Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NBA win-shares

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    Someone took a shot at it using a TENDEX system: http://www.mindspring.com/~lzamuda/winsexplained.htm I don t think Sean Smith, the developer, has win shares =
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 18, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Someone took a shot at it using a TENDEX system:

      http://www.mindspring.com/~lzamuda/winsexplained.htm

      I don't think Sean Smith, the developer, has win shares = 1/3 win.
      Not clear.
    • mikel_ind
      ... I actually like this. It s got some iffy assumptions, but it seems to merge the concepts of individual and team success. Looking at his alltime rankings,
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 22, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
        >
        > Someone took a shot at it using a TENDEX system:
        >
        > http://www.mindspring.com/~lzamuda/winsexplained.htm

        I actually like this. It's got some iffy assumptions, but it seems
        to merge the concepts of individual and team success.

        Looking at his alltime rankings, a lot of the differences with my own
        list relate to a few items: He doesn't include playoffs or ABA
        stats; and he has a cumulative-totals system that rewards longevity
        over the brief-but-brilliant career.

        His version of T#nd#x is pretty crude, as most are. Game pace is
        determined by opponents' points, but rebound totals are assumed to be
        equivalently related.

        The convention of standardizing to 1.000 point per possession is
        maintained (I don't agree), and then he compensates for earlier eras
        very crudely by giving whole decades their own multiplier, like .90
        for the '60s and .80 for the '50s.


        I haven't found a clear pattern yet as to whether he overrates high
        shooting pct or anything else, relative to my system. Here is a list
        of players he ranks higher than I do:

        Stockton, Kareem, Karl Malone, Unseld, Havlicek, Parish, Wilt, Oscar,
        Moses, Mark Jackson, Cheeks, Magic, Barkley, Russell, Paul Silas,
        Rodman, Drexler, Payton, Terry Porter, Horace Grant


        Incidentally, my list is re-ranked to exclude playoffs.


        Here are players I rank higher (not including guys from the ABA):

        Duncan, McAdoo, Gervin, Grant Hill, Aguirre, Mourning, Willis Reed,
        Chambers, Mark Price, Marques Johnson, Bailey Howell, Bernard King,
        Pettit, Nance, Mutombo, Cliff Robinson, Bellamy

        And these players who didn't make his top 100, but make mine:

        Neil Johnston, Webber, McGinnis, Garnett, Mikan, Lovellette, Haywood,
        Richmond, Arizin, Foust, Coleman, Daugherty, Maurice Lucas, Beaty,
        Hagan, Smits, Iverson


        I may tinker with this a bit more. Please don't hold me to any of
        it. Other than his bias to longevity, and my bias toward brilliance,
        does anyone see a pattern? Do I overrate the scorers?
      • harlanzo
        win shares is definitely an interesting concept but I wonder if it is a bit forced. to me, the most useful stat is points produced (versus of course points
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 23, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          win shares is definitely an interesting concept but I wonder if it is
          a bit forced. to me, the most useful stat is points produced (versus
          of course points allowed on the defensive end). I guess you could
          extroapolate a win loss record from such data but to run a tendex
          rating and then guess wins does not seem to reveal too much.

          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Someone took a shot at it using a TENDEX system:
          > >
          > > http://www.mindspring.com/~lzamuda/winsexplained.htm
          >
          > I actually like this. It's got some iffy assumptions, but it seems
          > to merge the concepts of individual and team success.
          >
          > Looking at his alltime rankings, a lot of the differences with my
          own
          > list relate to a few items: He doesn't include playoffs or ABA
          > stats; and he has a cumulative-totals system that rewards longevity
          > over the brief-but-brilliant career.
          >
          > His version of T#nd#x is pretty crude, as most are. Game pace is
          > determined by opponents' points, but rebound totals are assumed to
          be
          > equivalently related.
          >
          > The convention of standardizing to 1.000 point per possession is
          > maintained (I don't agree), and then he compensates for earlier
          eras
          > very crudely by giving whole decades their own multiplier, like .90
          > for the '60s and .80 for the '50s.
          >
          >
          > I haven't found a clear pattern yet as to whether he overrates high
          > shooting pct or anything else, relative to my system. Here is a
          list
          > of players he ranks higher than I do:
          >
          > Stockton, Kareem, Karl Malone, Unseld, Havlicek, Parish, Wilt,
          Oscar,
          > Moses, Mark Jackson, Cheeks, Magic, Barkley, Russell, Paul Silas,
          > Rodman, Drexler, Payton, Terry Porter, Horace Grant
          >
          >
          > Incidentally, my list is re-ranked to exclude playoffs.
          >
          >
          > Here are players I rank higher (not including guys from the ABA):
          >
          > Duncan, McAdoo, Gervin, Grant Hill, Aguirre, Mourning, Willis Reed,
          > Chambers, Mark Price, Marques Johnson, Bailey Howell, Bernard King,
          > Pettit, Nance, Mutombo, Cliff Robinson, Bellamy
          >
          > And these players who didn't make his top 100, but make mine:
          >
          > Neil Johnston, Webber, McGinnis, Garnett, Mikan, Lovellette,
          Haywood,
          > Richmond, Arizin, Foust, Coleman, Daugherty, Maurice Lucas, Beaty,
          > Hagan, Smits, Iverson
          >
          >
          > I may tinker with this a bit more. Please don't hold me to any of
          > it. Other than his bias to longevity, and my bias toward
          brilliance,
          > does anyone see a pattern? Do I overrate the scorers?
        • HoopStudies
          ... I guess I looked at the numbers for the wins per year, rather than career wins. I don t think there really is a good philosophical way of evaluating
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 24, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Someone took a shot at it using a TENDEX system:
            > >
            > > http://www.mindspring.com/~lzamuda/winsexplained.htm
            >
            > I actually like this. It's got some iffy assumptions, but it seems
            > to merge the concepts of individual and team success.

            I guess I looked at the numbers for the wins per year, rather than
            career wins. I don't think there really is a good philosophical way
            of evaluating longevity vs peak value. So exactly how you rank
            players is up to the user with this list.

            What I found interesting is that the range of wins/82 games is pretty
            similar to what I have estimated myself. I think Smith's stuff has
            slightly higher max wins than I estimate, which I have no problems
            with. I don't think I've ever seen 20 wins per season on an
            average. Jordan peaked out about that high, with maybe 1 loss per
            season, too.

            I would still protest the lack of losses per season or total losses.
            But that's a weakness with the win-shares approach. Rodman may win 8
            per season (not too far from what I estimated in general), but did he
            contribute 1 loss or 6 losses? It makes a difference in assessing
            his real contribution. At the highest level, it isn't such a big
            deal because players can really not be responsible for more than
            about 20 wins in a season, so wins are very proportional to win%.
            But other guys win% are influenced also by how much playing time they
            get, how much of a role they play in the offense and defense.

            I can't tell whether this technique accounts for defense reasonably
            (the defensive stop stuff, which looks vaguely like what I did 10
            years ago). I think probably not. I think that Joe Dumars' low rate
            suggests that. Hard to say how good his D was, even now, kinda like
            Bruce Bowen, because of so many mixed indicators.

            In terms of bias, I can't tell. I always like to see these things
            applied to teams. He didn't so you can't see whether wins add up.
            You can't see whether there is a bias to fast teams or to offensive
            teams or to teams that have more assists. Those are pretty typical
            biases that I can't read from what he's done.

            DeanO
          • monepeterson
            ... I ve chatted with Sean (that s the feller s name) about his system. The wins do add up for teams as a whole, but only because the system s final team
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 12, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Chiming in late on an old topic:

              > In terms of bias, I can't tell. I always like to see these things
              > applied to teams. He didn't so you can't see whether wins add up.
              > You can't see whether there is a bias to fast teams or to offensive
              > teams or to teams that have more assists. Those are pretty typical
              > biases that I can't read from what he's done.

              I've chatted with Sean (that's the feller's name) about his system.
              The wins do add up for teams as a whole, but only because the
              system's final team adjustment (essentially adjusted tendex points
              per win) ensures that it does.

              The intriguing thing about his system is establishing 60% of league
              level production (tendex/minute) as a "zero" level, something that
              seems, from a glance, to work pretty well. For this type of thing
              anyway.

              Moné
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.