A Statistical Review Of The Kidd Trade
Earlier this week I mentioned the great new NBA stat site NBAstuffer.com, and site owner Serhat Ugur has done some analysis of the Mavericks performance before and after the Jason Kidd trade. There are some interesting things here, and I think Serhat's conclusion after examining them is probably in line with most people's observations. Note that the analysis does not include the recent Clippers victory.
The first thing Serhat looked at was how the offense and defense have been affected by the change in personnel. First of all, as many have noticed, the Mavs are playing at a faster pace, with an increase of 2.41 possessions per game since Kidd has arrived. This is a significant amount and moves the Mavs from one of the slowest teams in the league to near the top ten fastest.
Offense
On offense, the Mavericks have been hurt by the addition of Kidd. We score roughly a point less (0.9) for every 100 possessions than we did before the trade. The reasons behind this decrease are interesting, because one of the key offensive statistics is better with Kidd: The Mavs effective field goal percentage (a % which accounts for three pointers), which is .96 higher. Unfortunately that is offset by a whole slew of decreases in performance. The Mavs offensive rebounding percentage is lower (-0.4); they are getting to the free throw line less (FTM/FGA ratio is down 6.9), and, one of the biggest reasons for the decline: a startling increase in turnovers. The Mavericks now commit 1.34 more turnovers per 100 possessions than they did before Kidd arrived.
Interestingly, the assists per FGM ratio has increased dramatically (+3.03), illustrating that Kidd's been having an effect (better shooting, more assisted shots), but it hasn't been enough to stop our offense from slipping with him at the helm.
Defense
One of the real bizarre developments in looking at Kidd's impact and Harris' departure is that the "better floor general" Jason Kidd has hurt the offense, while the departure of the "best defensive point guard in the league" Devin Harris has helped our defense. In fact, the impact on the Mavs defense has been the single biggest change since the trade: The Mavs are giving up 1.7 fewer points per 100 possessions than they did before the trade. That's a very significant drop, and is nearly double the hit we took on the offensive side.
In terms of specifics, the Mavs have improved in practically every defensive category but turnovers: The opposition shoots worse, the Mavs allow fewer offensive rebounds, and are fouling less. The loss of Harris' taking charges certainly has had an impact on opponent turnovers, as the opposition commit over 2 fewer turnovers than they did before the trade, which as I mentioned is the key area where the Mavs defense has done worse.
Conclusions
In very basic terms, we could reasonably conclude that Kidd's been a net positive for the Mavs so far: His impact on improving our defense has been greater than his impact on hurting our offense. Additionally, it is distinctly possible that as his comfort level with the team increases, the number of turnovers will drop, which will significantly improve the Mavs' offense. Even without any more improvement in the offense, there can be no denying one thing: The Mavs are a much better defensive team with Kidd on the floor than with Harris.
I asked Serhat for his one word assessment of the Kidd trade. His answer was that he was "neutral" on the trade. His key point was that the combination of a faster pace and increased turnovers have hurt the team the most. But, he added, "Let's look at the numbers before the postseason. I'm sure we'll get better indicators."
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Actually...
Your response is very similar to someone saying that the Rockets were the best team in the league after they hit 20 straight wins.
Stats have their place
Also, say the Mavs improved in this stat or that stat, but our opponents are still winning the games -- doesn't that just prove that that improvement was not enough relative to the other teams' play?
by Dirk Diggler on Apr 2, 2008 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Here's one way to look at it (of many)
It is my contention that all of the evidence that I see points to the series of tight losses to winning teams (and losses while we were missing some key players) as not being indicative of the strength of this team. Quite simply, we are better than our record indicates. But I don't just sit here and use my gut and blind optimism to say that, I look deeper into the numbers to see if they can give me some objectivity.
Is it depressing to be 0-10 against winnning teams? Sure. Can such things start to have an actual impact on a team? Yes, they can. However, in the end, if we look at the QUALITY of play of the team recently, I'm actually cautiously optimistic.
Fair enough
GO MAVS
by Dirk Diggler on Apr 2, 2008 11:36 PM CDT up reply actions

by 

















