Rising Suns?

In his insider-only team forecasts, John Hollinger makes a couple of interesting points about the Phoenix Suns beyond the obvious giant question marks surrounding the Amare Stoudemire issue. One, he points out that they slightly underperformed in terms of "expected win-loss" (a formula based on point-differential, designed to factor out luck and contingency), winning 54 games when they "should" have won 55. Dallas, meanwhile, actually won 60 but only had 58 expexted wins so the margin is smaller than it looked. The other is that the injury to Kurt Thomas had a bigger impact than most people talk about, with him "Phoenix had given up 100.2 points per game on 44 percent shooting. Following the injury, Phoenix allowed 107.6 points on 47.8 percent shooting."

Viewed this way, the Suns could be serious contenders if either Thomas stays healthy or Amare can make valuable contributions and it's not necessarily the case that everything hinges on Stoudemire. If both of those guys and play, I wonder who starts for Phoenix. Since there's a bunch of multi-position guys on this squad, you could play a big Thomas-Stoudemire-Marion-Diaw-Nash lineup, but that strikes me as an un-Suns way to play. In a lot of ways, keeping Thomas on the bench and starting Raja Bell at shooting guard seems to make more sense, but not if Thomas is really so crucial to the Phoenix defense. So maybe you use Diaw as an all-purpose sixth man.

Comments

i'm a long-time kurt thomas fan, who is a classic example of the underappreciated player, but no, he's not enough for phoenix to win it all. amare has to be amare for that to happen.

Posted by howard | October 3, 2006 11:08 AM

Kurt Thomas is a goon. They don't need him to start, just to get enough minutes to get into the opponents' heads with his signature violence.

Posted by dj moonbat | October 3, 2006 11:15 AM

Where's the guy who used to comment under the name "kurt thomas"? Maybe he's in training camp? (Did you notice that Suns training camp is in Italy?)

Re: the effect of the loss of Kurt Thomas on the Suns defensive efficiency - I wonder whether a lot of it has to do with a change in the Suns offensive style after Thomas was lost. As I recall, prior to the injury, Thomas wasn't quite a great fit in the Suns offense - they like to run and Thomas isn't a great runner. And my memory was that the mix wasn't producing great offensive numbers for either Thomas or the Suns as a team. After he was gone, they ran a lot more. But of course a running style is likely to lead to more offensive possessions per game for both teams, and thus more points given up, as well as a likely increase in FG% given up. Accordingly, what I'd like to see, beside the defensive numbers Hollinger gives us (and Matthew cites), are the offensive numbers pre- and post-Thomas's injury. After all, what we are really interested in is the differential between points scored and points given up, not just the raw numbers.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 11:56 AM

I think we're going to se one of the most used benches of all time. They are a team that relies on the hot hand, and when with that many talented hands, D'Antoni won't have any trouble cycling through in search of the right guy for the right moment. With Amare and Thomas back, and if D'Antoni can teach this team how to play at different tempos, the Suns are the team to beat. Amare and Thomas make it possible for the Suns to play grind-it-out, defensive-minded playoff style ball when that's necessary (though Nash is a real liability there) - and at some point in the playoffs it always becomes necessary. They are the best built team for the new, speedier NBA. And if they stay healthy and D'Antoni can use all that talent effectively, the Suns are your 2007 NBA Champs.

Posted by Mavis Beacon | October 3, 2006 11:57 AM

I'd say that Raja Bell is as necessary to Phoenix defense as any one. If you take out Bell to put in Thomas, you have not improved the defense, you have switched around your two best defenders.

Posted by cedichou | October 3, 2006 12:28 PM

BTW - off topic, but sports-related and related to Matthew's post on punting in the NFL. Eric Mangini of the Jets went for it on fourth and goal from the Indianapolis 2 instead of kicking the field goal. They didn't make it, and the Jets ended up losing by three points. He's been geting roasted by the press (and radio) here for that decision, much more than for any other decision he made in the game. Just another data point for why coaches are risk averse and don't go for it enough on 4th down.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 12:31 PM

Did you notice that Suns training camp is in Italy?

Can we all agree that David Stern is a massive executive stud?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 3, 2006 12:32 PM

Can we all agree that David Stern is a massive executive stud?

It seems like all or most of the teams have their training camps abroad this year as part of some kind of international marketing effort. My understanding is that some poor saps are stuck in Russia, while the Spurs get France and the Suns get Italy.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 3, 2006 12:47 PM

I'm not sure the SUns really underperformed vs. their expected wins. The expected wins vs. point differential is, I assume, based on league average numbers. However, the Suns scored (and gave up) a fair bit more than the league average. The larger the numbers you're looking at, the less significant the same difference between them is. (For example, if the Suns scored on average 14,328 points and gave up 14,320 points per game, their expected record looks a lot different than if they scored 14 points and gave up 6 per game on average.)

So, you'd expect the same point differential to produce slightly less wins for the Suns than for an average NBA team.

Posted by Doug T | October 3, 2006 12:47 PM

It seems like all or most of the teams have their training camps abroad this year as part of some kind of international marketing effort

I did not know that. The Knicks are in their typical Charleston, SC, and the Nets are in lovely East Rutherford, NJ. Did the Rockets get training camp in Beijing?

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 1:05 PM

matt, do you pay for ESPN Insider? Or do they give it to you because you are a pundito? I like the Bball writers they have on ESPN and have often wanted to be and Insider, but there is no way I can justify paying for it, for some reason. Information wants to be free and I want it to be free too.

Posted by cw | October 3, 2006 1:54 PM

Doug, when they talk about expected wins like that, it has nothing to do with the league average. It is a formula based upon point differential. Here is a link to a discussion of it.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/helpscrn/pyth.html

Posted by Rashad | October 3, 2006 1:55 PM

Three quick thoughts: Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Suns were not a running team last season in the same sense they were the year before--they were a quick shooting team, just the same. Thomas was responsible for locking down post defense which enabled perimeter defenders to play tighter. The guy to watch now is Diaw--do they resign/extend him before he becomes a restricted free agent? It'll depend on Amare (whose knee/psyche is sounding less and less reliable by the day) and to a lesser extent Kurt....

Posted by eric wertheimer | October 3, 2006 2:45 PM

Rashad--thanks for the link. I'd forgotten how the formula worked. I thought from the way it was referred to that they used a point differential and then fit a curve to that based on league average margins and winning %'s.

Shorter coment: Never mind.

Posted by Doug T | October 3, 2006 3:39 PM

"a formula based on point-differential, designed to factor out luck"

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what point differential represents.

If Team A has a +6 point differential and wins 58 games, while Team B has a +6 point differential and wins 53 games, it doesn't mean Team A has more luck.

Instead, it means Team A executes better in clutch situations.

In last years' playoff series between Dallas and Phoenix, it was clear that if the game was tied in the closing minutes, Dallas was greatly favored to win the game. That ain't because it was clear that Dallas was luckier than Phoenix...

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 4:44 PM

"Did the Rockets get training camp in Beijing?"

The Sixers got Barcelona.

I think it's only somewhere between 4 to 8 teams that got a European vacation.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 4:55 PM

"but no, (Kurt Thomas is) not enough for phoenix to win it all. amare has to be amare for that to happen."

Exactamundo. Unless Amare is Amare again, which I don't expect to happen, Phoenix is a pretender, not a contender.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 5:15 PM

Slightly OT:

I can't wait to see what impact Nellie has on the lowly Warriors. They may still suck, but at least they'll be fun to watch. They already have a lot of scoring potential and little defense - a perfect Nellie team.

Posted by Tiparillo | October 3, 2006 5:42 PM

I don't understand why Amare has to be "Amare again" for the Suns to win. A big man rotation of Thomas, Diaw, a 2/3-strength Amare, and Marion (when he slides over from the 3) is more than adequate to win a championship.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 5:46 PM

I don't think Nellie can recreate the Run-TMC warriors. The guys he's got now aren't that good.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 5:47 PM

"I don't understand why Amare has to be "Amare again" for the Suns to win. A big man rotation of Thomas, Diaw, a 2/3-strength Amare, and Marion (when he slides over from the 3) is more than adequate to win a championship."

You normally need an unstoppable weapon to win the title, (with the recent Pistons being the exception that proves the rule). Having lots of very good players, but lacking the unstoppable weapon, generally doesn't result in a title.

Without a full-strength Amare, I have a lot of trouble seeing the Suns win the final couple of playoff series.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 6:01 PM

Nash can look a little unstoppable at times, when you add his magical distributing powers. But basically I'm with Petey. Your superman has to be able to get in the paint and do it all singlehandedly in the last few minutes.

As usual, Al makes up for his annoying politics with his stellar NBA insights.

Posted by MQ | October 3, 2006 7:05 PM

Your superman has to be able to get in the paint and do it all singlehandedly in the last few minutes.

So then Dallas is out? They don't exactly have a superman who is "able to get in the paint" and "do it all singlehandedly in the last few minutes". Dirk is a perimiter player. And yet I think Dallas is probably the favorite.

I don't see the Suns as really much different than Dallas or even Miami. Sure Miami has Shaq, but they are relying in the last coupld of minutes on Wade's perimeter play and slashing. Which isn't that much different than Nash.

Posted by Al | October 3, 2006 7:17 PM

"So then Dallas is out? They don't exactly have a superman who is "able to get in the paint" and "do it all singlehandedly in the last few minutes"

Dallas did have that guy until Miami took the inside away from Dirk in the Finals. Remember Dirk in Game 7 against San Antonio? That was in the paint, and that was the case throughout the Western playoffs.

"Sure Miami has Shaq, but they are relying in the last coupld of minutes on Wade's perimeter play and slashing. Which isn't that much different than Nash."

Meh.

Miami's weapon late in games is Wade. And late in games, he's all about the paint. Either he gets to the rim, or he gets to the line. Shaq is all about taking the burden off Wade in the first 45 minutes.

Nash is playing a more complex game, and complexity is a bad thing late in games. Nash penetrating and kicking for a '3' is not the optimal offense in a tie game with 30 seconds left.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 7:28 PM

The key is that you need to have a player who drives into the paint and consistently gets a lot of physical contact. This allows the referee to give him the superstar call, regardless of who initiated the contact. That's how Miami won, Wade created an excuse for the refs to hand it to them, while they refused to give Dirk the calls. Nash is simply too skinny and small to play that kind of game.

Posted by MQ | October 3, 2006 7:53 PM

"they are relying in the last coupld of minutes on Wade's perimeter play and slashing. Which isn't that much different than Nash."

Or put another way, remember how the Suns had a historically bad record in close games last year?

That ain't about bad luck. That's about something more fundamental.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 8:52 PM

Wow. Hello to Mr. Yglesias and his readers. I have occasionally read snippets of his writings from Andrew Sullivan's site (and his Yglesias awards; I had to find out who this guy AS held in such high esteem) and from occasional postings on tpm muckraker. I don't think I've ever come away from reading even a snippet of your stuff without walking away both impressed and informed. So today I decided to check out your site in full. I was ready to wade into some dissections about Foley-gate, DPNK's nuke test threat, et al, when I see this F-ING COOL POST ABOUT THE NBA! YEAH, I'M BOOKMARKING THIS PAGE IMMEDIATELY.

By the way, the Chicago Bulls will demolish all of you. I'm sorry, but it's true.

Posted by Namky Lim | October 3, 2006 11:40 PM

Yo, Petey! I watched the Suns take the Lakers and the Clippers both in some hair splittingly close games. They were able to tighten up their defense a little and make some big plays. They're one big guy away from being more than a handful. Dallas was the perfect team to beat the Suns. And they would have run circles around the Miami defense.

Posted by Mavis Beacon | October 3, 2006 11:51 PM

"I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what point differential represents.

If Team A has a +6 point differential and wins 58 games, while Team B has a +6 point differential and wins 53 games, it doesn't mean Team A has more luck.

Instead, it means Team A executes better in clutch situations."

I'm not sure what the current state of the art is in Basketball analysis, but I know one of the basic tenets of baseball analysis is that there's no such thing as clutch performance, in the sense that no-one reliably does any better or worse in particular situations compared to anyone else. So that a team winning more games than their expected value might be due to better performance in clutch situations, but that better performance is, itself, a matter of luck.

I'm sure someone has looked at this--have certain teams from year to yer consistently outperformed their expected wins? Have certain coaches? Can you identify any common characteristics of teams that do better than expected? That would allow you to see whether there really is more to it than luck (even if the luck takes the form of executing better in clutch situations.)

Posted by Doug T | October 4, 2006 9:08 AM

Doug, yes, someone has looked it up and yes, no team wins more games, year to year, than the point spread would indicate. In fact, it's a good bet to expect that a team that overachieved last year, will underachieve next year.

Posted by Carlos | October 4, 2006 11:09 AM

Baseball and NBA basketball are completely different. Baseball, no clutch, basketball, yes, clutch. It's obvious that the last few minutes of a close NBA game are different than the rest of the game, and having people who can perform then is critical. Refereee deference to superstars alone would create a clutch factor.

Posted by MQ | October 4, 2006 12:16 PM