The Wages of Wins Journal

A Clarification on Rodman and Jordan

June 3, 2006 · 1 Comment

As I noted in  The Case for Michael Jordan, we do not say in The Wages of Wins that Dennis Rodman was “better” than Michael Jordan.  Matthew Yglesias, a writer for the American Prospect, has confirmed that story.  Today he wrote the following at his blog:

A Clarification

Since I'm partially responsible for the confusion, I should say that now having read the whole book, it's true — The Wages of Wins doesn't argue that Dennis Rodman was better than Michael Jordan. It does argue that Rodman was an underrated player and that, generally speaking, the value of scoring is overstated and the value of rebounding understating. They conclude, however, that the CW on Jordan is more-or-less right. The most controversial Wages claims will probably be the ones about Kevin Garnett, regarding which I'll have more to say later.

I just want to thank Yglesias for helping clear up the confusion on this issue.  And, of course, I am very interested in seeing what he has to say about Kevin Garnett.  Just to be clear, we also said Jordan was more productive than Garnett. 

– DJ

Categories: Basketball Stories

What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say

June 3, 2006 · 4 Comments

The NBA tracks a variety of statistics to measure a player’s performance on the court.  NBA fans are familiar with points scored, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers, blocked shots, etc… The difficulty with these statistics is that some players excel at some aspects of the game, but not at others.  And what we want to know when confronted with players with different skills is how each player impacts the final outcome we observe on the court.

The approach we took in The Wages of Wins is simply to utilize regression analysis – a common technique in economics – to determine the relative impact of each statistics on team wins.  We had three objectives in constructing our model.  Ultimately we wanted a measure that was simple, complete, and accurate.  In the end, we think each of these objectives was met.   The Wins Produced model is not hard to understand, it incorporates each of the statistics tracked for individual players, and it connects accurately to team wins.

With the Wins Produced model one can begin with a player’s statistics – his points, shot attempts, rebounds, steals, turnovers, etc.. – and translate these into how many wins those statistics creates.  And with this measure we can tell three basic stories about talent evaluation in the NBA. 

  • Players who do many things well – like Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Shaquille O’Neal, Tim Duncan, and Kevin Garnett – are very productive players, just like most people believe. 
  • Players who only score, though, or have deficiencies in their game (i.e. low shooting efficiency, high turnover rates) – like Allen Iverson, Antoine Walker, and Carmelo Anthony – are not as productive as people believe.
  • Players who are prolific rebounders – like Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace, and Marcus Camby – are more productive than people tend to believe.

Now it is important to understand what Wins Produced says, and what it doesn’t say.  Specifically, Wins Produced tells us how productive a player has been.  It does not, though, tell us why that player is productive.  This is a point we made in the following excerpt from The Wages of Wins.

p. 125 in The Wages of Wins 

One cannot end the analysis when one has measured the value of player performance. Knowing the value of each player is only the starting point of analysis. The next step is determining why the player is productive or unproductive. In our view, this is where coaching should begin. We think we can offer a reasonable measure of a player’s productivity. Although we have offered some insights into why players are productive, ultimately this question can only be answered by additional scrutiny into the construction of a team and the roles a player plays on the floor.

The Wins Produced measure does not replace the insights of coaching and NBA analysts.  What it does is correct flaws in the evaluation of talent in The Association.  Players who do not shoot efficiently, or turn the ball over frequently, do not help a team win many games.  Players who can accumulate large numbers of rebounds can indeed have a large impact on final outcomes.  Of course, why a player shoots inefficiently, commits turnovers, or rebounds well, is not a question Wins Produced will answer. 

In The Wages of Wins we do explore some factors that cause players to perform better or worse.  For example, we spend some time discussing how a player with more productive teammates will tend to be less productive.  Or low levels of roster turnover – specifically, keeping a team together – will cause a player’s performance to improve.

And we did consider other issues with respect to player performance – and if you wish to see these please read the book.  Or just wait.  At the rate we’re going, we might eventually get the entire book on-line, one excerpt at a time.

– DJ

Categories: Performance Measures

National Pastime – a great book from Szymanski and Zimbalist

June 3, 2006 · 2 Comments

The Wages of Wins begins with a focus primarily on baseball, then moves on to a discussion of basketball, stops to look briefly at football and baseball again, and then concludes with basketball one more time.  In sum, we hit the three big North American sports.  Along the way we touch briefly on hockey and soccer, but in the end these sports are not our focus.

Soccer, or what the world calls football, is indeed the focus of much of the world this month.  The World Cup is now upon us and many Americans may wish to read a book that helps improve their appreciation of the most popular sport on earth.  Two fellow sports economists – Stefan Szymanski and Andrew Zimbalist — have penned a very readable book examining the development of baseball and soccer.  In National Pastime: How Americans Play Baseball and the Rest of the World Plays Soccer, these two outstanding sports economists examine why baseball developed in the United States but soccer became the sport played around the world.  After reading National Pastime you will have a new appreciation of the world’s game.  And that should get anyone ready to enjoy the World Cup. 

For more on this book, one can read the very positive review of Phil Miller – a contributor at The Sports Economist.   For even more on The World Cup, I also recommend the writings of Skip Sauer and Brian Goff.  These writings can also be found at The Sports Economist

June is a busy time for sports fans in the United States.  Baseball is in full swing. The NBA Finals are soon to begin.  But the World Cup is the most important sporting event in the world, and Americans shouldn’t miss out on all the fun.

– DJ

Categories: Sports Econ

One More Fan of the Hurricanes

June 3, 2006 · No Comments

On March 8 the Minnesota Wild traded goalie Dwayne Roloson to the Edmonton Oilers for Edmonton’s first round draft pick, and a conditional third round pick. Now Edmonton is playing in the Stanley Cup finals against the Carolina Hurricanes.  So why might Wild GM Doug Risebrough be rooting for the Hurricanes?

In the NHL, teams that make the playoffs draft essentially in reverse order of finish, with a few exceptions. The biggest is that the team that wins the Stanley Cup drafts last in the first round. So if Edmonton wins the Cup, Minnesota’s draft pick from Edmonton will be #30 in the first round. If Edmonton loses against Carolina, Minnesota will pick #17.

How big of a difference are we talking about? Let's assume (I know, it is unusual for an economist to make an assumption) that a better player will play more games and play games sooner. Given this assumption, I looked at the number of games played by first round draft picks during the 1990s (not including this seasons) in the top, middle and bottom three tiers. What I find is that players taken in the middle tier play on average 476 more games over a ten year period than players who were drafted in the bottom tier of the first round. Thus for the Wild it looks like there is a pretty clear quality difference between what they will find at #17 and what they will be left with at #30. In fact, given such differences we should not be surprised to hear Risebrough yell, “Go ‘Canes!”.

- Stacey

Categories: Hockey Stories