Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: VIDEO: Austin Rivers' Buzzer Beater Finishes Off UNC

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."

Comment 7 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Actually...
Statistics are perfect in this circumstance--where an anomoly like a lengthy streak makes people see it as "reality" and think irrationally.

Your response is very similar to someone saying that the Rockets were the best team in the league after they hit 20 straight wins.  

by Jakedfw on Apr 2, 2008 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions  

Stats have their place
But when you watch the games, and they aren't good enough to beat good teams anymore, that tells me it hasn't been working.

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)
Think back to how ESPN's John Hollinger typefied the Mavs in previous seasons. He basically said that the Mavs won more games than they should have due to them doing well in extremely close scoring games (I can't remember our record, but it was some ridiculous figure like 12-2 in games decided by 4 points or fewer). His point was that games that are decided by very close scores are not at as strong an indicator of relative team strength as those with commanding wins. In this sense, three tight wins would not be as good as two blowouts and a tight loss to the same three teams, even though the win/loss record would be better in the first case.

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.

by Jakedfw on Apr 2, 2008 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions  

Fair enough
All I know is I think I needed this win tonight as much as the team did.

GO MAVS

by Dirk Diggler on Apr 2, 2008 11:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

hrmmm.
And wouldn't you know... Hollinger writes a very similar account of the Mavs in his playoff race column today. :)

by Jakedfw on Apr 3, 2008 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

Our offense
Will look better on paper once the turnovers decrease. The rest of the team seems to be adjusting to Kidd's excellent passing, especially Howard. I wonder how efficient our offense was last night...

by Dirkanoid on Apr 3, 2008 7:12 PM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Dallas Mavericks.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Nowitzki_mvp_small
Dirk Nowitzki selected to his 11th consecutive All Star appearance
Dsc0949d_copy_small
Last-Minute Ticket Special from TiqIQ
Dsc0949d_copy_small
Ticket Deals For The Mavericks' Homestand
Penguins_small
2012 Australian Open: Open Thread.
Penguins_small
Lamar Odom
Revis_posterized_small
Observations of a Lurker: SacTown Royalty
Untitled_small
Dallas Mavericks 99, Sacramento Kings 60: The JJ sucks edition.
Untitled_small
All Star Voting
Small
Mavs Need Not Panic
Dsc0949d_copy_small
Mavericks Get Their First Win, Defeat Raptors 99-86

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

MMB MERCH


Manager

Dsc0949d_copy_small LJRotter

Editor

N519561804_1187480_710_small Boweman55

Janosch_small j0Shi

Me2_small andytobo

Authors

Comunist_small DOH

800px-flag_of_the_libyan_jamahiriya_1977 tomkanti

Mavericks-logo_small tcat75

N7900545_38658176_7883_small Travis Wimberly