The Wages of Wins tells many stories about baseball, football, and basketball. Of all these stories, though, the one that has received the most attention is that scoring in the NBA is over-valued by decision-makers. Players like Allen Iverson, Ben Gordon, and Eddy Curry are not as valuable as people believe. And other players – like Anderson Varejao and Tyson Chandler – are more valuable than people may think.
Although it’s the case that some scorers are over-valued, and some non-scorers undervalued, it’s not the case that Wins Produced – the metric of player evaluation introduced in The Wages of Wins – argues that scorers do not have value.
The Ryan Schwan Challenge
And to illustrate this point, I shall address the following from Ryan Schwan (of thehornetsfan.blogspot.com). Last October, Ryan posted this challenge:
So – another preseason game is under way, and as of this moment, our team’s shooters(West, Stojakovic and Peterson) have managed to combine for 4-21 shooting, 2-8 from three point range. As I sputtered in disgust, I began to think about the great shooters of the past.
But – I wonder what our current stat tools would say about those players. NBA stars are made, almost exclusively, through scoring exploits. Would any of those great shooters remain as impressive after being having analysis performed on their their entire body of work? And how good does a player have to be at one thing in order to make up for them not doing anything else well?
There are a large number of easily recognizable players I can come up with that have horrible career rebounding and assist numbers – but scored at a good clip(more than 20 points per 48 minutes) and shot well from distance. Were they overrated? Did I fall for the hype? Using my limited available data, I’ll try to figure it out soon(unless I can convince Dave Berri of the Wages of Wins to do it first. I challenge you, Dave Berri!).
Some of the players I’d like to evaluate who at first glance look like they may be overhyped: Chris Mullin(38 3pt%), Mitch Richmond(39 %), Allan Houston(40%), Reggie Miller(39%), Drazen Petrovic(44%), Good ol’ Dell Curry(40%), Rick Barry(41%), Coach Byron Scott(37%), Joe Dumars(38%, 3 rebounds per 48 minutes. Seriously? Dude, you’re 6′4″), Hersey Hawkins(39%), Dennis Scott(40%).
Still – I can’t say I wouldn’t welcome any of those players on the team right now, with the rock bottom shooting percentages we’re seeing.
If I am reading this correctly, this is the question Schwan is asking: Are Chris Mullin, Mitch Richmond, Allan Houston, Reggie Miller, Drazen Petrovic, Dell Curry, Rick Barry, Byron Scott, Joe Dumars, Hersey Hawkins, and Dennis Scott overhyped scorers?
Productive and Non-Productive Scorers
Last August, when Miller and Houston were threatening to come back into the NBA, I looked at the career performance of these two shooting guards. This analysis demonstrated that Miller was not only a prolific scorer, but also a prolific producer of wins (a point I had earlier made in July of 2006 in the post – Scorers and Wins Produced). In contrast, Houston was just a prolific producer of points.
When we consider the list of players Ryan challenged me to examine, we see a few players who are like Miller, and a few others like Houston. To see where each player falls, consider Table One.
Table One: The Career Productivity of Ten Scorers
This table reports the career Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] for each player. Additionally, each player’s best season – in terms of Wins Produced – is also reported.
When we focus on career output we see three players – Miller, Mullin, and Hawkins – whose career Wins Produced passed the 100 win mark. All three had at least one season where their WP48 was more the double the league average of 0.100, so it’s pretty clear that these three scorers were truly outstanding.
From the data we have, it looks like Rick Barry was also an outstanding player. Barry produced an estimated 69.5 wins in 8 NBA seasons, so he probably produced 100 wins if we consider his ABA output. Of course, one should note that Barry’s NBA career began in 1972-73 and ended in 1979-80 (his ABA career began in 1965-66). So data like turnovers, steals, and blocked shots had to be estimated for part of his career. Despite this issue, it does appear to be the case that Barry was well above average across his entire professional career.
A similar story can be told for Byron Scott and Mitch Richmond. Each of these players posted a career WP48 in excess of the 0.100 (the average mark). And when we turn to the top performance offered in a player’s career, we see two more players – Joe Dumars and Dell Curry – who also managed to exceed the mark of an average player at least once. In all, only Drazen Petrovic and Dennis Scott join Allan Houston as players who were never above average for an entire season (let alone their careers). In sum, only these latter three players were truly overhyped – or unproductive — scorers.
What Makes For an Unproductive Scorer?
To answer this question we turn to the average production of each player in each statistical category (points, rebounds, shooting efficiency, etc…).
Table Two: Ten Scorers – Stat-by-Stat
Three of these players – Mullin, Barry, and D. Scott – were primarily small forwards in their career. The remaining seven were shooting guards. When we compare each player’s per 48 minutes performance, relative to the average at his position, we see a few interesting trends. First, all of these player’s (except for Rick Barry) were above average with respect to shooting efficiency. And all were above average in terms of points scored and shooting free throws. With respect to rebounds, though, all were below average (except for Rick Barry).
Okay, so these guys could score but were not great on the boards. Why were Petrovic, Houston, and D. Scott so consistently below average in overall productivity? Petrovic was an extremely good shooter, but a liability with respect to every other aspect of the game. So it’s not surprising that he rates as a slightly below average player. Houston was an above average scorer, but not quite as good as the other players on the list. Plus he was well below average with respect to rebounds, assists, and blocked shots while being somewhat prone to turnovers. A similar story (except for the turnovers) could be told about D. Scott.
In sum, these three players were consistently below average because what they did well – shoot the ball – did not produce enough to overcome these player’s shortcomings. In other words, their pluses did not exceed their minuses.
Despite the below average output of Petrovic, Houston, and D.Scott, we do see clear evidence that players whose primary attribute is efficient scoring can be above average in Wins Produced. And that should not be surprising. Scoring matters in the NBA. The lesson from The Wages of Wins, though, is that scoring has to be efficient to help. Oh, and other stuff – like rebounds and turnovers – also have some impact as well.
- DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
13 responses so far ↓
Westy // November 13, 2007 at 10:11 am
Good post, Dave.
Thanks for examining this. Others I could see being included are Steve Kerr, Craig Hodges, and Wesley Person. I’d also be curious to see some analysis of ’strictly shooter’ type players currently in the league. For instance, Korver, Hamilton, Martin, Allan, Barry, etc. How do they measure up against these greats from the past?
It would be interesting to also see a similar post evaluating those players who were best at rebounding (pretty much strictly rebounders) and best at distributing the ball (most adept at only assists).
I would expect that your statistics would show that the most prolific rebounders all topped the best shooter on the above chart in WP. Does that indicate to you players who are strictly rebounders are more valuable than those who are strictly shooters?
Mike // November 13, 2007 at 10:32 am
Dave,
Thanks so much for your enlightening work and the frequent posts. Do you know of a website that keeps track of Win Score stats for the current season? If it’s out there, it’d be much appreciated.
Jed // November 13, 2007 at 12:18 pm
DB,
A thought off the top of my head that might be totally asinine, but…
Is there any evidence that shows a theory of comparative advantage in the NBA? That is, if player A shoots 50% and grabs 10 reb/48 min, while B shoots 48% and grabs 8 reb/48 min, it might be best to space the court so A does most of the rebounding and B does most of the shooting–even though A has an absolute advantage over B in both respects. I wonder if this kind of thing might justify putting “pure” shooters on the court–it’s better for the team to have them just make baskets rather than also getting them to “crowd out” other, better rebounders from the paint.
Ryan Schwan // November 13, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Thanks for doing this Dave. The concept of specialists in basketball has always been fascinating to me, and your Win Score helps answer one of the questions I’ve always wondered: Just how great do you have to be at one thing in order to make up for all the other things the specialist clearly doesn’t do well. Looks like Westy is on the same path with his questions about great rebounders and assist-men. How does someone like Mark Jackson really compare to someone like Tyson Chandler?
dberri // November 13, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Jed,
A response off the top of my head…
I think if everyone valued rebounds and scoring “correctly”, what you say would make sense. The problem in this scheme is for the person focusing on rebounds. He knows his fame and pay is tied to scoring. So he is going to unwilling to give up his meal ticket, although in the scheme you describe, the team is better off.
Evidence of this is seen in the behavior of Ben Wallace. One reason cited for why he left Detroit is that the Pistons wouldn’t let him shoot anymore. Wallace is not a scorer. He must know that. And the Pistons knew it was not in their interest to let him shoot. But Big Ben still wanted to shoot.
Mike,
Jason Chandler says NBA Babble will be up and running in a few weeks.
Westy,
A strict rebounder will generally have a higher Wins Produced than a strict scorer. One reason for this is the short supply of tall people. It is easier for a center or power forward to post numbers well above the average at that position (easier relative to guards). You can fix this bias by considering standard deviations above the mean (which we talk about in the book).
Alien Human Hybrid // November 13, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Good post, as usual. I wonder though, if it might be more helpful to distinguish between “scorers” and “shooters”.
I think the colloquial understanding of these basketball terms is that a scorer is a player that is capable of the ball in the hoop in a myriad of ways. In that scenario, you could have a low post player that is a scorer. Scorers are often expected to provide a major part of scoring responsibility for a team.
Shooters, on the other hand are players that may or may not take a lot of shots, but are very accurate shooters, generally from long distances. Often they are 3-point specialists.
Some players seem to fall in both camps, often depending on age and perceived team composition/need. Quickly going down the list, I would label the players thusly (though I could be moved either way on a couple):
Reggie Miller- Scorer
Chris Mullin- Scorer
Hersey Hawkins- Scorer
Mitch Richmond- Scorer
Byron Scott- Shooter
Rick Barry- Scorer
Joe Dumars- Neither
Dell Curry- Shooter
Allan Houston- Scorer
Drazen Petrovic- Scorer
Dennis Scott- Shooter
I think Mike Miller and Jason Kapono are current players that fit into the “Shooter” category.
Your post got me thinking about the relative merits of shooters versus all other player types, and whether or not there is a baseball-like middle relief or closer phenomenon at work as an unidentified meme for coaches and scouts. Perhaps a better analogy would be a pinch hitter. In any case, I wonder if an empirical model can be used to determine if there is long term merit to having such specialists on a roster.
T.G. Randini // November 14, 2007 at 10:17 am
Mr. Berri,
I have an MBA in Finance from the University of Chicago with Highest Honors… so I’m not a Neanderthal jock who hates stat geeks. I enjoyed WAGES OF WINS when it first came out and have enjoyed reading sports analysis and sabermetrics for more than 25 years now. (I bought the very first Bill James Abstract.)
BUT… (major BUT here…)
The MORE that most of you statheads over-analyze the game… the FURTHER AWAY you get from the truth.
Topic A: (Example… Joe Dumars)
There is a comment above (not yours) about Mr. Dumars (a shooting guard) only averaging 3 rebounds per 48 minutes.
In your ‘win calculations’… this would be detrimental to Mr. Dumars’ ‘Wins Produced’.
WHAT you are failing to see… and what many others are failing to see… is that Joe Dumars is not playing on a team of FIVE JOE DUMARS… he is playing on a team called the DETROIT PISTONS.
Basketball is a team sport. Someone coaching the team (Chuck Daly) figured out that Mr. Rodman was more efficient at grabbing rebounds than Mr. Dumars… so he had Mr. Rodman concentrate on that aspect of the game. This same coach (again, Mr. Chuck Daly) ALSO figured out that Mr. Dumars was better at hitting 20 foot jumpers than Mr. Rodman was. So he had Mr. Dumars take most of those jumpers… and not Mr. Rodman.
So… Mr. Rodman camps out near the basket and does what he is best at doing… and Mr. Dumars hangs back and does what HE is best at doing.
And the team wins a couple of championships. Mr. Rodman is happy. Mr. Daly is happy. And Mr. Dumars is happy… until he reads one of the stathead blogs and sees that he is an inefficient rebounder and a less efficient player than he could be.
WAKE UP EVERYBODY!
1. Joe Dumars’ personal ‘Wins Produced’ are lower (low rebounding) only because he has fewer opportunities for gaining rebounds because he has an exceptionally efficient rebounder on his OWN TEAM (Mr. Rodman) limiting his chances at rebounding.
2. But this is NOT BAD because Mr. Rodman is on THE SAME TEAM AS MR. DUMARS.
3. Mr. Dumars is only doing what Mr. Daly wants him to do. (Hit 20 foot jumpers and play tenacious defense.)
4. But Mr. Dumars is punished by stathead geeks in their formulas.
5. Note however… the championship rings he wears.
Basketball… unlike baseball… is a continuous-activity sport rather than a discrete-activity sport.
Where baseball players’ stats are more like the stock market (a game where everybody can win)… basketball players’ stats are more like the commodities markets (zero sum games where there is a loser for every winner.)
To wit:
If Alex Rodriguez hits a homer… it doesn’t affect HIS TEAMMATE Derek Jeter’s opportunity to hit a homer. (Baseball = discrete) (Baseball is not a zero sum game)
But if Dennis Rodman grabs a defensive rebound… it affects HIS TEAMMATE Joe Dumars’ opportunity to grab the rebound. If fact, it reduces his chance to ZERO. (Basketball = continuous)
Mr. Berri, you (and many others) are analyzing each tree with a microscope… and TOTALLY failing to see the forest.
Topic B: (Example… Bruce Bowen)
According to your stat analysis… Bruce Bowen isn’t fit to play on my playground. But Mr. Bowen has been a STARTER on several NBA championship teams.
What does Gregg Popovich know that you and your fellow statheads don’t know?
A LOT.
Although nearly everyone acknowledges Mr. Bowen as an excellent defender, Mr. Popovich knows that you can’t measure individual defensive ability in basketball through stats even though position-to-position-matchups-during-minutes-played is now available. He knows that although basketball defense is primarily man-to-man… ‘help defense’ and ‘switching’ is paramount to success (team activities).
This is because the playing of basketball is a continuous activity.
On the other hand, the playing of baseball is a discrete activity. You can measure defensive ability there because the players (when on the field/defense) are playing a ZONE defense with defined areas of responsibility awaiting a discrete activity (the hitting of the baseball by the batter).
In discrete activities… the total = sum of discrete activities.
In continuous activities… the total can be > sum of activities due to synergies between the various activities.
Mr. Popovich assigns roles to specific members of his team so that the (qualitative) TOTAL is GREATER than the (qualitative) SUM OF THE PARTS.
He knows that he is not playing FIVE TIM DUNCANS against FIVE STEVE NASHES. He is playing Duncan-Parker-Ginobli-Bowen-etc. against Nash-Marion-Stoudamire-etc.
He is not playing Mr. Bruce Bowen to win an MVP award. He is playing him as a vital cog with defined roles to create synergies with other vital cogs (Duncan, etc.) to give his TEAM the best chance to WIN.
And the proof is in the pudding.
Jon Posner // November 14, 2007 at 8:40 pm
all i will say is berri, i hope you respond to this post. please don’t ignore it
dberri // November 14, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Jon,
Respond to what? TG’s rant was responded to on the Chris Paul post.
Starbury Loses His Star « The Wages of Wins Journal // November 15, 2007 at 12:58 am
[...] his Wins Production by nearly eight (relative to his career average). Such a result suggests, as was argued earlier in the week, that scoring can indeed produce wins (like that’s a [...]
Westy // November 15, 2007 at 10:13 am
I guess I just find it ironic that some of the best shooters of all time find themselves ranked below average. Petrovic, for instance, has the third highest 3-pt. % ever. He literally couldn’t shoot much better.
I personally think that sharpshooting at that elite level is something that most people cannot reach. Like the fine mechanical skills golf requires, shooting so precisely is only for those people who have the incredible ability to recreate very intricate movements repeatedly and almost perfectly.
I have to think that the shooters who find themselves in the NBA because they have that ability and are also taller than and more athletic than average, are as or even more rare than the tall athletic people who could end up as good rebounders. Call it the short supply of elite shooters.
As AHH points out, it begs the question whether a ’shooter’ like this is a valuable addition to a team’s rotation. Obviously a coach likely wants a shooter at this level at the place on the floor where he is most valuable, and that probably means camping out on the wing behind the 3-pt. line. This would mean that inherently, these types of shooters would not do well in the other statistical areas. However, would the team be better off with a somewhat less elite shooter; a ’scorer’ who is more well-rounded? How about if there are other players on the team more suited to doing and who are fully handling well those other tasks?
It would seem that great coaches have intuitively arrived at a point where they favor a rotation with specific roles cut out for certain players. Look at Phil Jackson’s use of Steve Kerr and Dennis Rodman in the lineup with Jordan and Pippen.
Jason // November 15, 2007 at 10:31 am
Kerr in Chicago was an interesting case. I don’t know what wins produced says about him, but the anecdotal glance at his stats says that he did one thing very well: he shot the ball and appears to have been above average in converting his limited FG attempts into points. He didn’t rebound at all and was a pedestrian distributor. Any production he provided came from scoring. I suspect that one reason that this could work is that he didn’t hurt himself turning the ball over, fouling excessively, or doing other things that were going to diminish what he could provide with his shooting, suggesting that role players who stick to their one thing and don’t do things to screw it up are better than ones who try to do more than they are capable of.
Was this Phil Jackson’s doing though? It looks like Kerr did about the same thing in his previous limited stopovers in the NBA. I wonder if it’s so much that Jackson decided to use him that way or saw that he had a player who did something and, in context, that something was worthwhile since he didn’t do anything else to detract from it.
miguel // June 2, 2008 at 11:36 am
Agree with T.J. Randini