New Orleans Hornets, where's the pub?

http://www.zimbio.com

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

The above link takes you to the most recent version of the Hollinger Power Ranking of NBA teams on ESPN.com.

SportsReaction

I love John Hollinger’s Power Rankings on ESPN.com.  I use them to inform me which teams are good, and which ones aren’t.  Suffice to say, I was very disappointed to see my beloved Boston Celtics at #7 this morning.   They did just get embarrassed in Phoenix by a Suns team currently ranks 21^st in the same rankings; but I’m not going to use this space to defend them or debate the Hollinger rankings.  I want to use this space to discuss a team that I think gets the least amount of press for being one of the league’s best teams; the New Orleans Hornets.

Everybody always talks about the Los Angeles Lakers, and the aforementioned Boston Celtics.  The Orlando Magic are constantly being discussed since their big trade, and Derrick Rose is in everybody’s MVP discussions nowadays as he has led the Chicago Bulls to a 33-14 record.  Even I have spoken at length about the San Antonio Spurs.

But nobody talks about the #4 team in the Hollinger rankings…the New Orleans Hornets.   They have played the third toughest schedule in the league (.526 winning percentage of combined opponents), have played an equal amount of games on the road and at home and boast the best point guard in the league in Chris Paul.  Actually, if it weren’t for LeBron James, we’d be talking about the best player in the league as he ranks second only to "The King" in PER (Player Effienciecy Rating).   

When it comes to ranking point guards the most important thing to look at is assist to turnover ratio, and guess who leads the entire league in this category?  Yep, with a ratio of 4.19 Paul dominates the competition.  For reference, another point guard that is widely considered to be a great “caretaker” of the basketball, Rajon Rondo, has a ratio of 3.12.  Paul outshines him by more than one full point!

So now that my love for Chris Paul has been stated, let’s have a look at New Orleans league ranks in the offensive and defensive “four factors.”  These are four key offensive and defensive team stats identified by Basketball-reference.com that do a great job of summarizing how good or bad a team is on both sides of the ball. 

***Definitions for stats that aren't clearly defined by their title below:

Effective FG%: the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal.

Offensive Rebound %: the formula is 100 * (ORB * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm ORB + Opp DRB)). Offensive rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available offensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor.

 Defensive Rebound %: the formula is 100 * (DRB * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm DRB + Opp ORB)). Defensive rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available defensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor***


Here is New Orleans ranks in each of the four factors on both sides of the ball:

Offensive "Four Factors"	Stat	NBA Rank
Effective FG%	0.492	17th
Turnovers per 100 Poss.	0.135	17th
Offensive Rebound%	0.251	19th
Free throws per FG Attempt	0.237	9th
Defensive "Four Factors"	Stat	NBA Rank
Opponent Effective FG%	0.481	7th
Opp. Turnovers per 100 Poss.	0.141	9th
Defensive Rebound per 100 Poss.	0.770	2nd
Opponent Free throws per FG Attempt	0.211	5th

Even though they have one of the most efficient players in the game handling the ball, the Hornets are clearly only an average offensive team, but are a very good defensive team.  But, they have succeeded against a very tough schedule so far and their #4 ranking in the Hollinger rankings is correct.

I’m not saying the Hornets should be a favorite to win the NBA Championship this season, or even be ranked number one in anybody’s power rankings, but don’t forget them.   Just because they don’t get the “press” that the Lakers and Celtics get doesn’t mean they’re not as good.

I hope this article has done a good job showing how good the New Orleans Hornets are, and given them some of the "pub" they've been lacking.

A Look at Tim Wakefield

When someone says the name Tim Wakefield, one of the most automatic thoughts is the knuckleball, or vice versa. The 44-year-old pitcher has been on the mound for the Red Sox since 1995 and doesn’t seem to be slowing down.

After graduating from Florida Tech, Wakefield was drafted by the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 8th round of the free agent draft in 1988. A scout told Wakefield that he would never make it past double A with his position skills.

At this point, Wakefield focused on improving his knuckleball that has made him so well known today. He had immediate success and it did not take long to make the majors.
In his Major League debut, Wakefield pitched a complete game against the Cardinals, striking out ten batters and throwing 146 pitches.

As the season continued, Wakefield started 13 games, going 8-1 with a 2.15 ERA. His success as a rookie earned him the National League Rookie of the Year Award.

The next season, Wakefield began to struggle and was eventually released by the pirates. Six days later, the Red Sox picked him up. He began the season with a 1.65 ERA and a 14–1 record through 17 games – six of which were complete games.
Wakefield has continued to start games for the Red Sox. At any point in any game, Wakefield’s control can come and go with ease.

He could be pitching extremely well, but then give up four runs in the next inning. So many little things can effect his pitches. The temperature, weather and wind, can all determine where the knuckleball will end up. It takes extraordinary amount of patience to watch and keep Wakefield in the game when he is struggling.

Some hitters believe they have figured out how to hit the knuckleball. If the pitch is high, it is better to swing because the ball will probably come back down into the strike zone. If it is low, let it go, since it may end up out of the strike zone.
No matter which way you look at it, it’s going to be a challenge to hit a pitch that Wakefield has perfected.

On April 27, 1993, Wakefield threw 172 pitches over 10+ innings in a game for the Pittsburgh Pirates against the Atlanta Braves.

He should continue to pitch for the Sox for a few years to come. Although he is getting older and has had some injuries over the years, the knuckleballer doesn’t need much to pitch games. His durability has proved that he can still pitch at 44.

Angels/Jays Trade

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=6046548

The above link takes you to a story recapping the Los Angeles Angels trade where they acquired OF Vernon Wells from the Toronto Blue Jays.

SportsReaction

Who do the Angels think Vernon Wells is?  Do they think he’s the player who was worth 7.1 runs in the field (per UZR) and posted a 5.7 WAR in 2006?  Because if that is the player they think they are acquiring he might be worth the 4 years and $86 MM he has left on his contract.  

The problem is Vernon Wells is not that player…not even close.  Even last year—a year widely considered to be a “comeback year” for Wells--he posted a .331 OBP and was a liability (-6.4 runs) in the field.  Wells did post a WAR of 4.0 in 2010, so he was a valuable player; but to expect a season close to that over the next four seasons is ridiculous considering he is 32 years old.  

Wells is due $23 MM next season and $21 MM each year after through 2014.  This means, not accounting for inflation, the Angels will pay Wells to be at least a four win player each year from this point forward.   This clearly is not a smart investment for a guy who has only posted a number that high twice in his career (last season and the aforementioned 2006).

But what kind of players did the Angels give up?    

Mike Napoli is a 29 year old catcher that has only posted a WAR less than two once in his five year career.  Juan Rivera is nothing special as he is 32 years old and rarely plays a full season.  He only has one year remaining on his contract though, and is due only $5.25 MM; meaning they are paying him to post just one win in 2011.  He may not be able to do this, but it’s not a huge overpay and is not a long term commitment.

Napoli cannot become a free agent until after the 2012 season and this year he’s asked for $6.1 MM in arbitration while the Angels have offered $5.3 MM.  Let’s give him the $6.1 MM this year, and raise that to $9 MM for the 2012 season (a very high estimate). 

Assuming a rate of $5 MM per win with a 5% increase for inflation each year after 2011, and a 0.5 yearly decline in WAR for players 32 years or older, and a steady WAR output for players 29-32 let’s have a look at a yearly table showing each players salary compared to the value of his projected output:

Wells

Year	WAR	Value	Salary	Diff
2010	4.0	20.00	12.50	7.50
2011	3.5	17.50	23.00	(5.50)
2012	3.0	15.75	21.00	(5.25)
2013	2.5	13.78	21.00	(7.22)
2014	2.0	11.58	21.00	(9.42)
Total	11.0	58.6	86.0	(27.39)

Napoli

Year	WAR	Value	Salary	Diff
2010	2.7	13.50	3.60	9.90
2011	2.7	13.50	6.10	7.40
2012	2.7	14.18	9.00	5.18
Total	5.4	27.7	15.1	12.58

Rivera

Year	WAR	Value	Salry	Diff
2010	0.5	2.50	4.25	(1.75)
2011	0.3	1.58	5.25	(3.68)

So there it is.  The only two numbers you need to see here is the $27.39 MM the Angels are going to overpay Vernon Wells through his contract; and the $12.58 MM the Blue Jays will underpay Napoli to judge this trade.

Horrible trade for the Angels, enough said.

Aaron Rodgers: The Man

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=310115001

The above link takes you to a recap of the Green Bay Packers second consecutive road victory in the NFL Playoffs over the Atlanta Falcons last night.

SportsReaction

I wouldn’t take him over Tom Brady, and I wouldn’t take him over Peyton Manning, but I’ll take Aaron Rodgers over any other quarterback in the NFL to start my team.  This is something I said before the Playoffs started but heard much digression over on much of sports talk radio.  Many analysts had said Atlanta QB Matt Ryan was “the guy” they’d start their franchise with (aside from Brady & Manning).

Matt Ryan is very good, but the only category he bests Rodgers in is wins in close games.  While many analysts will say this is all that matters, that is incredibly shallow and one dimensional.  Are those players’ records in close games the direct result of his play, or that of his team?  To start this debate let’s have a look at some of Rodgers and Ryan’s key statistical categories, and their NFL ranks, in each season they have been their teams starting QB (2008-Present, 0-7 pts. Column represents record in games decided by that amount):

Rodgers

Year	Comp. %	NFL Rank	Yds/Comp	NFL Rank	Rate	NFL Rank	0-7 Pts
2008	63.6	10	11.8	9	93.8	6	1-7
2009	64.7	9	12.7	5	103.2	4	3-3
2010	65.7	5	12.6	4	101.2	3	4-5

Ryan

Year	Comp. %	NFL Rank	Yds/Comp	NFL Rank	Rate	NFL Rank	0-7 Pts
2008	61.1	17	13.0	2	87.7	11	6-2
2009	58.3	23	11.1	23	80.9	20	3-1
2010	62.5	12	10.4	28	91	11	7-2

Those tables leave no debate as to who was the better quarterback in those time periods, but each players records in games decided by 0-7 points cannot be overlooked.  Rodgers is 8-15 in such games, while Ryan is 16-5.  That is a large discrepancy that shouldn’t be completed credited to Matt Ryan, or completely blamed on Aaron Rodgers. 

When games are close the best way to keep a lead is to run the ball—a category that is independent from the QB’s passing numbers.  With that said let’s have a look at the Atlanta Falcons team rushing numbers compared to the Green Bay Packers numbers in the same time period (2008-2010):

2008	Rush yds/game	NFL Rank
Green Bay	112.8	17
Atlanta	152.7	2
2009	Rush yds/game	NFL Rank
Green Bay	117.8	14
Atlanta	117.3	15
2010	Rush yds/game	NFL Rank
Green Bay	100.4	24
Atlanta	118.2	12
	Team	Avg. Rank
	Green Bay	18
	Atlanta	10

Look at each teams’ average NFL rank in rushing in the bottom segment of those charts.  While Matt Ryan has had the advantage of being on a team that can hand to ball off to salt away leads, Aaron Rodgers has had no such benefit.  The Packers couldn’t eat any clock at the end of games and were completely one dimensional.   Opposing teams were able to load up to stop the pass.

Matt Ryan does have a better record in close games and deserves some credit for that.  When you dig a little deeper, though, you see that that record is more a reflection of his team, than it is him. Speaking on the same note, Aaron Rodgers only deserves some of the blame for his shoddy records in close games—not all of it. 

If you weigh those records appropriately then consider the quarterback play as shown in the above tables Aaron Rodgers was clearly the better quarterback in that time period, and he’s the guy you should want to start your team aside from Brady and Manning.  Nothing against Matt Ryan—he’s great, and will do some great things as time wears on, he’s just not Aaron Rodgers.