Walker's "cost"

[TISDALE ROBERT TODD <tisdaler@ucsub.Colorado.EDU>]

	As an brief introduction since this is my first post, I have been
on this list for about a year and a half now.  Yes, I'm a serious enough
fan that I joined the list at the START of the 15-67 season - I just
didn't know it existed before then.  I've been rooting the Celts on since
about 1982, just into the Bird era.  I've enjoyed reading the list a great
deal, especially the wide variety of expertise by most posters, but have
never had the inclination to write in until now.  I probably will go right
back into lurking mode again after this post, at least until I have some
more time to spend on this sort of thing.
	Okay, here's an attempt to resolve the debate over how much Walker
"costs" the Celts.  We have had one statistical explanation already, but I
thought it might be interesting to explore it a bit more in-depth.  To
review, the debate is whether Walker is costing us 2-4 ppg with his "out
of control"  style, or more like 6-8 or 10-15 ppg.  There are definitely
some assumptions required, most significantly, what percentage exactly do
we expect Walker to shoot?  We could hold him to a 50% expectation, as one
poster hypothesized in a simple analysis.  It seems that some want to hold
him to a higher standard, say 55% or higher.  I think he could probably
hit 50% of his shots myself, but also think that he shouldn't be held to a
higher standard than the team itself.  Therefore, my assumption is that
for Antoine to "cost" us points, it has to be because he shoots a lower
percentage than the rest of the team as a whole.  Also, I am using stats
from the last 10 games, where Antoine has shot poorly, to give the 10-15
estimate the benefit of the doubt (I think that poster was saying that
10-15 ppg lately). 
	To make things less fuzzy, I'll separate out 2-pointers,
3-pointers, and free throws.  First, look at 2-point shots.  The team shot
348-748 (46.5%), Walker shot 70-177  (39.5%).  This means that the rest of
the team shot 278-571 (48.7%).  Walker averaged 17.7 FGA/game 7.0 FG/game,
and 14.0 points/game from 2-pointers.  If he were shooting at the % the
rest of the team shot at, he would have averaged 0.487*17.7*2 = 17.2
points/game.  Thus, he is "costing" the team 3.2 points/game with his
2-pint shots.
	For 3-point shots, the team was 41-138 (29.7%), Walker 4-24
(16.7%), and the rest of the team 37-114 (32.5%).  Walker's per game
averages: 2.4 threes attempted, 0.4 threes made, and 1.2 points made.  If
he shot as well as the rest of the team, he'd have 2.3 points/game on his
threes, so he "costs" us 1.1 points/game behind the 3-point line.
	Finally, free throws.  This is less simple.  The team attempted
283, making 210 (74.2%).  Walker attempted 77, making 51 (66.2%).  At
first glance it looks like he'll end up costing more points here.  BUT,
AW's 77 attempts came on 2-1 shot attempts, a 0.38 FTA/Shot Attempt ratio,
while the team's 283 attemps came on 886 shot attempts, only a 0.32 FTA/SA
ratio.  So, AW actually gets more free throws from his shots.  If he
averaged only the team's FTA/SA, he'd get 6.4 FTA/game and 4.3 FTM/game,
compared to his 7.7 FTA and 5.1 FTM/game.  Therefore, AW gets us an
additional 0.8 points/game here.
	So, adding all these numbers up, we have 3.2 + 1.1 - 0.8 = 3.5
points/game that AW "costs" the Celts (again, over the last 10 games,
stats courtesy of Doug Steele's incredibly useful site).  I wish I could
do it for the last 10 games BEFORE the Anderson trade, but it would be too
much work to find the boxscores and tally them myself.  The conclusion I
would draw is that the stats seem to back up the 2-4 points/game estimate. 
Of course, I also agree with the quote by Red, as you can never get the
complete story from statistics, fun though they may be (yeah, I may be a
bit sick in the head).  One could easily argue that if Walker didn't take
all the crazy shots he'd have a 55% or 60% average, but the only way to
quantify that is to go through videotapes, (objectively) pick which shots
were crazy, and calculate Walker's percentages on those, as well as on his
sane shots (yes, crazy shots do go in sometimes).  Not something I relish.
	Another thing we can't ignore is that Walker's mere presence on
the floor may (or may not) allow his teammates to shoot at a higher % than
they would without him shooting so many shots.  As it is, teams spend a
lot of energy trying to stop Walker, something the other guys benefit from
directly.  How would you quantify that into an estimate?  Count me in the
camp that thinks Walker doesn't really "cost" the team points - he really
adds to their worth.  
	Finally, I think the teams shooting percentages over the last 10 games
is quite impressive - the 3 point percentage could be a little higher, but
the FG% on 2-pointers is not bad.  It'll be interesting to see where it is
after Anderson's first 10 games.  Apologies in advance for the length of
this - and to those out there who don't like statistics!
							Rob