APBRmetrics

Mike G · Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1521 Location: Delphi, Indiana

Usually a trade is remembered by more than one name; but anyway -- recently I devised a formula to generate "something like win shares" . But they don't add up to team wins, they aren't integers, etc. They're just in the same order of magnitude as b-r.com's version.

Was this trade basically "Webber for some scrubs"? I'll just show my bare-bones synopsis (in SLWS). These are "wins" produced this season to date, after 50+ games.

To the Sixers:

17.1 Webber,Chris
1.4 Barnes,Matt
0.1 Bradley,Michael
____
18.6 total

To the Kings:

7.5 Thomas,Kenny
6.1 Williamson,Corliss
0.3 Skinner,Brian
____
13.9 total

With Webber, it's a case of having all the eggs in one basket. He's been known to miss major parts of seasons; so projections from a year when he's unusually healthy should be taken with reservations.

In other words, it doesn't strike me as an outrageous trade. Either side could end up feeling pretty good/bad about it.

kjb · Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 671 Location: Washington, DC

I can see the reasoning behind both teams making the deal. The Kings have played well without Webber. He's the least efficient offensive player among their starters, but he continues using the most possessions. And, his defense isn't very good -- probably because of the lost mobility due to the knee.

So, they trade him for frontcourt depth and refocus around Peja, Miller and Bibby. I'd think that they could have gotten more for Webber, but perhaps this was the best deal they could get. And, it's not bad -- Thomas is works hard and rebounds and can be a starter in a pinch. Skinner was competent in a starting role for Milwaukee last season, and Corliss can score off the bench.

For Philly, they've needed a frontcourt offensive threat to compliment Iverson. Webber's skill set seems ideal to blend into Philly's talent mix. He can hit that 18 foot jumper, and I expect he'll get a fair number of open looks because of Iverson's penetration. Plus, he can pass well when he draws attention -- Korver should get a few more open looks. And, Philly has Dalembert to block some shots and get some offensive rebounds.

If Webber goes down again, Philly's in trouble, but it's worth the chance for them, in my opinion. They've basically dealt role players for a guy who has the ability to be a 2nd star for them.

S.K. · Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Posts: 52 Location: Toronto

kjb · Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 671 Location: Washington, DC

KD · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 143

For me, the gripe isn't about getting "more" for Webber, it was about getting less, and securing cap space. Paying Kenny Thomas until 2010 isn't ideal, and Skinner is on the books until 2008, I believe.

xteve · Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 6

I agree with KD ... I don't like this trade for the Kings. Webber won't be a $20 mil player in the last year of his deal, but taking up two roster spots with Thomas and Skinner for the next 5 years is bad as well.

KnickerBlogger · Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 166

Here's my take:

Sixers Win Webber Deal In Name Only

Unfortunately I would have liked to spend more time on it, but with the Knicks deals I have to get something out on that, plus pay the bills, and spend some time with my wife. I didn't really get a chance to talk about how bad the Kings were after CW came back last year.

I'm really curious how he plays with AI. Am I right in saying that CW is the best offensive player Iverson's ever played with (excluding the Olympics) ?

radio · Joined: 17 Feb 2005 Posts: 13 Location: New York

Hi everybody. I've been lurking here for a few weeks, and I've really enjoyed the discussion. My take on Webber:

1. The team has, for the past couple of years, played better with Webber off the court. Webber's +/- per 48 for this year is -4.5, and for last year it was -7.2. He also negatively impacts Peja's game, sometimes dramatically: Last year Peja was a +8.3 per 48 with Webber offcourt and a -0.8 per 48 with Webber on the court. This year it's less dramatic, but
Webber is still a drag on Peja's performance.

2. Forgetting about the team context for a minute, Webber's individual skills have diminished fairly significantly as well. His position defense, never really a strong suit, has all but evaporated since his injury. And for a guy who takes so many jumpers (something like 62% of his shots over the
last 2 years have been jumpshots), he sure misses a lot of them: his eFG% on jumpers is like 35% over that time. He's obviously still a plus passer, and he's still at least a league average rebounder, but he's not the same physical marvel he was pre-injury.

3. Taking the fact that he's been a drag on team perfomance AND he's a huge injury risk with a declining skillset AND your team's best player hates him, it seems like Petrie might have been on to something when he decided to ship him. But what to ship him for? For these purposes, let's assume the expiring contracts (SAR, Antoine, Dale Davis) were off the menu, either because the team trading them wouldn't take on that much risk or because the guys you'd be getting back are a poor fit and would jettison your playoff hopes completely. Well, with those 2 caveats, Corliss/Kenny Thomas is not that bad of a 2-headed PF tandem to have. Kenny Thomas is a little like an undersized Webber without the passing, and if you assume some of the assists CWebb got were "system assists" Thomas' passing numbers should improve some after the trade. Corliss is a pretty decent defender and a good low-post option. Skinner's even got some value as big off the bench. So for the present, you were
giving up something that was a drag on your team in exchange for a bunch of pieces that might not be.

4. For the future, if you think CWebb's knee is a permanent issue (and clearly Petrie thinks it is), then it's obviously much easier to move three healthy guys collectively making $20 million than it is to move one injured guy making $20 million on his own. This offseason, trying to package one of the bigs together with a pick for a contract that ends
sooner shouldn't be a total impossibility.

So, summary: This makes the Kings a lot more flexible and probably doesn't kill their championship dreams for this season, which were admittedly pretty slim to begin with. (By the way: Ewing Theory, anyone?) You'll never get me to admit this was a good deal for them, because I cannot believe you can't squeeze more out of Isiah or Billy or someone else out there. If this is truly the best they could do, though, I guess you have to call it the Kings making the best of a bad situation.
_________________
Ankur Desai
Amateur Hoops Junkie

gabefarkas · Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 881 Location: Durham, NC

knickerblogger - i would put Stackhouse in that argument, but probably no one else...

Mike G · Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1521 Location: Delphi, Indiana

CrazyFromTheHeat · Joined: 21 Jan 2005 Posts: 31

Kevin Pelton · Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:50 am Post subject:

Agreed. The Win Shares (or "something like Win Shares") method, without a consideration of replacement level, will tend to (unfairly, in my opinion) favor multiple players over superstars. Here's how I have it rated with Wins Abovve Replacement Player (which is a vastly different formula as well):

Mike G · Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1521 Location: Delphi, Indiana

My newfound "SLWS" does in fact make a stab at subtracting "replacement-level" performance from players. Maybe it wasn't exclusive enough.

Still, giving Kenny Thomas 0 WARP seems harsh. I can only find 150 players (5 per team, on average) I'd rate as "better". Give us a clue as to where "replacement level" should fall: the average 10th-man? 12th?

CrazyFromTheHeat · Joined: 21 Jan 2005 Posts: 31

The difference here is, replacement level for basketball can't work like baseball. So we can't talk about someone new to the lineup that wasn't playing at all. The new available minutes will go to at worst the next best player at that position getting minutes, and at best the best player on the bench, with the starting lineup having some position changes, similar to the Heat replacing Rasual Butler, a small forward, with Damon Jones, a point guard.

So if you're finding 150 players "better" than Thomas, that means virtually every starter in the league is better. Setting replacement level for a starter as the sixth or seventh best player on each team sounds about right to me.
_________________
The Best Miami Heat Coverage
http://heat.mostvaluablenetwork.com/

Mike G · Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1521 Location: Delphi, Indiana

Well, if one of your starters goes down, you don't just "replace" him off the waiver wire or whatever. You can replace your end-of-the-bench guys that way.

Given that you may be giving a couple of inconsequential roster spots to "projects", there may indeed be better available players out there. So maybe 12th isn't = RP. But for most teams, their #6 guy is pretty vital.