Nylon Calculus Week 17 in Review: Smoothie King All-Star Weekend

The pause before the trade deadline storm is the NBA All-Star weekend, and I’m still trying to decide if that’s a good idea or not. Ultimately, I suppose it is — I can entertain that — because guys have time to prepare and don’t have to sit out games while teams are dealing in the background. This year, people assumed we wouldn’t have much movement at the deadline, but we’ve already had one blockbluster, and it distracted from a lackluster set of All-Star events. And with that, let’s look back at what happened in the last week.

The Kings of incompetence

All-Star weekend ended with a bang — a high-scoring, multiple-time All-Star center was traded to New Orleans to form what is arguably the best frontcourt since Tim Duncan and David Robinson. What’s most shocking here is that DeMarcus Cousins was traded for two main assets: a first round pick that somehow got top-three protection and Buddy Hield, an older rookie who’s played considerable minutes but still has not received support in a Rookie of the Year race deflated by injuries and few notable players. Remarkably, Vlade Divac admitted the organization had a better deal days ago. And yeah, you’re not mistaken the actual parameters of the trade deadline; it hasn’t ended and there was no reason to rush the trade. The trade has so destroyed the Kings fans that they’ve remade their Reddit into a Lion King board.

Read More: LeBron James is playing an astounding number of minutes

Although Cousins’ value is depressed by his personality, it’s surprising to see him flipped for so few assets. Any number of struggling teams could have topped the offer, as noted by Zach Lowe. The full breadth of their ineptitude has been covered by others, and the most sensible explanation is this: Sacramento views Buddy Hield as the “next Stephen Curry” and when coupled with a first round pick from a team they think are destined to fail (because they have Cousins), they feel like they’ve landed their next star and another shot at one with the draft. I need not explain why they were so enamored with him — he fits so well there. But it’s easy to cover Sacramento’s failures. The more challenging question is, can Cousins be part of a winning team, contributing with Anthony Davis?

First of all, I think the “attitude” issues are overblown. I remember my hometown Trail Blazers being frustrated with their own play and how dysfunctional the locker room was. They traded their problem child, a talented and versatile big man who racked up technical fouls at a Ruthian rate, and a few months later … he, not the team, won a championship. It’s bogus that a hot-head will limit the ceiling of your team; great teams regularly have these types, from Rasheed Wallace and Metta World Peace to Dennis Rodman and Vernon Maxwell. Actually, players and teams with a high rate of technical fouls tend to outperform expectations. I’m not saying it’s necessarily positive that Cousins picks up so many technical fouls, but it won’t limit his team’s championship aspirations.

As for Cousins’ value, I don’t think it’s wise to assume that just because his team sucks he’s not so swell either. This is 2017, and surely we have the methods and data to separate player from team. It might be temping to state he’s an empty stats player who’s thieving from his teammates, depressing their value and adding to his. But there’s no evidence to back that assertion. He’s a versatile big man with 3-point range and a number of assists. We have seen, pretty consistently, that Sacramento has played better with him on the court in recent seasons. Even his rim protection numbers are solid, and he creates a lot of turnovers. If you think another All-Star center would have taken them to the playoffs, I’ll just point at Sacramento’s roster over the years. I highly doubt, say, Marc Gasol would have put them over the top.

As for how Anthony Davis and DeMarcus will fit together, I do not anticipate poor fit sinking the team. Both big men have range, and Davis prefers the power forward position anyhow. I imagine Cousins will grab a few of Davis’ boards, but perhaps that could lead to Davis spending more energy on defense; likewise, both guys will probably be taking fewer shots, but there are some gains to be had and both guys are versatile enough to make up the lost value elsewhere. Really, the greater concern people have is what the Pelicans do now, as they haven’t been the model franchise. They have a lot of team building left; shooting guard in particular is a giant hole. They need the requisite 3-and-D guy there, but I’m not too optimistic. Like his time in Sacramento, Cousins will probably become frustrated because of his front office’s inability to improve the team, despite the presence of Anthony Davis.

Celebrity Game

Are we still pretending this doesn’t exist? Okay. Well Win Butler should have won the MVP — it’s too bad because a fellow Canadian won the MVP for the rookie/sophomore game later. But for a game I’d really want to watch, can we get Barack Obama in a game some time? He can have a couple body guards for teammates if that’s what it takes; I just want to see him out there. Please.

Rookie-Sophomore World Challenge

There was not much basketball played in this game, which I’m sure is not a surprise to anyone. But it was a delight to see all the young guys in one place, and it’s great to see the spread of the NBA. The World beat the US squad, and I don’t think anyone was surprised. Most players were from traditional powerhouses — a couple guys from Spain and four from eastern Europe — but we did have a guy from the Bahamas, Buddy Hield, and the MVP was from Canada, which has now become a legitimate NBA talent producer. Rookie and sophomore discussions have largely centered on some of the bigger and flashier players, so it was fun to see Jamal Murray grab the MVP award. It doesn’t necessarily mean he’s on his way to being a star, of course. The list of previous MVP winners reads like a roll-call of past stars and prospects, but there are a couple of duds like Daniel Gibson. It’s still encouraging though, and Denver should be on the radar for every NBA die-hard.

Skills and unicorns

For two years in a row, as long as the big men have been invited to the contest, the bigger players have come away with the victories. The NBA “skills king” also doubles as the tallest player in the league (technically, he’s tied with Boban Marjanovic and Walter Travares). Kristaps Porzingis showed off why he’s called the Unicorn — he’s a giant with truly guard-like skills. If the world is benevolent, he’ll be back next year in the actual All-Star game.

3-point contest

I published my apparently annual contest predictions for this one, and while I was disappointed in how CJ McCollum played, my general warnings of “bet the field” and the notion that overwhelming favorites are usually grossly overrated stayed true. It’s a bunch of professional shooters who aren’t being guarded taking a bunch of shots in 60 seconds. Expect some randomness. But, fittingly, a member of the Houston Rockets, Eric Gordon, won the contest. It’s nice to see that after the guy spent so many years limited by injuries, and hopefully he can finish the season in good health.

Dunk contest

The dunk contests are like Star Trek movies: they can alternate between good and bad, and there are some terrible stretches out there, but people come back for the good moments and the history. We were treated with an epic dunk contest in 2016, so I was expecting one a bit more grounded — and that’s what we got. It wasn’t a terrible contest though; you can see the best dunks below. The two unknown guys — and I have to admit I only knew Derrick Jones Jr. as a player who was added to a masterlist of NBA players I use for several scripts — performed the best, which is really not out of line with the dunk contest’s history. Aaron Gordon did not look ready or able, and the two others capitalized. Glenn Robinson the Third deserved the trophy in a contest whose theme was apparently “let’s jump over lots of people.”

And the less said about the drone, the better.

Main Course: The All-Star Game

Once again, the All-Star Game was basketball only in the most liberal sense. It was an exhibition of dunks, dribbles, and 3-pointers. I know I’m not the only one to complain about this, but it’s like chugging straight sugar for a meal. Sure, the first few moments might be cool, but it’s not pleasant after a while and you begin to miss the simpler things that come before the dessert. I’m not sure what the solution is; I don’t want the homecourt advantage in the NBA finals to be determined by the outcome of this superfluous game. I just wish the guys would compete harder because a dunk is more meaningful when there’s some real resistance.

I understand Anthony Davis’ MVP in the context of New Orleans, and how through all the struggles he’s had there it’s nice to see him with some great teammates succeeding, but it wasn’t fun to watch. Though it is funny to see a Wilt Chamberlain record to fall because of the ridiculous pace of this era and not his. By the way, Reggie Miller and Chris Webber, Rudy Gobert is longer than either of them, and he should have been in the game (This is in reference to a question asked about who was longer: Giannis Antetokounmpo or Anthony Davis?) And no, I won’t let the Gobert snub go.

Two minutes

Some of the most interesting and important data has nothing to do with players or teams at all; it’s all about referees and how often and in what way they make incorrect calls. Here’s a nice article about calls in the last two minutes of the game, which is stuff the NBA transparently reviews. I found the breakdown of play types to be the most fascinating part. Obvious events that are usually being closely watched like personal fouls and most turnovers are usually correct, while away from the ball events are more likely to be incorrect — and much to an old timer’s delight, I imagine, traveling has a huge number of non-calls that should have been called. Finally, I saw no pattern in the player bias section. It’s probably controlled more by play type than player, and thankfully there appears to be no racial bias either. Poor Gordon Hayward has the highest proportion of incorrect calls to correct ones — and actually, according to this article, if there’s a racial bias, it’s against white players in terms of popularity. These kind of reports are vital to the league though, and I hope we continue to receive data in the future.

Usage inequality

The site SBNation recently had an interesting article noting that the number of high usage seasons has exploded this year. Not only is Russell Westbrook destroying the usage rate stat, but several others are posting some of the highest marks in NBA history, even centers like DeMarcus Cousins and Joel Embiid. Sadly, their stats only go back to 1978 (In the article, they make a mistake in stating that usage rate only goes back to 1976. This is incorrect because individual turnovers have only been tracked in the NBA since 1978, which is one component of usage rate) but when people think of usage rate, they’re really just thinking about who’s taking all the shots. Thus, I decided to use my “shot usage” stat; it’s just the proportion of “true” shot attempts (free throws are counted as shots, and as in true shooting percentage they’re multiplied by 0.44) a player has compared to his team, adjusting for minutes.

For a more comprehensive look at how shot usage has been changing, I decided to calculate the standard deviation of every player’s shot usage percent in a season with at least 1000 minutes. You can see the results in the graph below. The standard deviation has been oscillating for a while. It took a dive in the late 60’s, and then recovered to a plateau some time in the 80’s. Then it briefly plummeted and rose again to a plateau that hasn’t changed too much until this season. Our present is the outlier, and it’s like looking at a climate change graph. I’m not exactly sure how to interpret the results. It’s not correlated with pace or offensive efficiency. It’s about how well teams can funnel the ball to one player, and given how fans respond to stars and how we hinge everything on the big shot-maker, it’s probably a good sign. It’s just something we’ve never seen before in NBA history.

Great players on bad teams

A hundred years ago, the modern world was obsessed with genetics and how it related to predestination. Even the smartest people at the time reasoned that if you knew a person’s family, or even just the shape of their head, you could determine their future. One particular obsession was the “Ishmael” family, who represented a whole stock of poor white families from places like Kentucky and Tennessee who had moved up north to find jobs but kept relatively wilder practices, like hunting and uproarious evangelical sermons. They were called America’s worst family, and they were the ugly exception to the racist idea at the time that the Anglo-Saxons were the purest and most outstanding ethnic group in the world. In reality, it was a bunch of poor rural folks with little education who slipped into poverty, homelessness, and crime because of their circumstances. Today the family is comfortably middle class, and we all understand that genes don’t write your future.

The idea that the quality of a group defines the individual, and can even follow the individual in different environments, is one that always troubles me. I find it limiting, and it’s often untrue. This kind of typing pervades the NBA too: the DeMarcus Cousins discussion is the notion that no other player as good as him has ever experienced so little team success over the first part of his career, so we must be wary. First of all, there are a few reasons this phenomenon has occurred, and I don’t believe any are connected to him being a “fake” star. He’s only 26, so we shouldn’t compare his career to the entire career arcs of others. Also, he’s really only been a star since 2014 or 2015, arguably. I wouldn’t see how it would matter if a guy makes the playoffs when he’s a rookie and not contributing. So we’re really only talking about a short time-span here, and this reminds me of the discussion around Kevin Love — who know, the guy who had never even been to the playoffs who recently just won a championship and played heavy minutes for the team. Even the theory that he was an anti-clutch voodoo presence was ultimately unfounded, as he was part of one of the greatest playoff comebacks in NBA history.

Looking at the Cousins problem specifically, he stands out because his advanced stats are excellent but his team has been consistently poor. Thus, I created a filter for players of his type. Using Box Plus-Minus and its minutes-weighted metric, VORP, I selected high-performing seasons from players whose teams had an SRS less than one and an age under 28. Basically, I’m looking for star-like players who aren’t yet old on comfortably below-average teams, and I relaxed the filters enough so they weren’t unfairly created to make Cousins stand out more. The “VORP” threshold — player value — was 3, which is a bit under some of Cousins’ best seasons but still notable enough for a player. When you do that, you get a list of 118 seasons. I’ve provided every season below from a player with at least three of those seasons.

Table: great players on bad teams, 1974-2016

*VORP is based on b-ref’s BPM

I wouldn’t say that DeMarcus has the best company, but it’s not damning either. After all, Andre Iguodala found his calling a super-glue player for one of the best NBA teams ever, Adrian Dantley nearly won a title in Detroit, and guys like Larry Nance were legitimately good and found success later. Pau Gasol is actually a great and interesting inclusion — he left Memphis and immediately won a couple of titles. You wouldn’t mistake him for a guy who had “losing” in his DNA; it’s just something that can happen if you’re on an inferior team. If you look at the list of players with at least two such seasons, or even just one, there’s quite a varied list, and you find many superstars performing at a high-level in a bad environment or just all-stars stuck in a bad situation who would later find success, such as Jason Kidd, Chris Bosh, and Shawn Marion.

Elton Brand is perhaps the best comparison on the table though — he was on some awful Bulls teams and then transferred to the Clippers, who struggled for a while despite his best efforts. After the team finally found success, he got injured and then left. But this should be a warning to the Clippers: they got much worse without him, and were in the doldrums until they nabbed Chris Paul. Brand never got to the playoffs until he was 27 years-old — Cousins is 26 now. Sadly, he was never the same after the Achilles injury, but he did contribute to some decent Philly teams who made the playoffs multiple times with him.

The best season from BPM alone that qualified was actually Andrei Kirilenko in 2005. He had a season underrated by conventional stats. Cousins is second though with his current season, so I do understand why people are so skeptical — it’s rare to see a player rating so well on such a poor team. Elton Brand was on the worst team in the sample: a 17-win Chicago team post-Jordan in an awkward transition (and also headlined by a 20 year-old Metta World Peace.)

That leads me to a nifty little measure: the Dantley number, which just the difference between a player’s BPM and their team’s SRS. The bigger the spread, the more the player’s production dominates the team. There are only 75 such seasons with a Dantley number over 10, and just eleven guys with a number over 12. There are three types of players here, roughly: awe-inspiring players on mediocre teams like Russell Westbrook, All-Star level guys on terrible teams like Tracy McGrady, and decent guys on truly awful teams like Derek Harper. Cousins, by the way, has a Dantley of 9.3, which is his highest yet. That’s not even the highest Dantley this season, even excluding Westbrook. And guys like Giannis Antetokounmpo and Nikola Jokic are close.

Table: Dantley number (BPM – team SRS)

It’s not all that rare for a great big man to be on a mediocre or just plain bad team. And if you’re stuck on a poor franchise, you can string together a few of those seasons in a row. This even happens to Hall of Fame players, like Moses Malone. Look at the early part of his career: his Houston teams from 1977 to 1982 averaged 42 wins and never topped 50 despite him winning two MVPs averaging 24 and 15, while his ABA teams were nothing special either. Then he found some teammates with talent and became the centerpiece of one of the greatest teams ever. There’s nothing intrinsically bad about a player on a bad team; it’s often just happenstance.

This American idea of a do-it-yourself superstar who can create a contender out of nothingness, and who needs no other stars to flourish and win, is downright dangerous. Not everyone is LeBron James or Michael Jordan, and remember even those guys needed stars like Dwyane Wade and Scottie Pippen to win. You’re not going to be successful when your teammates with the highest minutes are Darren Collison, a 36 year-old Matt Barnes, and Garrett Temple; it’s actually impressive they were sniffing the playoffs at all.

Next: Welcome to the Davis-Cousinspocalypse

We’ll see the test play out with New Orleans, but I don’t think the mark of the Kings will follow him for the entirety of his career. He will prevail, as others have done before when given the right opportunity.