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

Re: NBA win-shares

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Jun 22, 2002
      --- 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 2 of 5 , Jun 23, 2002
        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 3 of 5 , Jun 24, 2002
          --- 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 4 of 5 , Jul 12, 2002
            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.