The Houston Rockets and the Value of Will Graves

Trevor Ariza was an essential role player on the Lakers team that won the championship last year. He played hard-nosed defense, made lots of hustle plays, and hit the open three when Kobe inevitably drew the double team. He had plenty of key steals and key scores as the Lakers marched through the play-offs. He couldn't pick a better time to play the best basketball of his career: That summer, after everyone saw how Trevor Ariza helped the Lakers win another championship, Trevor Ariza was a free agent and certainly in-demand.

When the Lakers elected to use the money they could have used to re-sign Trevor Ariza on notorious head-case/lock-down-defender/mercurial-forward Ron Artest, Ariza essentially took his place on Artest's former team, the Rockets. On the Rockets, however, Trevor Ariza assumed a very different role.

The Rockets had been constructed in the early 2000s as a team based around the dynamic duo of two superstars: Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady. Both players, when signed were absolutely phenomenal, and when they were on the court together and healthy, they were incredibly successful. The rest of the team simply had to play their roles and victory would come to the Rockets. Trevor Ariza was hired to merely be Robin to McGrady's Batman, or maybe to be the Gleek to McGrady and Yao's Wondertwins. The point is that he was a sidekick. Well, like every Justice League ever (going to keep trying with the super hero references), when Superman and Batman are captured/busy/incapacitated, the rest of the Justice League has to step up, and someone has to take on the mantle of leadership. Unfortunately, bad luck struck in Houston: Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming were both laid low with injuries and the role players became headliners.

And that's how Robin got the spotlight. It might not surprise you to realize that maybe there was a reason Robin was only a sidekick and didn't try to do everything Batman did. And so it was with Ariza: While he thrived as a sideman in Los Angeles, he struggles in Houston as the Rockets primary offensive option. He shoots too much and makes a really low percentage of his shots. He shoots inefficient shots and that hard-nosed hustle, and unselfish passing disappeared under the weight of his new responsibility as The Man for Houston. It's been ugly.

I bring this because for a long time, I thought Will Graves was basically Trevor Ariza. I believed that he could thrive as a role-player for a contender, as a complementary piece, supporting his star teammates but that if asked to shoulder the burden of being the primary offensive option for his team that he would falter and his team would fail. That's the difference between Trevor Ariza on the Lakers and the Rockets and I thought it was also the difference between Will Graves on last year's championship winning Tar Heels and this year's cringe-inducing Tar Heels. That's just how I saw it. You know this, because I talked a lot about things like the Will Graves Theory.

Now, at this point, the savvy reader will note that I carefully said that this is what I "thought" about Will Graves. Past tense! Well, savvy reader, you caught me: my perspective may have changed for the more optimistic.

See, Will Graves isn't Trevor Ariza: Will Graves is Shane Battier.

But wait, doesn't Shane Battier just suck at everything but defense? And even there, isn't he really overrated? Well, casual NBA fan, that myth was actually dispelled almost exactly one year ago when Michael Lewis penned an article about Shane Battier, the Houston Rockets, and advanced basketball stats. It was basically the "Moneyball" of the NBA story and is still probably the most important thing written about the NBA in the past two years or so. If you haven't read it, you should read it now.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Okay, so now you know about how Shane Battier is underrated, how conventional stats don't capture his team contributions, and about how a smart and savvy player can help his team in nearly invisible ways? Right, well that's good. But you still don't know how this pertains to Will Graves? Doesn't he shoot too much and play as Robin-gone-power-mad-in-Batman's-absence like Ariza?

Well, lets focus on this:

One well-known statistic the Rockets’ front office pays attention to is plus-minus, which simply measures what happens to the score when any given player is on the court. In its crude form, plus-minus is hardly perfect: a player who finds himself on the same team with the world’s four best basketball players, and who plays only when they do, will have a plus-minus that looks pretty good, even if it says little about his play. Morey says that he and his staff can adjust for these potential distortions — though he is coy about how they do it — and render plus-minus a useful measure of a player’s effect on a basketball game. A good player might be a plus 3 — that is, his team averages 3 points more per game than its opponent when he is on the floor. In his best season, the superstar point guard Steve Nash was a plus 14.5. At the time of the Lakers game, Battier was a plus 10, which put him in the company of Dwight Howard and Kevin Garnett, both perennial All-Stars. For his career he’s a plus 6. “Plus 6 is enormous,” Morey says. “It’s the difference between 41 wins and 60 wins.” He names a few other players who were a plus 6 last season: Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Tracy McGrady.

You can see where I'm about to go with this: Someone has calculated plus/minus for the NCAA this season. Guess who leads UNC in plus/minus? Well, actually Justin Watts, but set that aside for now and you get Will Graves. That's right, in an averaged pace game, having Will Graves on the court amounts to 7.4 extra points a game on offense and prevents the other team from scoring 4.0 extra points, giving him a plus/minus total edge of 11.4. Ed Davis, by contrast scores a 4.0.

So, some caveats: This data was only crunched up through late January. This is crude plus/minus (with a minor tempo adjustment), not the full-on mathematically-adjusted wizardry of the Rockets. Even if it was, there's still a looming question of how useful plus/minus data is due to noisiness of the data and the huge error bars. But bare with me for a second: is it possible that Will Graves of the ill-advised shots is potentially helping his team win in more ways than conventional statistics is letting on?

The short answer is that it seems plausible: Watching Will Graves play, he often makes the tough hustle plays and is often all over the place helping out his team. Less controversial advanced statistics also point to some hidden value in his game. For example, check out this. Did you realize that Will Graves turned the ball over so little? I didn't. He actually leads the ACC in lowest turnover rate and is one of the very best in the country! See how he also commits so few fouls. Remember how in the Michael Lewis article they talk about avoiding fouling as a hallmark of efficient defense? There is is: Hidden basketball value in Will Graves. Of course, looking at the Ken Pomeroy stats page, you can see it's not that hidden: Will Graves actually snuck past Ed Davis as the player on UNC with the highest offensive efficiency rating!

Now offensive efficiency rating is a stat developed by Dean Oliver and detailed in his book, Basketball on Paper, but, in short, the aim of the stat is to more thoroughly account for how well a player is scoring by taking into consideration the different values of three-pointers and free-throws, the players proficiency at each weighted into the equation. The one thing that this stat does, above and beyond what you get with True Shooting is take into account efficiency by possession rather than just shot. That is to say that, amongst other things, Offensive Rating adjusts for turnovers and offensive rebounding. So here's what this means: Because Will Graves rarely turns the ball over, he uses offensive possessions more reliably than players like Larry Drew who is a much better shooter, but turnover prone. A possession used by Will Graves results in a shot more often than other players who turn the ball over before they can even get off a shot. In the long run, Will's bad shooting and low turnovers are worth more on offense than Drew's good-shooting and high turnovers.

Long story short, it seems logical and likely that the plus/minus data is meaningful. Will Graves seems to be much better than the stats were giving him credit for.

What's this mean? Well, I still stand by much of what I said. The one thing that is truly different between Will Graves and Shane Battier is Shane's insistence on taking high efficiency shots. Will's proclivity for low-efficiency shots has been well-documented in this space before. And while technically a Will Graves possession is more offensively efficient than an Ed Davis one, I still stand by the idea that an active Ed Davis who gets a lot of touches makes our whole team play a lot better; not that there's anything revolutionary in suggesting a balanced attack.

In any case, my basic point remains: Will Graves isn't Trevor Ariza. He's Shane Battier and far better than many people (including and especially me) think.

Game Recap: UNC vs. Virginia Tech

We held Virginia Tech to 38.8% from the field and 21.1% from beyond the arc. We still lost. How is that possible? Well, we shot terribly, but amazingly we actually did shoot slightly better than Virginia Tech. If you've been following UNC this season, you can probably see the answer coming: Turnovers.

It was an error-prone mess. We also didn't do a particularly good job rebounding. As a result, we shot the ball 53 times and they got off 67 shots. They overcame our slight advantage in quality with sheer quantity.

In terms of who got the most shots, the team apparently decided to creep me out after I made a big deal about the wrong players taking way more shots than the other players. Six players took exactly seven shots apiece, with one more taking six. It was a creepily balanced attack. This is better than the wrong players taking far too many shots, but still not ideal. Ed Davis continued his ultra high efficiency onslaught, scoring 15 points off of only seven attempts from the field including two monster slams that would have blown the roof off the Dean Dome. Ed Davis should get a minimum of ten shots a game: That would go a long way towards winning.

John Henson had his coming out party, delivering, finally, on some of that super-high potential which I love so much. David Wear also delivered, coming through in ways that make me trust him a lot more. Sweet shooting and tough offensive rebounding almost make up for his other weaknesses. They both had big games and both made me excited about the future. Notably, their good minutes seemed to come at the power forward position. Roy has been trying Henson out at power forward from time to time and while it's clear that his small frame is still a liability on the defensive end, he's been way more successful on offense than at the small forward.

I think I jinxed Will Graves who took four three pointers and missed all of them. He did a much better job of playing in the flow of the offense though. Marcus Ginyard broke his shooting slump, sort of, by hitting two shots out of seven. He's up to four of twenty-four on the past four games. Marcus came off the bench in favor of Dex Strickland, who made the start and, puzzlingly, considering his past willingness to attack the rim, took only two shots for the second game in a row. Dex Strickland can have more shots once he stops turning the ball over.

A tough loss, but at least it offers an answer to the question, "What can you do when you shoot terribly, turn the ball over a lot, and fail to get the ball to your best player enough?" Just enjoy John Henson getting freaky on his way to hoop.

Where We Are Right Now

This is a post about UNC Men's Basketball. This might be a little bleak. You probably already knew that. I'm going to reiterate something that I have stated before and then try to add a little nuance. In the past two games, we have one a game and we have lost a game. What's been the difference: Will Graves.

That's right. It's back: The Will Graves Theory. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the Will Graves Theory basically states that UNC will struggle when Will Graves tries to takes the most shots on the team and that UNC will do better when Will plays within the flow of the offense and concentrates on just shooting open threes when they are available. This theory is based on the basic idea of efficient scoring. In short, Will Graves isn't nearly as efficient at scoring points as Ed Davis (amongst others). If UNC leans heavily on its more efficient options and less on its less efficient options it will win games. The past two games illustrate this.

In the games against NC State and Virgina, we took 56 and 57 shots, and won by 15 and lost by 15 respectively. Excuse me if I steal the punchline, but you can see it coming anyway, so here we go: The reason we were so successful in one and not the other has to do with the distribution of the shots (and obviously other things like defense, but stick with me on this, okay?). Our most efficient option is easily Ed Davis. In the NC State game, he took eight shots; in the Virginia game, he took three shots. How does our best offensive player only get three shots? Let's talk about WIll Graves now. In the NC State game, Will Graves shot the ball seven times; in the Virginia game, Will Graves shot the ball 15 times-- he made roughly 30% of his shots in both outings. Will Graves, the worst shooting starter on our team, shot the ball five more times than our best shooting player, Ed Davis. Ladies and gentlemen, we can't win this way.

Will Graves is a fine player and an excellent complement in our offense. There is simply no way we can win when he is taking that many shots at the expense of our bread and butter scoring of Ed Davis. So please, everyone on the North Carolina Tar Heels, please, for the love of Dean Smith, get that ball to the low post! And Will Graves: Use better shot selection!

What constitutes better shot selection you say, Will? Well, the answer might make you happy: I'd like you to only concentrate on open threes. You know, those shots you effortlessly swish and take so much gusto in shooting, those shots that make the crowd lose its collective shit?

Excuse me, Will, let me explain for the audience.

Will Graves can shoot threes. He's been totally reliable at hitting the three over the past few games. In the NC State game, he shot three and made two. In the Virginia game, shot nine and made four. He's shooting 50% from the three point line in the past two games. That is beyond excellent. That makes a Will Graves three one of the most efficient shots available to the entire team. The problem is not Will Graves shooting too many threes. The problem is every other shot in his repertoire.

Outside of threes, Will Graves has shot 10% from the field in the past two games. He has made one shot in ten. You read that correctly. This is not just recently, either. On the season Will Graves shoots 32.8% on two-pointers and 40% on three-pointers. Because three-pointers are worth (as you might expect, you math whiz, you) more than two-pointers the difference is magnified. Effectively, you are looking at the choice between a 32.8% shot and a 60% shot. So, Will Graves, here is the secret to your own and to team success: cut the two-pointers out. Make it a three or look for a better shot.

It's not just Will Graves either: Larry Drew, you are honestly pretty great, but you need to either work on your drives or have more confidence in your long-bombs. Drew II shot made four out of eight three-pointers in the Virginia game and just one out of five two-pointers. Have I ever mentioned that UNC, in general. needs to take more threes? Oh, wait.

These guys can hit the three. If they can't drive or shoot mid-range jumpers, why wouldn't they shoot the three? Don't get me wrong, inside to Ed Davis should still be option one, but if we can't get it inside: Bombs, away.

Except for you, Marcus. Fun fact: Marcus Ginyard, a starter for your North Carolina Tar Heels has made exactly zero baskets over the past two games, and is two of 17 over the last three.

Sorry to throw in that last bit of bleakness there. I know things are bad now, but I really do believe that adjusting who gets the shots on our team will help us in a big way. I hope so at least. There is only so much yelling at the heavens I can do when I see Will chuck up contested mid-ranger jumper after contested mid-range jumper.

The Small Forward Puzzle

It has occurred to me that perhaps I have been too hard on Will Graves. Early in the season, I was bewildered as to why Will Graves was starting over John Henson. Then, of course, very recently, I mentioned the relatively poor efficiency of Will Graves and unveiled his eponymous theory. While I did briefly try to give a little credit for Graves free-throw shooting (especially in comparison to the rest of the team), I don't think I've given Will the full benefit of the total comparison.

So, using percentage stats because they control for differing minutes and pace (as opposed to raw totals, or per-36 minutes or anything like that), let's have a side-by-side look at the players who have logged the major minutes so far this season at the small forward position. The two main contenders are Will Graves and John Henson, though at least one (and maybe both? I'm actually not sure if they both play the position or if it's just one of them, and if so, which one. More on this later.) of the Wear twins have put in the minutes here. This is also Marcus Ginyards natural position, but since he's been starting at shooting guard and playing back-up point guard as needed, it looks like he won't be playing much at the small forward. Technically I think Justin Watts or Leslie McDonald might've played a few minutes at this position too, but let's constrain the comparisons to Will Graves, John Henson, David Wear, and Travis Wear. It bears mentioning that since both of the Wears spend time some time at the power forward position, comparing their stats to Graves and Henson won't be as exact, but is worth a look anyway. First we'll look at scoring.

True shooting percentage
Will Graves 50.5%
John Henson 43.4%
David Wear 43.0%
Travis Wear 50.8%

Usage percentage
Will Graves 20.5%
John Henson 17.3%
David Wear 13.1%
Travis Wear 18.6%

As inefficient a scoring option as Will Graves is compared to his starting peers, he's actually a fairly good scorer compared with this motley lot. If you wanted to get points on the board from this position, it seems like Will Graves is a good way to go. Travis Wear actually appears to be a slightly better shooter, but his lower usage than Will Graves makes Graves the better option for putting points on the board.

Speaking of boards, let's look at rebounds:

Offensive rebounding percentage
Will Graves 6.2%
John Henson 8.6%
David Wear 1.4%
Travis Wear 12.8%

Defensive rebounding percentage
Will Graves 12.3%
John Henson 16.7%
David Wear 9.2%
Travis Wear 10.9%


The slight edge in rebounding goes to John Henson who dominates rebounding on the defensive end and has a slight edge over offensive rebounding leader Travis Wear in total rebounding (13.0% to 11.8%). It's useful, I think, to reflect on how impressive this is: a full-time small forward is out-rebounding guys who spend a big chunk of their time as power forwards. Those long, spindly arms know how to corral loose balls, even out on the perimeter. That's not all those long arms are good for either.

Block percentage
Will Graves 0.5%
John Henson 9.5%
David Wear 1.1%
Travis Wear 0.0%


Okay, so you probably already knew that Henson was a superior shot blocker to the other three candidates, but it's worth seeing the magnitude of his greatness. Also, here's another useful figure: 8.3%. What's that? That's monster shot-blocker Ed Davis's shot blocking percentage. Henson, so far this season, is an even better shot blocker than the supremely talented Ed Davis. Impressive, huh? Let's look at some of the more "guard-oriented" stats where we might expect Will Graves to have the edge.

Steal percentage
Will Graves 2.9%
John Henson 2.8%
David Wear 1.3%
Travis Wear 1.3%


Turnover percentage
Will Graves 10.5%
John Henson 11.0%
David Wear 20.2%
Travis Wear 14.9%


Assist percentage
Will Graves 6.2%
John Henson 13.7%
David Wear 9.1%
Travis Wear 1.6%

Looking at these numbers, you can see that Graves and Henson are nearly equal in steals and turning the ball over, though it bears mentioning that Will Graves does have the slightest of edges in both categories. It also bears mentioning that the two are both also amongst the best on the team in stealing and minimizing turnovers. When it comes to assists though, Henson is the clear favorite. He is far and away the best passer amongst all of the Carolina big men (Deon, Ed, and Tyler don't get any higher than Ed Davis's 6.5% assist rate).

So what's the verdict? Well, let's go ahead and disqualify the Wears. Despite Travis Wear's skillful shooting and rebounding, it seems pretty obvious that he does most of his work at the power forward position. Travis gets more offensive rebounds, draws more fouls, and shoots more accurately than David who has shot more threes and has a dramatically higher assist rate. Of the two, it seems more likely that David is playing the small forward more that Travis, who's statistical profile pretty much screams power forward. So if we disqualify Travis for mostly being a power forward and David for just not being better than the others at a single thing (exception: by virtue of his two out of three 3-point shooting, David is technically the best 3-point shooter on the team), we have a two man race between Will Graves and John Henson.

John Henson is a superior passer, rebounder, and shot-blocker. Will Graves is a better scorer. Who do you pick? Well, if you are me, and happen to believe that Will Graves very problem is that he is focused too much on scoring despite being an inefficient option, you might find that John Henson contributes more all around. At this point in his still young college career, Henson seems like the ultimate glue guy, facilitating the offense with his court-vision and great passing, terrorizing the perimeter on defense with his length, quick hands, and knack for shot-blockling, and creating a whole world of match-up Hell that most coaches are going to dread figuring out. He's like a bizzaro Kevin Durant, and I mean that in the best possible way: blessed with the same lanky frame, but instead of being a largely one-dimensional scoring machine, he lacks that polished shot but is a shot-blocking, quick-passing, ball-thief and a long-striding night terror on defense.

If the numbers (or at least my take on them) seem to point to Henson, why does Roy insist on Graves. Well, there are a couple clear reasons that don't show up on the stat sheet. As good as I think Henson looks out there most of the time, it's pretty obvious (and logically sound) that Will Graves simply knows the playbook better. He has a veteran's understanding of the offense and knows how to make his rotations properly on defense. He has experience under the bright lights and he knows Roy well-- this is Will's fourth year with the team. Henson is a freshman. There is a very good chance that these things matter.

Short of someone giving me the plus/minus numbers, I can't really prove one way or another who actually makes the more positive impact on the court. I get why Will Graves starts at small forward, and I think that Roy probably does in fact know what he's doing. I simply wanted to highlight an argument for John Henson getting some more playing time. The dude is genuinely gifted, would make good use of extra minutes, and is only going to get better. I also think that there's a real benefit to making Graves the leader of the second-unit and having him and Zeller provide a potent and balanced one-two punch while letting Henson serve as the glue guy facilitating the already ultra-efficient scoring of the starters. Just my opinion.

All that said, still can't figure a good reason to play the Wears extended minutes at small forward. That shit needs to stop. Numbers don't back support it, and somehow it almost always manages to make for the most cringe-worthy moments of the entire game (assuming Marcus hasn't blown a dunk yet).

An Apology and the Will Graves Theory

Once upon a time, I promised to do recaps of every Carolina basketball game for both the men and women. Clearly, and unfortunately, this hasn't happened. I've really dropped the ball on the women, who are playing really great, and I promise to blog about them and the NBA soon. As for the men, there have been six games since then and nary a recap in sight.

Well, my friends, this is my apology and with a full week of no games, I thought it might be a good time to reflect on what's happened and talk about how things can get better. In the six games the men have played, there have been two great wins, two wins that while not meaningless, were expected, and two losses. What's the key to understanding this? Well, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to The Will Graves Theory.

The Will Graves Theory
Will Graves is the current starting small forward for UNC. Though he starts, he splits his minutes with a lot of other people and is currently averaging only about 19 minutes a game. Will Graves is a great player, a tough rebounder, a hustler, and from time to time, a lights out three point shooter. In more than a few of these games, he's made some really savvy, heads-up plays that have really helped the team.

There is a problem. Despite all the good things he does, Will Graves is not shooting terribly well this season and he's taking a lot of shots, shots that should probably be going to other players. Let's take a look at some numbers,

First, let me back up my assertion that he's not shooting well. Let's look at true shooting percentage, a measure that weights and accounts for the value of three pointers and free-throws.

True shooting percentage
Deon Thompson 59.3%
Ed Davis 69.2%
Ginyard, Marcus 61.6%
Tyler Zeller 60.0%
Larry Drew II 63.2%
Will Graves 50.5%

Very clearly, you can see that of the players who get major minutes, Graves is shooting the poorest. He is still shooting pretty well, but is really way below the other guys getting major minutes in terms of how well he's scoring. If you just saw this chart, and you were planning your offense, it becomes clear that Graves should be taking the fewest shots. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Let's look at usage percentage, "an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."

Usage percentage
Deon Thompson 28.0%
Ed Davis 20.0%
Ginyard, Marcus 15.6%
Tyler Zeller 25.5%
Larry Drew II 17.6%
Will Graves 20.5%

Aside from the number one scoring option, and understanding that Tyler Zeller is the second-unit's main scoring option, Will Graves is getting the most touches. He is getting more touches than Ed Davis, who is shooting the ball at nearly a 70% true shooting rate! Davis has played 237 minutes so far this season while Graves has played 167. In 70 extra minutes of playing time, Davis has attempted a field goal only three more times than Graves. Now obviously, this is a little unfair. Davis is shooting phenomenally and is not getting nearly enough touches for how well he is scoring. However, my point could be made with any of the other players. Will Graves is an inefficient scoring option and is using possessions at a disproportionate rate.

Is it costing UNC games? It seems like it. In the loss to Kentucky, Graves had ten attempted field goals, good for second most attempts on the team (behind Deon) and tied with Kentucky's superstar phenom John Wall. Should the worst shooting starter on UNC be taking the same number of shots as probable number one NBA draft pick John Wall? Probably not. In the game against Syracuse, Graves led UNC in field goal attempts with twelve. He made two.

It's really hard to win games where your least efficient scoring option is taking the most shots. Carolina's offense is at it's best when the ball is moving freely and patiently. We have time in our half-court set, and we should be trying to get Deon the ball on the block or to Ed by the hoop, or turn a Larry Drew drive into a Marcus Ginyard open three. When other teams stop the ball movement and force Will to be a major component of our offense, we lose. I'm not saying that Will should stop shooting-- I still think he should keep trying to create and definitely do his best to knock down those open threes that we know he can get. I just want him to stop trying to put the team on his back. I want him to consider the extra pass, think about all the ways he can contribute without taking bad shots.

In the game against Michigan State, Will led the team in offensive rebounding. He took two shots, and made them both. It's been our best game of the year so far, and that's no accident.

Will Graves is the key to Carolina's offense: when he lets go and embraces his role with that zen-like shooter's detachment and plays within the flow (Wayne Ellington was the master of this), our offense hums smoothly. When he tries to force things and dominates the ball, our offense grinds to a standstill. The Will Graves Theory. Tell your friends.