Simulation Analysis of the Warriors-Pacers Blockbuster Trade

by Atma Brother ONE on Mar 14, 2007 8:24 AM PDT in Links

It's been nearly two months since the Warriors pulled off their heist of the Indiana Pacers. Currently the Warriors are making a thrilling playoff push, while the Indiana Posers have dropped an embarrassing 10 straight games and are slipping out of the Leastern Conference Playoff picture.

You saw the crazy GSoM coverage of the trade:

(Yeah, I'm really not kidding about how nuts the GSoM community went over the trade!)

TMurph, Excuse-leavy, and We Like Ike riding the pine.
(Photo by Ron Hoskins/NBAE via Getty Images)

Now, take a look at a little simulation analysis of the Warriors and Pacers' blockbuster trade as well as the Allen Iverson deal from Paul Bessire and Scott Eble of WhatIfSports.com on 82games. I'm a firm believer that stats should only be used to augment what you see on the court, not replace it or act as a stand-alone analytical tool, but Bessire and Eble's piece is definitely interesting.

In their analysis the Warriors come out as winners of this "lopsided deal", but aren't that much better of a team post-trade. Check out their numbers for all the details.

I have to say that one area Bessire and Eble's analysis is seriously lacking is taking into consideration the Funleavy Foto Fun that Warriors Nation has lost night in and night out with this trade. There were two things you could count on Mike Dunelavy for in a Warrior uniform every night out: 1) a triple single and 2) some great photos (see 44 Reasons Why Giving Mike Dunleavy 44 Million Wasn't the Brightest Idea: Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV).

Things really seem to have changed for Dunleavy in Indiana...

Since leaving the Bay Dunleavy has become the box out king!
(Photo by Melissa Majchrzak/NBAE via Getty Images)

Just call him Defense-leavy!
(Photo by Rocky Widner/NBAE via Getty Images)

Whoa Mike! This is a FAMILY show!
(Photo by Noah Graham/NBAE via Getty Images)

or maybe they're just the same.

If the Warriors didn't make that deal with the Pacers, what do you think their record would be right now?

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

wow

the last picture of Mike Dunleavy Jr and Sr is just ridiculous!

by tadams1080 on Mar 14, 2007 9:39 AM PDT 0 recs

We'd be first in the west!

I'm just kidding. I'd think maybe 5 games worse because:

-Our players wouldn't have been able to keep leads they can now
-Stephen Jackson couldn't lock down people on D like he did to poor Dirk
-One of our players wouldn't have a movie coming out (oh, wait Harrington isn't a real ninja turtle?)
-Dunleavy and Murphy would still be unhappy in Golden State and -- this isn't a bash on their character, their only human -- it would effect their play.

by WHYarenasWHY on Mar 14, 2007 10:13 AM PDT 0 recs

Dunleave Shooting guard?

Dunleavy is actually putting up ok numbers for Indiana. I just find it funny that he is their starting "shooting" guard.

by GoNellieGo on Mar 14, 2007 10:17 AM PDT 0 recs

Murphleavy Stats

I'm not surprised by the Pacers' 10 game losing streak. If the 2 key players the Pacers got were still on our team, we'd probably be at 24-42 - ANOTHER LOSING SEASON. It doesn't look like they're helping the Pacers. Look at their stats:

Dunleavy
Warriors / Pacers
Min - 27.0 / 35.3
FG% - 44.9% / 44.7%
3PT% - 34.6% / 30.0%
FT% - 77.2% / 75.6%
Stl - 1.0 / 1.0
Blk - 0.3 / 0.3
TO - 1.8 / 1.8
Reb - 4.8 / 5.1
Ast - 3.0 / 2.6
Pts - 11.4 / 13.4

Dunleavy's got more minutes so more points and boards, but not much more assists and shooting has slightly dropped.

Murphy
Warriors / Pacers
Min - 25.6 / 28.2
FG% - 45.0% / 44.0%
3PT% - 37.3% / 34.8%
FT% - 71.2% / 71.1%
Blk - 0.8 / 0.6
Stl - 0.7 / 0.6
TO - 1.1 / 1.2
Reb - 6.0 / 7.1
Ast - 2.3 / 1.5
Pts - 8.9 / 10.1

Murphy has a few more minutes scoring almost a point more and grabbing a rebound more, but other categories have dropped.

by AntiLaker on Mar 14, 2007 11:05 AM PDT 0 recs

our record would beeee

24-42

by djchuckdeez on Mar 14, 2007 11:28 AM PDT 0 recs

Dunleavy's point increase

2 points in over 8 minutes extra a game isn't impressive.

by WHYarenasWHY on Mar 14, 2007 11:57 AM PDT 0 recs

Dunleavy's point increase

2 points in over 8 minutes extra a game isn't impressive.

by WHYarenasWHY on Mar 14, 2007 11:58 AM PDT 0 recs

records, simulations

Before the trade, the Pacers were a .500 team. Since the trade, they're 4 under. Before the trade, the Warriors were 2 under .500. Now they're 6 under. Both teams have poorer winning percentages post trade than they had before. Small sample size taken into consideration but it doesn't really look like the trade had a pronounced affect on either team. I suspect that the records we see are about the records we'd have seen either way.

Now if we'd only been able to get a backup pointguard in the draft instead of a super-sub-backup center playing in B-field. If we'd been able to keep Baron's minutes in check like Nelson said he would before the season and not had him break down, we would most likely have a better record regardless of the trade.

That "Trade Simulation" is garbage. I don't know what they used to generate their data, but their simulation appears to be flawed when put up against actually basketball games. The conclusion that the Nuggets got the better of the 6ers seems to be contradicted by a Denver team that's still basically a .500 team post trade while the 6ers have gone 21-29 since the trade. No, 21-29 isn't great, but it's better than the 5-12 that they were in games with Iverson. (They were 4-11 in games without Iverson before their trade. There doesn't seem to be much to suggest that Iverson helps his team since losing him didn't hurt Philly and getting him hasn't helped Denver.)

by jae on Mar 14, 2007 1:29 PM PDT 0 recs

No effect?

It doesn't really look like the trade had a pronounced effect on either team.

You don't really think that, do you, JAE? I maybe if you look only at overall W-L records, and totally ignore (a) the trends of the data and (b) all the intangible stuff: intensity, chemistry, energy, momentum, etc. I can't imagine the Pacers would be imploding the way they are right now without the help of the awful defense and general lack of energy of Murphleavy; and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here who doesn't think the aura around the Ws has changed for the better since the trade. I'm sure that "trade simulation" is total garbage, but, for whatever reason: the Pacers have gone from a pretty good team to a pretty bad one, and the Warriors seem to have done just the opposite.

by Sleepy Freud on Mar 14, 2007 6:48 PM PDT up 0 recs

aura...

...is beginning to remind me of the tmc days. you could tell those guys got along and enjoyed playing basketball together.

i'm seeing that with these guys. i love all of the talking on the court...and how they're talking with coach.

jackson is everything we hoped dun would be...and harrington, while he hasn't wowed us, is at least a team guy.

NO QUESTION this trade improved us.

by TMC Forever on Mar 14, 2007 9:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah. It think the trade was about even

BY DEFINITION there's no way to look at the 'intangible stuff' in the data, else it would be tangible.

But do I believe that Denver is no better off or do I believe we're no better off? Both cases, I think the trades were of negible help to either team and may not have helped them at all at this point.

'Trends' can be deceptive. It's easy to hastily conclude that what is more or less random variation is a 'trend.' Shortly after the trade, it looked like the Pacers were on the better end. On larger sample, neither team has done better since the trade suggesting that it wasn't really much more than a push.

I think the recent trend here has much more to do with Baron playing than Harrington. Basically, I didn't think too much of the players we sent out and thought we got back about what we sent out.

by jae on Mar 15, 2007 9:24 AM PDT up 0 recs

I think the key is small sample size and...

we haven't had the team at full strength after the trade for too many games.

While I have to agree that the trade on paper, i.e. wins and losses, hasn't made much difference, but the team on the floor is much different.

One, they are playing better defense and two scoring better by not chucking up so many 3-balls. I would think their 3-ball chucking is down and free throw shooting is up a skosh. Overall, the team after trade has better chemistry and players the Warriors can build around for the future if they can hold the 8th seed or better.

Furthermore, you can't ignore the results. The Warriors beat the Pacers after the trade and they are in the 8th seed while the Pacers have fallen out.

What's weird is this season, the competition for the 7th and 8th seed in the West is really off. Maybe the middle teams in the West are weaker while the top has gotten stronger. I dunno. As comparison, last season's 7th and 8th seeds, Lakers and Kings, went 45-37 and 44-38, respectively. This season, a sub .500 may be enough to get in.

by callahan on Mar 14, 2007 11:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

Wait.. Dunleavy was traded?

by Athletix Man on Mar 14, 2007 2:27 PM PDT 0 recs

Slam's take

Courtesy of Sam over at slamonline:

The Pacers have lost 10 in a row, which in today's Eastern Conference is so embarrasing I don't know what to tell you. The Hawks and Sixers actually have a chance at making the playoffs because of Indy's collapse. The winner in the Golden State-Indy trade has been the Warriors in a landslide.

Music to my ears. Let's get this 8 spot.

by bozaframa on Mar 14, 2007 2:32 PM PDT 0 recs

technically, the trade might be close to even

but we've definitely got the momentum. indiana had a slight uptick after the trade, now is dropping off the map; injuries have kept us realizing our potential, but it still isn't too late.

by OaktownWarrior on Mar 14, 2007 4:16 PM PDT 0 recs

the injuries have killed us...

as they have also affected indy as well. after the trade, I hardly see harrington and sjax as superstars to push us over the edge for as you can see without baron and jrich, the Ws are still pretty mediocre. however, with a healthy pg and a system that fits their athleticism and skill sets, I believe they're like beyonce, they can "upgrade you" and do things that Dun and Murph perhaps could do as well (make open shots consistently, finish or draw fouls, create shots for others, etc.).

by dj fuzzylogic on Mar 14, 2007 4:50 PM PDT 0 recs

err...

i meant to say dun and murph "could NOT do as well"

by dj fuzzylogic on Mar 14, 2007 4:51 PM PDT up 0 recs

hahaha

Dunleavey wants to be a ninja samurai in that second pic.

by Caught Backcourt on Mar 14, 2007 5:37 PM PDT 0 recs

seriously

the one w/ martin in it looks like he's doing some form of the crane technique.

by the evil monkey on Mar 14, 2007 6:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

whoa wth

am I seeing double or did someone log in my account?

by MVP on Mar 14, 2007 5:51 PM PDT 0 recs

It goes to 11...

Old friends Gilbert and Antawn (62 pts combined) whupping Indiana's asses as we speak, 106-89... why does this even make me happy?

11 in a row...

by Sleepy Freud on Mar 14, 2007 6:24 PM PDT 0 recs

dunleavy

sucks

gdubb

by gogomaplata on Mar 14, 2007 7:01 PM PDT 0 recs

Since the Pacers....

have lost 11 in a row, we have a better record now. :)

by semarubaka on Mar 14, 2007 10:04 PM PDT 0 recs

Separated at birth?

I miss Dun for the pics alone.

by callahan on Mar 14, 2007 11:12 PM PDT 0 recs

i have a spanish teacher

who knows more about the language than the people that write the textbooks so when he comes along something that he doesn't like he says "might as well throw it in the basura(garbage)" and we don't do it. he comes up with a different assignment or a different way to explain things or whatever. he knows what he's doing. he does this because he knows better.

so basically that relates to this because...

all that statistical crap and our win loss record, well you might as well throw that in the basura, because we know better

we know that we got rid of murphleavys contracts. we know that the pacers are way worse now that they have suckleavy. we know we are 10 times a better team. i mean do you realistically think that we would have smashed on dallas, detroit, etc. without the new guys. dumping murphleavy is a win in itself plus we got better players and we're a much better team. you can't just go by the numbers. there's no "moneyball" system to basketball. theres way more to the game then stats and numbers.

by travisl212 on Mar 14, 2007 11:17 PM PDT 0 recs

found this on some pacer fan blog (i...think)

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/edibleredlipstick/pacers-warriors-trade.jpg[/IMG]

Extra Murphleavy points for whoever that guesses who's who right!

Yayyyyy Dunleavy gleams with glee!

by allthatjazz on Mar 15, 2007 12:01 AM PDT 0 recs

i think...

dumbleavy, TMNTharrington, steven jackson
murphy, jasiekvioiocuisuos
keith mcleod, ike diogu, josh powell

can i get my murphleavy points now?

by jam3rz on Mar 15, 2007 12:51 AM PDT up 0 recs

ding!

if you stare long enough, you will eventually see them dance their routine:

by allthatjazz on Mar 15, 2007 1:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

good trade almost even but...

new] trade is kinda even but...
after seeing the trade for 2 months i actually think with the players its quite even, but sjax and harrington do something that murphleavy could never do have freaking pasion, that mavs game proved it when you saw harrington on the bench so excited. the warriors could of won the games they had if they had murphleavy it just would not be some lopsided when they win by so much since BD does alot of our help to win wish is kind of a bad thing that we can only win when hes there unlike miami who is still doing good without dwade. but when the day is over the momentum that is created by the sjax harrington excitment out last that over rated guy who i think was on roids( remember after his first year then 2nd year he was hella buff!) but anyways go warriors!

by 24k state fan since 87 on Mar 15, 2007 1:08 AM PDT 0 recs

anyone who actually thinks...

the trade wasn't beneficial just think that this could be our starting forward combo:

by nfisch88 on Mar 15, 2007 5:31 AM PDT 0 recs

HAHA

hilarious. does kind of look like them with their long hair pre-trade. who's paris and who's nicole? i say Dun is Paris just cuz he's more drama and a diva by his own announcing it then actually becoming one.

by dj fuzzylogic on Mar 15, 2007 8:16 AM PDT up 0 recs

lol...

...what is dunleavy doin in the second to last pic lol...

by nfisch88 on Mar 15, 2007 5:17 PM PDT 0 recs

simulation

doesn't take into account the fact that we've gotten healthy post-trade. I think a healthy J-rich and a developing monta are the big reasons why the team as a whole is getting better. Also, if you read the whole analysis, it talks about how even if our personnel hasn't been significantly improved, it's a lot better for our system than it was before. That has a tangible effect that's worth looking at...

TS alone isn't sufficient to give you a full picture of how things are, but it gives you a reasonable assessment. You just have to remember the extra variables that they explicitly say they're not accounting for...

by richmindseed on Mar 15, 2007 5:26 PM PDT 0 recs

being healthy

a healthy (mostly) Davis and Healthy J-Rich make a huge difference. It's not a coincidence that the team has gone a run since they started playing together.

Left hand, right hand, it doesn't matter. I'm amphibious.

by Kobe on Mar 20, 2007 6:49 PM PDT up 0 recs