of the book.  It’s important to note that the book doesn’t include any mathematical equations.  To see those you need to look at an article that was just published in The Business of Sports (a three volume collection edited by Brad Humphreys and Dennis Howard). 

 What makes Wins Produced different is that it is entirely based on regression analysis (the standard statistical method used by economists).  This analysis begins by carefully laying forth the relationship between the statistics the NBA tracks for individual players and team wins (again, you need to see the aforementioned article for the math behind all of this).  With this relationship established we can determine the value of various statistics (points, rebounds, steals, turnovers, etc…) in terms of team wins.  These values are then used to determine the impact each player has on team wins.

 The idea that scoring is over-valued can be seen without looking at Wins Produced.  Simply modeling free agent salaries or the coaches voting for the All-Rookie team tells that story.  Wins Produced, though, also tells this tale.  Players who score inefficiently will simply not produce many wins.  That should make intuitive sense.  Launching shots that do not go in does not actually help a team win games.  Unfortunately, if a player can score – even if that doesn’t happen very efficiently – he can score a major payday.  Hence the incentives of players (i.e. the desire to get paid gobs of money) are not consistent with the incentives of teams (i.e. the desire to win many games).

 A few last notes on the NBA...

It’s important to remember that payroll and wins are not highly correlated in the NBA.  This is the same story we see in football and baseball.  But in the latter two sports, performance is very inconsistent across time. So it’s hard for decision-makers in baseball and football to predict the future and therefore we should not be surprised when payroll can’t explain wins in these sports.

 In basketball, the box score statistics are much more consistent across time (relative to what we see in baseball and football). And these statistics do explain wins.  So we should see teams with the most money acquire the best players.  But this is not what we see.  Although you can see this in the regression analysis, the New York Knicks illustrate the point.  Over the past few years the Knicks have been among the league leaders in payroll but nowhere near the league leaders in wins.

 @tH: One of the more problematic issues today is that "all assists are not created equal." An assister gets the same credit for setting up a guarded, fade-away 26 footer as he does for breaking down two defenders and creating a layup. Due to that, are assists overrated or underrated by current media?

DB: Assists are a fairly crude statistic.  It is the only stat in basketball that is entirely based on the scorer’s judgment.  So we should not be entirely sure about the reliability of assists as a measure of performance.  That being said, I have found that players are more productive when their teammates get more assists.  Although the direction of the causality is not entirely clear, I think assists tell us something.

 As for the media…members of the media do not generally have any training in statistics.  In general it appears they follow this rule: If the numbers support the argument then the numbers are used, if not, the numbers are ignored. 

@tH: If I recall correctly, you looked at Chris Paul's and Deron William's college careers a while back, and came to the conclusion that CP should have been the higher pick. By numerous statistics, Paul has bested Williams for three years now. How wide is the gap currently, according to WoW? And is there any truth to the idea that Deron Williams is a better "fit" for Utah than Chris Paul would be?

DB: Chris Paul led the NBA last year with 25.4 Wins Produced.  So he was the most productive player in the game.   Deron Williams was very good, producing 15.4 wins.  This mark ranked 16th in the league.  Among point guards, only Paul, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Chauncey Billups, and Jose Calderon produced more than Williams.  In sum, Williams is a very good point guard.  But he is not nearly as productive as Paul. 

 As for the better fit issue… I think Utah would be better off with Paul.  Player performance can be negatively impacted by changing teams.  That being said, the effect is not that great.  So I think given the very large difference in productivity numbers between Paul and Williams, I think Paul would likely be more productive than Williams in Utah.

@tH: Staying on the subject of Paul, various statistics suggest that he had one of the greatest offensive seasons by a point guard in history (#1 all time PER, #1 all time Win Shares). In your estimation, where did his last campaign rank historically and what could he have improved?

DB: Since 1991-92, no guard in the NBA has produced more than 25 wins in a single season.  So what Chris Paul did in 2007-08 was very impressive.  Basically you have to go back to the 1980s – when Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan surpassed the 25 win mark a few times – to find a guard who played better than Paul.

@tH: I don't mean to open Pandora's Box here, but there's a question I intend to ask of every sports statistician I ever talk to, heh. What's your take on so-called clutch ability? Does it exist?

DB: As noted earlier, we have looked at performance in the playoffs and the regular season in the NBA.  This analysis failed to find any evidence that a player could systematically play better in the post seasons.  Although I think people can look at this in different ways, I think the underlying story is suspect.  The "clutch ability" story is that a player can simply turn "it" on when his team needs it.   So, according to this story, when a team needs a three pointer to win, certain players can simply step up and hit that shot.   But if that were true, why can’t that same player turn it on earlier in the game? If he did the team probably wouldn’t need a last second three-point shot. 

 My sense is that certain players generally get to take last second shots on teams.  Some of these are bound to go in, and when that happens, the player hitting the shot (and other people around the player) tend to think the player has some special ability.  In reality, a certain percentage of these shots -- given the general shooting ability of the player – are bound to go in the basket.  In other words, hitting a last second shot (or even several such shots) doesn’t mean a player has any special skills.

@tH: The James Posey signing brought up an intriguing question- what exactly is the "value" of winning a championship? (ie, how many consequent mediocre seasons are worth one title?) Is there an answer to this seemingly subjective conundrum from an economics standpoint?

DB: First of all, James Posey is an above average player (at least that is the Wins Produced story).  I talked about this in the following post:

Pargo Helps Out the Hornets

So Posey helps the Hornets with his production on the court.  Now does the fact Posey has played on championship teams help? I don’t buy this story.  The Celtics were led in the 2008 NBA Finals by Garnett, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and Rajon Rondo. None of these players had won an NBA title before 2008.  That lack of experience didn’t seem to matter in the NBA Finals.

@tH: Last, is it true that most big men come into their own during their 3rd seasons? For example, Hilton Armstrong of the Hornets has not shown much improvement over his first 2 campaigns. How do you determine if it's too early to give up on a player?

DB: I am not sure about big men, but players in general do get better in their third season.  When we look at Armstrong, we see that he posted a 0.050 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] his rookie season.  Average WP48 is 0.100 for an NBA player in general, although what Armstrong did is close to average for a rookie.

 In his second season, though, Armstrong’s WP48 fell to -0.094 (yes that is a negative sign).  So Armstrong was way below average.  Going back to your question, I think it is incorrect to say Armstrong "has not shown much improvement". What the numbers show is that Armstrong got much worse. 

 So should the Hornets give up on Armstrong?  I am not sure, but it is important for the coaches to figure out why he played so badly in 2007-08.  If those things can be fixed, then the team should keep him.   If not, it is time to look elsewhere.

 @tH: Thanks for taking the time to talk to us, really appreciate it.

DB: Glad to talk to you.  Fans of the Hornets should be very excited right now.  New Orleans is clearly one of the top teams in the NBA and the 2008-09 season should be fun.

Thanks once again to Dr. Berri, hope you enjoyed the interview as much as I did.

With the acquisition of Sean Marks, the Hornets are unofficially officially set for the season opener. They've carried only 14 guys into the last few openers, a practice they're sure to continue. For one, it allows roster flexibility in-season, and second, virtually every player that signs on as a 15th man will be available later. So, a revised version of the depth chart I posted a couple weeks ago:

Obviously, things can and will shift around. I expect Devin Brown to get some minutes at the point, Posey at the 4, Ely at the 5, etc. How does this depth chart stack up against last year's playoffs depth chart?

According to the CBA, a team can have only 12 active players. Andersen and Butler were the odd men out last spring. My best guess is that Sean Marks joins Butler on the inactive roster to start the year. With that in mind, let's do a quick head-to-head.

Backup Point Guard (Advantage: New Hornets)

I discussed this in more depth (pun alert!) earlier this week. Short story short, I think James is significantly better than Pargo. While last year's Hornets had more depth at the 1 (Paul-Pargo-James), this year's version has the correct guy in the 2nd string role. And Devin Brown should be able to fulfill third point guard duties.

Backup Shooting Guard (Advantage: New Hornets)

Last year, the Hornets' biggest holes were at backup shooting guard and backup center. The reason for the lack of production from the spot is obvious with a glance at the depth chart- the players who manned the spot (Pargo, Wright, and even Wells) were by no means shooting guards. You have a 6'1", 175 dude and a rookie drafted as a SF/PF masquerading as off guards, and you've got problems. Those issues were compounded when Mo-Pete played far and away the fewest minutes among the starters (the other 4 averaged at least 35.2 mpg; Mo played 23).

I think the Devin Brown acquisition will help much more than people anticipate. Because Byron Scott liked to play Pargo and CP at the same time, Chris Paul was often left to guard talented off guards (Rip Hamilton, Ben Gordon, and even Manu Ginobili were all checked by Paul last year). Devin Brown's size alone will help Paul out tremendously, defensively. Brown may bring little to the table offensively, but the defensive upgrade at the back-up 2 can't be emphasized enough.

Backup Small Forward (Advantage: New Hornets)

Julian Wright is a year older and James Posey replaces Bonzi Wells. Enough said.

Backup Power Forward (Advantage: Tie)

I'm pretty sure Ryan Bowen beats out Sean Marks on the active roster; Byron Scott can't get enough of his hustle. Honestly, I'd rather have the 6'10", 250 lb. Marks on the bench instead of Bowen, but it's a tough decision. But either way, nothing really changes from last year. David West will probably still have to play the entire first quarter and first few minutes of the second quarter.

Backup Center (Advantage: Tie)

With Marks relegated to IR duty, we're left with the fantastic duo of Batman and Robin, Tyson and Hilton. Just as with the comic books, you bow down to the greatness of Batman and groan every time you see Robin.

Overall

The Hornets went into the off-season looking to bolster the front-court, first and foremost. Did it happen? No. Yeah, I know Posey can slide over to the 4 and all that. But the bottom line is we went into the summer hoping to find a replacement for Ely or Armstrong, and it didn't happen. While I think the Devin Brown signing is underrated, while I think letting Pargo walk was an awesome move, and wh