Kobe was the story of the summer. First he demands a trade. Then he comes back to the Lakers. Then Jerry Buss tells us that he’s willing to trade Kobe.
Through it all, Kobe didn’t go anywhere. Despite telling people that his teammates weren’t good enough, Kobe really didn’t get any new teammates. Well, the Lakers did go get him Derek Fisher, although such a move was probably not what Kobe had in mind. The last time Fisher was above average was in 1997-98. For his entire career Fisher has only produced 20.7 wins (and last year his Wins Produced was -0.7). Obviously no one is going to confuse Fisher with the major star Kobe demanded the Lakers acquire to help win the championship Kobe believes he deserves.
It’s not that the Lakers didn’t have their chances. Rumors swirled that the Nets were offering Jason Kidd or that the Pacers offered Jermaine O’Neal. But each trade included a demand for one specific player, Andrew Bynum. And each time the Lakers said no.
From media reports, Kobe was somewhat surprised that the Lakers would be so reluctant to part with Bynum. In fact, as Henry Abbott and TrueHoop reported last June (taken from Howard Beck and the New York Times), Kobe was caught on video saying the following:
“Are you kidding me?” Bryant says in the video. He goes on to say, with a number of profanities mixed in, that the Lakers should “ship out” Bynum.
“We’re talking about Jason Kidd,” Bryant says. He also speaks in a derisive tone about General Manager Mitch Kupchak before the video abruptly ends.
When we look at Wins Produced we can understand Kobe’s reaction. Entering this season, Bynum had only produced 4.3 wins in his career, with a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.097. So Bynum had thus far been about average (average WP48 is 0.100). Certainly it’s hard to understand why the Lakers wouldn’t part with such a player to acquire an established star.
The Best Center in LA
Well, it’s hard to understand if all you look at is Wins Produced. But we need to do more than just look at numbers. We also have to think a bit.
Bynum was selected out of high school by the Lakers in the 2005 lottery. He’s currently still a year away from his first legal drink. In sum, Bynum is young and blessed with “potential.” Although this potential was not always evident his first two seasons, this year it looks like the Lakers faith in Bynum had been rewarded.
Before I get to the numbers, though, I want to return to a story posted a few weeks ago. The other center in LA, Chris Kaman, got off to an amazing start. And like Bynum, this start is somewhat surprising. Entering this season Kaman had only produced 12.9 wins and posted a 0.075 WP48.
So far in 2007-08, after only 15 games, Kaman has posted a 0.282 WP48. Given that Kaman is playing 38 minutes per game, he’s on pace to produce 18.3 wins this year. Among centers in 2006-07 – as Table One reveals — only five centers offered a higher WP48. And only Dwight Howard produced more wins than 18.3. So Kaman is playing very well.
Table One: The Top 15 Centers in 2006-07
Although Kaman has started well, surprisingly – as Table Two reveals – Bynum is staking claim to the title “Best Center in LA”.
Table Two: Bynum and Kaman in 2007-08
Thus far this season, Bynum has posted a 0.376 WP48. This mark eclipses the WP48 posted by every center last year. In essence, Bynum is becoming the star player Kobe demanded. In other words, the kid Kobe wanted to “ship out”, is now showing Kobe how wrong he was this summer.
When we look at the individual stats, we see where Bynum is excelling. Relative to the average NBA center, Bynum is above with respect to shooting efficiency, scoring, rebounds, blocked shots, and assists. Plus he tends not to turn the ball over.
Now it’s very important to remember, it’s still early (which I keep saying over and over again). As the season progresses, both Bynum and Kaman might move closer to what we have seen in the past. But at this point, both players are playing quite well.
Who Should Demand a Trade?
In fact, returning to the subject of Kobe’s summer demands, if Bynum’s play continues we might start seeing him make simmilar demands. Kobe has only posted a WP48 of 0.268 this season. Yes, this is quite good (only Manu Ginobili and Dwyane Wade did better with respect to WP48 last season at shooting guard). Still, Bynum could argue he has done more on a per-minute basis.
So perhaps Bynum should start wondering if he could win an NBA title if only he had a better star on his team (a point I made a few weeks ago). Perhaps Bynum should demand the Lakers trade Kobe to the Nets for Jason Kidd.
Of course, the Lakers might say no. Then we would might hear Bynum say something like…”Are you kidding me? We’re talking about Jason Kidd.”
– DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially 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
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Paulo
December 4, 2007
Speaking of Kidd, how has he been doing so far this season? Is Jason Chandler’s site up already?
dustin
December 4, 2007
Jason sort of has a site up, although he has given warning that bigger and better things are to come.
http://www.winsproduced.com/playerstats.php?player=2625?page=4 for kidd
http://www.winsproduced.com is the homepage.
Beggars can’t be choosers, but I would love if there was more support for splits. WP48 home, away, by month, last 10 games, last 5 games, last year, etc.
tony cohen
December 4, 2007
I always thought that the Lakers best strategy (and I am such a biased home team Laker fan that I don’t even know why I try to write an objective post;-) was if they thought Bynum was so good, they should let him play the next two years…and watch him become the Star centre he is/may be/could be (you choose the correct answer)
If you ship Kobe now, you get 60 cents on the dollar…if you move him at the 2009 trade deadline (before his contract expires, you might get 45-50) I say try to keep him by letting Bynum develop…sure you might get a bit less for Kobe but it is worth the shot….also watch for Kwame and his contract to be moved…
William
December 4, 2007
I didn’t realize Jason’s site was still tracking individual daily performances – I always look for a team-level perspective, and those stats haven’t been flushed out from last season. Dustin, thanks for the heads up.
bjk
December 4, 2007
There haven’t been 1000 minutes this season, so how could the minimum be 1000 minutes?
dberri
December 4, 2007
bjk,
The centers are from last season.
Ben Guest
December 4, 2007
DB,
I have a column suggestion (which I’m sure you get all the time, so feel free to ignore this). In thinking about your recent post on Jamal Sampson (who still hasn’t been picked up. Seems like somebody would take a flyer on him, especially my beloved Celtics), and looking at the +.200 WP48 that Fred Hoiberg produced, I’d love to see a post on the players who have been the most undervalued in their career; i.e. players who have produced the most wins (and had the highest WP48) and been the least paid. The anti-AI’s and Melos, so to speak. You may have already covered this, but if not, I’d love to see something on it.
Joseph
December 4, 2007
Off topic, but a week ago, there was a comment asking for an analysis of Gary Payton’s career, spurred by a John Hollinger column posted about GP’s retirement. If I remember correctly, he said that GP’s underrated.
Is that post still on the radar?
dberri
December 4, 2007
Joseph,
I keep meaning to write about Gary Payton. My plan was to go collect data on the top point guards and see how he ranks. Haven’t gotten to this yet, though.
dberri
December 4, 2007
Ben,
I think I wrote something on the underpaid last summer. I know I wrote something on the overpaid.
mrparker
December 4, 2007
dont know where to post this but I see that Charlotte has signed Varajeo to an offer sheet.
Wouldn’t that make them pretty good?
al
December 4, 2007
Basketball needs better, more detailed stats than plain “rebounds” or “points” or “assists”. Most would agree that basketball is more like hockey or soccer, yet it uses statistics more suited for baseball.
I point this out especially because rebounds can be such a misleading statistic. I’ve seen many instances of a defensive rebound that could have been captured by up to three different players on the same team, but because they don’t fight for it, or a player is not the “designated” rebounder, the “designated” rebounder will get up to 5 extra rebounds per constest.
MILO
December 4, 2007
This artical is stupid you guy’s are lame
Owen
December 4, 2007
Interesting news about Varejao…
Ben and DB – The post on the underpaid last year was….
Ken
December 4, 2007
Bynum is an average center guy he isn’t a star and never will be. At best he could become an all star someday. But 10 and 10 is what a 7 foot center should beable to do every night it’s nothing special. If you are asking for a Bynum led team you are asking for a celluar dweller. Bynum is a good shot blocker but shouldn’t be confused for a good defender! Time after time guys walz down the lane and he blows assignment after assignment. He has improved but he will never be a franchise player. The only thing he is getting even with is actually earning the money he is being paid!!
Dre
December 4, 2007
I agree Milo, not sure for your reasons on calling this article stupid but, i do because if you can really sit here and type out the words Bynum being more important to the Lakers than Kobe you are sadly mistaking. Those numbers mean nothing you take Kobe off the Lakers and replace them with the Kidd you dont have a playoff bound team at all. NO that statment is not taking anything from Kidd at all its making a blatantly obvious point. Kidd and New Jersey are struggling in the Eastern Conference and they have 3 all star players…take a moment and think about that….ill wait…..lol…
Dre
December 4, 2007
Nice comment Ken well said…..oh and Anderson Varejo is not going to make Charolotte a better team…may inhance them defensively but thats it
Harold A.
December 4, 2007
It’s never too early to start the discussion of whether this year’s Boston Celtics are the best basketball team in human history. They are on pace for 72 wins.
Harold A.
December 4, 2007
Does anyone know what +/- says about whether Kobe or Bynum are more valuable to the LA Lakers? Thank you!!
Dre
December 4, 2007
This years Celtics, i think we’ll be able to see what they are made of once they play Dallas, Spurs, Suns and the elite teams then we will see jus how gud they are but i like the way they look so far though they are v ery impressive in comparison to last year but who doubted they wudnt be neway….Oren that stat machine or wuteva it is is jus a ridculous way to write a column about something different lol.
Oren
December 4, 2007
Maybe Bynum is “producing more wins” per minute, but he plays only 26 minutes. If he were to play Kobe’s 37 minutes he would wear out very early. Also, while Bynum tends to get worse as the season progresses Kobe usually starts off slow and heats up. How is that wp stat produced anyway. I think its absurd to say that Bynum at this stage is more valuable than Kobe.
Joe O
December 4, 2007
This is the most stupid article I have ever read. Also, the stats you are tracking are absolute garbage. I will tell you what stats won’t tell you. The other night I am watching the Lakers play the Magic. The game is tied late in the 4th Quarter, LA misses a shot, and Dwight Howard starts sprinting down after his team secured the Rebound. He goes and had an un contested Dunk at the other end with his defender trailing 7 steps behind. That defender is Bynum. I’m sorry but you are completely delusional to assume that Bynum is more important than Kobe.
Also, can you explain how Jason Kidd who can not elevate the play of 2 fellow All stars to the top of the East has a shot of playing with Bynum and making LA a better team????.
I will tell you the true persuasion for your article: You don’t like Kobe and you are just trying to find an Avenue to discredit him.
Charles
December 4, 2007
Your any idiot if you ever think Bynum could do what Kobe has done. As a Kobe Bryant fan thats disrespectful. Bynum is not a star and his defense is suspect. Sure he gots a block and a half but defense is mover than a block her and there. If Bynum asked for a trade, trading away Kobe he should be slapped along with you for saying that!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jon DeMent
December 4, 2007
Obviously you watch stats but not basketball games… Bynum is terminally lazy, in danger of falling asleep, literally, on the floor. He pouts, he jogs, he gives absolutely zero effort whatsoever on either end of the floor.
Put down the stat book and try something novel, actually watch the games.
Owen
December 4, 2007
Lol, this must have just got posted on True Hoop…
steve
December 4, 2007
that was the gayest article ive ever read. “WP”? Go make out with john hollinger. You idiots and your completely irrational rating systems.
dberri
December 4, 2007
Owen,
Yes, this story has been picked up at TrueHoop and in other places. Maybe later today we can have a vote on which new comments we “like” the best.
Mike H
December 4, 2007
These posts are hilarious. Let me paraphrase, ‘this is stupid because I say so based upon a secret that I’m not going to tell you or my obvious ability to watch every player every moment of every game that the Lakers have played in this year’. I notice that RolandRating concurs as far as Bynum/Bryant are concerned so far this year. Whatever, I’ll join the chorus of dumb: Numbers SUCK! Let’s determine who’s best based on beauty and the color of the aura that my favorite players possess. It’s gotta be the shoes!
Dre
December 4, 2007
Joe O…Charles…Jon DeMent…round of applause fellas i cant believe this guy really tried to pass this off as credible info about the two players and this team…Watching basketball is apparently a talent he needs to pick up….and quick
Isaac
December 4, 2007
Very amusing analysis if Bynum played more minutes that would reveal his true value. Right now he is progressing but when he gets to the point where he can play 30 to 40 minutes a game then he will be ready. Thats why the team is bringing him along slowly. Then the next level will be helping to carry a team. At best right now he is a limited role player with potential. Please stop making off beat humor because that what your stats and analysis are.
john
December 4, 2007
seriously… no wonder the authors name isnt on the page. this article is rediculous. this guy is obviously just trying to ruffle some feathers.
Rasta
December 4, 2007
I see we’ve got a few haters visiting today. I guess that’s par for the course when TrueHoop links to one of Dave’s columns.
Okay, regarding Bynum, there’s no doubt that his rebounding numbers have been outstanding this year. He’s fourth in the league in rbs/48 behind Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby and Dwight Howard. He’s also 5th in FG% (behind Beidrins, Dwight, McDyess, and Shaq). He’s in good company in both categories, so it’s no surprise his WP48 is pretty high.
Here’s the puzzle: with a WP48 of 0.376, is Bynum really better than any center in the league in 2006-07? It may defy common sense, but the answer might very well be yes.
(By the way, my modified WP48, which only penalizes shooters for missed shots, indicates that Bynum is on pace for a very impressive 14.1 wins, and a WP48 of 0.32.)
Dre
December 4, 2007
Rasta this is not in malice this is all love for the game and debate so far i see that nobody attacks other commentors on here just the moron who wrote the column lol so this is not an attack im smiln and laughn through the whole thing
Rasta…are u kidding….ur joking…which one of those players that he is behind does he play newhere near close to the same amt of minutes?? and do i have to mention the FG%…they are 7’0 tall and play on the block FG% shud be high at all times…you cannot tell me that if you put Bynum on any of those teams along with them that you would start Bynum or play Bynum more than any of them…those are numbers…read the previous post and watch the actual game he plays the numbers dont even tell a qtr of the truth of this kid
dixonfears
December 4, 2007
While the theoretical basis for your assertations is compelling, the flaws in your arguments become more pronounced as you attempt to extend them into the realm of the chaotic actuality of players on the court playing. There are no known algorithms for passion, desire, effort, concentration, motivation, hustle, or any of the other intangibles that seperate mere participants from from those who can bend an instance to their individual will. When people discuss a player like Kobe’s “magnitude” they are referring to the combination of carriage and capability, whether they realize it or not, not merely statistical credentials. While it may not always be, the gulf between Bryant and Bynum is enormous. I’m sure the author realizes this, but in the interest of selling an idea often liberties are taken, and the obvious visceral experience becomes a muddle of meaningless suppositions and hollowed out doubts.
Mike H
December 4, 2007
Isaac’s post is interesting, if serious. He makes a point that Dave likely agrees with or at least thinks is reasonable and is in no way contradicted by his post (unless you don’t get the humor about Bynum demanding a Kobe trade). Then at the end Isaac drops a truly pathetic (john might say ‘rediculous’) insult because…I don’t know…the post doesn’t disagree with his point???
Mike H
December 4, 2007
dixonfears – If serious: liberal arts major? Poetry? Philosophy? If not: good one.
stephen
December 4, 2007
some of the other dudes up there have to chill. the last paragraph was hilarious.
Mike H
December 4, 2007
Dre, by your logic a player’s contribution to a team’s wins (which is all that matters) should be discounted because they are tall? Why not because they can jump higher than others? Or that they are faster than most? Is height the only arbitrarily chosen physical attribute that should count against a player?
Hakeem Olajuwon
December 4, 2007
Curses to True Hoops for making me venture to this absurdity of reasoning! A billion variables render your lazy conclusions the worst waste of anyone’s precious 2.37 minutes (that is 60 seconds + 60 seconds (+) .37 of a minute (-) a billion brain cells lost) spent in reading this. As Kobe averages more minutes per game perhaps that affects his numbers on a minute per game basis taking fatigue into account and the number of defenders he is throwing off his back, no? Presumably, any other superstar would have to log in equivalent number of minutes to maintain the status quo, i.e. present number of wins, no? So how could Bynum, even as an joke, argue he would have a better chance with anyone else? Of course, he wouldn’t – I am betting with only a H.S. education is much smarter than that.
Billly
December 4, 2007
is this article a joke? If not it is the dumest thing I have ever read. Proving that Bynum is better than Bryant. Give me a break. Lies, dam lies, and stats. Bynum is a role player. Bryant is a star.
Mike H
December 4, 2007
Wow, you guys have no sense of humor. Only a fool would seriously suggest that given the choice of keeping Bynum or Bryant that you should keep Bynum at this time. The point of the post is that Bynum is currently more productive per minute than Bryant in a reasonable number of minutes. It also takes a humorous poke at Kobe Bryant. Really guys, Bynum would have to continue this level of productivity while logging full-time minutes for a couple of seasons before one could reasonably choose him over Bryant.
dberri
December 4, 2007
Mike H,
I think the humor of the piece was lost on many of the people posting comments.
I also think these people missed the part where I pointed out the sample size. We only have 17 games from Bynum.
Still, if he keeps this up, Kobe has found the star he wanted last summer. Which was the primary observation I was offering.
Hakeem Olajuwon
December 4, 2007
Mike H:
Joke – yes, I realize. But the point is some of us fans are frankly tired of the jokes on Kobe’s expense b/c it just as easily seeps into the mainstream as some accurate reflection of his play especially with pseudo, pseudo-intellectual crap like this floating ’round. The Author actually posits that Bynum is arguably as effective or valuable as Kobe Bryant using certain metrics and it is just not true, all things duly considered. And naturally True Hoop and the like pick up on it. Yes, he is a whiner and tattle tale and cheater but if I busted my butt like he does, I wouldn’t take this garbage lightly. He is, as a matter of fact, the best and most valuable player in the NBA – bar none.
Michael Teniente
December 4, 2007
To bad all those Bynum number don’t equate to wins. I wonder why? Could it be that what those stats don’t take into consideration is the fact that Bynum can’t protect the rim? There’s no stat that keeps track of how many lay-ups the Lakers give up when Bynum is in the game.
Trade him!
mike
Michael Teniente
December 4, 2007
What those stats don’t talk about is how weak Bynum is at defending the pic’ ‘n roll.
mike
Michael Teniente
December 4, 2007
The Lakers, over the last two season, win when Kwame Brown is the starting center. I wonder why?
It’s because Kwame defends the pic’ ‘n roll extremely well. Kwame pushes his man so far out from the basket that his man has a hard time influencing the game down low.
Bynum may be the numbers but the Lakers lose when he starts.
Kwame doesn’t get the numbers but the Lakers win when he starts.
It’s not hard to figure out. DEFENSE WINS…not offense without defense.
mike
Michael Teniente
December 4, 2007
Bynum is nothing but trade bait. And these stats are purely for marketing purposes. Winning comes with defense.
mike
dustin
December 4, 2007
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708LAL.HTM is the +- data on the lakers. If anyone is interested. Bynum may be a role player but the ability to be productive with limited shots should not be overlooked. There is only 1 ball and many times, only 1 shot/possession.
Kent
December 4, 2007
So far this year, Bynum is better than Bryant according to +/- ratings. Please see– http://www.82games.com/0708/0708LAL.HTM — which dustin linked to as well.
Pat
December 4, 2007
My favorite is Steve the homophobe.
“that was the gayest article ive ever read. “WP”? Go make out with john hollinger. You idiots and your completely irrational rating systems.”
Complaining about irrational systems in an irrational way…. How interesting.
Great way to marginalize others, real great…
Paul
December 4, 2007
With all due respect, DJ, I think you’re an idiot.
victor
December 4, 2007
i dont know who the writer is but if anyone here seriously believes any of that …maybe u should go see a doctor or jus explain to me how u figure that a 20 year old boy which i hope will be a superstar one day(i hope) but at this stage or maybe any stage in his life i dont know how anyone would trade away kobe on just bynums ”potential” alone unless i see him givin me 20 and 10 plus a night i dont see any logic in that…..were talkin about KOBE people…not your everyday basketball player……run this by Mitch or Dr. Buss and well see how fast this gets thrown in the garbage
victor
December 4, 2007
how does somone rate a persons will and intensity and passion and all that good stuff as the person before me said …i jus dont get this article or ”rating system” at all ….ridiculous
Owen
December 4, 2007
Man, people really love Kobe….
victor
December 4, 2007
ill be sure to bring this up at work tomorrow …this will certainly have alot of people laughing
dustin
December 4, 2007
I think it would be nice if everyone left their credentials when they try to discredit a model. Let’s see….armchair gm vs published sports economist…At least when criticism comes from apbrmetrics people it has a statistical basis, not “kobe is good because I like him”
Pat
December 4, 2007
The thing about apbrmetrics is that they usually support a plus/minus look at it. There are so many factors that are hard to isolate with plus/minus because the base stat is so dependent on the team that plays around them. Plus/minus in hockey is the only way to really judge defenders on the defensive end, but even then it doesn’t isolate the defensemen’s ability as much as I would like. I think that win score, PAWs, and WP are better measures.
And everyone who gets linked from true hoop, don’t come back plz.
Magic32
December 4, 2007
I’m a Laker fan since the Magic days. I don’t have statistics but I would trade Kobe.
Kobe is a great individual player (scorer) but he doesn’t make his teammates better. He is the biggest cry baby I’ve ever seen and cancerous to team chemistry.
He wanted to go the Bull! Are you kidding me? The Lakers ran all over the Bulls which made his silly a– wake up! The Lakers cannot trade Kobe, who are they going to get, Lebron, Wade or Mello? Those are the only trades that make sense. Otherwise, the destination team would be decimated because the Lakers have to ask for their two best player in return unless it will never happen. The Lakers are not the Tiberwolves so that are not going to bend over and take nothing back.
elle
December 4, 2007
I have to say you are an idiot!!
krmt
December 4, 2007
If teams prepared every night to stop Bynum instead of Kobe, he’ll be lucky to be a 10 and 10 guy. Maybe if he took all 19 of Kobe’s shots in addition to his. Might even lower be than 10 pts if he has jason kidd keeping defenders honest. Bynum has about 35 dunks this season. How many of that were bc he was left open due to defenders trying close in on Kobe.
Owen
December 4, 2007
Krmt – If it’s all Kobe as you say, why has Bynum improved so much this year? He has the second best rebound rate in the NBA so far. Is that because of Kobe?
bobby
December 4, 2007
yea but does jason kid provide the type of defense needed to a team like the lakers.
I dont think so.
bobby
December 4, 2007
owen,
Does the lakers have anyone to compete with Bynum for the rebounds, Kwame is out and mihm is just not so good.
krmt
December 4, 2007
I was talking about points.
Ray
December 4, 2007
I don’t know what the Wins stat is but I have to say that you are an idiot. Bynum and Kobe play different positions and NBA defenses focus their defensive schemes and gameplans around facing Kobe Bryant, meaning that Kobe gets more much attention on the defensive end and has a harder position to play to begin with. Basketball is also a team game and if the better your teammates are, the easier it is for you as a player to play your position and do your job. If the Wins state measures how efficient you are or effective you are at winning and stuff then although it takes personal stats into consideration, there are the intangibles like how good the rest of your team is that isn’t measured, even though that is a huge part of basketball. You are an idiot.
Ray
December 4, 2007
I don’t know what the Wins stat is but I have to say that you are an idiot. Bynum and Kobe play different positions and NBA defenses focus their defensive schemes and gameplans around facing Kobe Bryant, meaning that Kobe gets more much attention on the defensive end and has a harder position to play to begin with. Basketball is also a team game and if the better your teammates are, the easier it is for you as a player to play your position and do your job. If the Wins stat measures how efficient you are or effective you are at winning and stuff then although it takes personal stats into consideration, there are the intangibles like how good the rest of your team is that isn’t measured, even though that is a huge part of basketball. As far as the humor of your article, my reply is no. it wasn’t even mildly amusing. It just looks like you thought it would be ironic and then you threw some flawed facts in to support your argument. Yes there is irony in your article but it isn’t funny at all. You are an idiot.
J
December 4, 2007
What is the world coming too. Yes Andrew is getting better, he should but DJ you have to find something else to do beside post comments if there going to be that stupid.
dustin
December 4, 2007
“I don’t know what the Wins stat is but I have to say that you are an idiot…”
I think criticizing something without knowing what it is makes one an idiot.
Joey
December 4, 2007
Hey stupid guy taht wrote this column, I have a system that says Bryant is better than Bynum. It’s an abc system and bryants comes first. Stats can prove anything. My system is no less arbitrary than yours.
Joey
December 4, 2007
Kobe draws double teams more than any other NBA players and Bynum (and the rest of the Lakers) gets easier looks at the basket as a result. You can’t then look at only the numbers and say Bynumis better.
Joey
December 4, 2007
And you forgot defense in your WP48. Kobe is a better defender than Bynum!
Ap
December 4, 2007
When I saw 74 comments I got excited–I was thinking this post sparked some really good debate about the metric in this situation or about minutes played relative to effectiveness (the things usually talked about on the comments).
Then I got a couple posts down and realized Truehoop posted this…..wow, I mean, if you have nothing smart to say, why say anything?
TW
December 4, 2007
Is this guy on crack or what? does he know what basketball is about? if Bynum can make something with the ball in his hands then maybe we could say that he is useful, but since he cannot face and post up any player yet and be of use he, and the idiot who wrote this article, shouldn’t be even wanting to mention his name beside KOBE. If he was that good of a player i think Phil Jackson, arguably one of the top coaches, would START him everytime, yet phil does not; which clearly indicates that Andrew is not at the level any smart NBA analyst or coach would expect him to be given his height.
So Mr. DJ go watch some lakers games and tell me who contributes to the team more Andrew or Kobe and then come write articles.
Joey
December 4, 2007
Ap, you should apply that standard to yourself! I made perfectly legitimate points about the arbitrariness of statistical constructs, how WP48 overlooks defense, and how doubleteams can inflate one player’s offensive statistics relative to another. Then you simply deflected my argument by name calling.
Kent
December 4, 2007
TW, starting or not, Bynum does play 35 mins/game. David Lee doesn’t start either, but the Knicks do much better when he is on the floor.
dustin
December 4, 2007
Joey, I suggest you read the “evaluating models” post that is a footer on every post now. Also, you didn’t point out how wp48 overlooks defense. DBerri has said over and over again that defense is distributed evenly among all players, and that bad defensive players will seem a little better and good defensive players will seem a little worse. He even has a post where he experimented with incorporating +- and he found the correlation between wp48 and “new” wp48 was extremely high.
Jake
December 4, 2007
Are you kidding me? Imagine the Nets with Kobe, Carter, and Jefferson. Thats an unbelievable team. If i was kobe i would demand that trade.
Ap
December 4, 2007
Joey,
I definitely understand your arguments. Everyone knows the limits of statistical analysis. Yes, WP doesn’t take into account defense, yes Kobe gets doubled, yes Bynum has limited minutes, yes we know, we know…trust me we know.
Do you really think Mr. Berri thinks that Bynum is a better player? This metric is tried and tested to be very closely related to actual wins. You should really take a deeper look about the aspects of the metric to see what it says and what it doesn’t say. These limitations are obvious and will be present in nearly any metric.
dustin
December 4, 2007
Kobe and Carter play the same position, and Jefferson certainly can’t move to power forward to make room. Also, once you lose jason kidd who on this team will be rebounding?
Joey
December 4, 2007
dusin writes “you didn’t point out how wp48 overlooks defense. DBerri has said over and over again that defense is distributed evenly among all players, and that bad defensive players will seem a little better and good defensive players will seem a little worse.”
Fine, then defense is 80% overlooked, maybe more b/c a player gets assigned the team defense performance even when he is not on the floor! I’m not saying a model should be ignored just because it doesn’t capture every subtle aspect of the world. What I am saying, though, is that these flaws could be why the model gave the absolutely inane result that Bynum is better than Kobe. If I remember this is the model that says Allen Iverson, an MVP and conference champion, is a below average player!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joey
December 4, 2007
If I tried to model basketball I would like at performance of a team when a player is on and off the court. Subtract the two. It is an overall measure of the player’s worth to the team. Catches the intangibles such as the player drawing a doubleteam and making everyone else shoot better. One day we should have the technology to do this.
dustin
December 4, 2007
Ok, by evenly I meant when he is on the court….so if a player is on the court 12% of the teams available minutes he gets 12% of the defense adjustment. PS joey such a thing exists and it is called +- . http://www.82games.com has extensive listings of this. And bynum has a better +- than kobe too. FYI.
Joey
December 4, 2007
Wow, I can’t believe someone takes the time to do that. That’s cool. Still, maybe Kobe’s backup is better than Bynum’s backup. It wouldn’t make sense otherwise. Bynum is better than Kobe.
Joey
December 4, 2007
(If Kobe’s backup is very good then the team still does well, just not as well, when he is off the court. If Bynum’s backup is really bad the team does alot worse when he steps off the floor.)
kenddawg24
December 5, 2007
LAME! enough said!
Bobby
December 5, 2007
kenddaw26, your cogent and trenchant reply to this column is very compelling, but I respectfully disagree.
Bobby
December 5, 2007
Joey,
Why exactly are you so intransigent about thinking that Bryant must be more valuable than Bynum? What would it take for you to change your mind? You proposed as valid a statistical measure that turned out to already exist. It showed Bynum is better. Then after the fact you invented reasons why the measure is flawed. If the measure had showed Bryant was better you would have used the measure as evidence! Do you just take as a matter of faith that Bryant is better and nothing can dissuade you of that idea?
Bobby
December 5, 2007
TW says, “Is this guy on crack or what? does he know what basketball is about? if Bynum can make something with the ball in his hands then maybe we could say that he is useful, but since he cannot face and post up any player yet and be of use he, and the idiot who wrote this article, shouldn’t be even wanting to mention his name beside KOBE.”
Bynum has an higher shooting percentage than “KOBE.” Bynum makes 58% of his shots when the “ball is in his hands.” “KOBE” makes 46% of his shots. Until “KOBE” learns to make his shots Bynum should be insulted to have his name mentioned with “KOBE.”
http://www.myspace.com/jonathandavidchavez
December 5, 2007
DUDE WHAT THE HELL!!!!!! THIS ARTICLE IS SO LAME, WHO CARES IF BYNUM HAS BETTER FG% OR WHATEVER THE HECK ELSE!!!!! KOBE IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA, ALL THE COACHES, PLAYERS, GM’S TEND TO SAY THIS ON THEIR OWN, SO QUIT HATING ON THE BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA SINCE JORDAN!!!!!!
THE LAKERS DO NEED a better point guard, and Odom needs to quit passing so much cuz when he tries to score and Kobe is on fire, the Lakers are near invincible!!!!! and Bynum needs to take EVEN better shot selections, and work on his Free throws, as do MOST of the Lakers, if they were a better freethrow team, they would have much more chance to win on any given night VS any team, as long as they get it in their thick skulls to take it hard to the rim, and protect the ball, Kobe does it, why can’t they at least try their best Kobe/Jordan impression, it couldn’t hurt, unless they all tried to ball-hog, which wouldn’t work!!!!!
mrparker
December 5, 2007
DJ,
Man, I’m sorry you have to endure all this talk by a bunch of commentors who have not taken the time to back check your research. If they had they would see that you have a pretty good chance of having just made a very good point.
This used to happen at footballoutsiders when dvoa would rank a team far lower than its record. The fans of that team who don’t understand the measurements would come out in droves.
Maybe you should create an auto comment fill in the blank criticism card so that commentors dont have to waste so much time repeating each others sentiments.
Keep up the good work
mrparker
December 5, 2007
In fact I took the proactive step of creating one for you
is clearly ranked because . is way better than this.
Easier for everyone
mrparker
December 5, 2007
(player)is clearly ranked (too high/too low)because (reason unrelated to wp48). (subjective ranking system) is way better than this. (unrelated player-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling)
The Franchise
December 5, 2007
Our guests seem unfamiliar with the WP metric, and (mostly) uninterested in understanding it. There is a potential weakness in the metric that someone could point out, though. The WP model rates interior players higher. There are two potential reasons for this: (a) what they do is more important, or (b) the model is better at capturing their contributions. (Or some of both.) When looking only at SGs, Bryant is an elite player, with only players like Ginobili and Wade being comparable.
The mistake fans (and others) generally make when analyzing players is weighting scoring too heavily, which is most noticeable with shooting guards, who contribute primarily through that method, rather than with significant amounts of rebounds, assists, or other statistics.
mrparker
December 5, 2007
Franchise,
You put it too well.
How much do you think Mr. Jordan has skewed basketball fans understanding of what makes a team go.
He is one of the only shooting guards(if not only) to ever lead their team to multiple championships.
Could it be that a shooting guard has to produce like a big man in order to have the same effect on his team? Hmmmm
Yes Kobe is an elite shooting guard(top 3 by everyone’s measurements). However, he has yet to break the shooting guard glass ceiling that only Jordan has broken.(.4 wp48)
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about Jordan being the only guard with .4
Rob Clark
December 5, 2007
These people are ridiculous reductionists; believing that any aspect of life can be fully comprehended by an accumulation of statistics is beyond simple minded, it’s just plain lazy. Stats are a tool to assist in analysis of events, without the context of a more thorough understanding they become at best, practically useless, at worst completely misleading. That these shumcks came out of soulless, banality factory that is Standford says a lot about their inability to understand the complexity of real-world situation. Put down the spreadsheet and watch the game, you might really learn something.
dustin
December 5, 2007
Rob you are correct, statistics are a tool and models are not supposed to capture every single interaction in the real world. DBerri created this model to assisst people in evaluating players OBJECTIVELY (I think some of the commentors might need to look this word up). However, I think it is VERY VERY telling that payroll (i.e. the knicks) only has about a .3 correlation to record. I’m not sure what your explanation of this would be, but to me it seems to indicate that just watching the game doesn’t work out so great.
First Born Productions
December 5, 2007
Trade KOBE BRYANT and keep ANDREW BYNUM? Maybe when KOBE is 40. KOBE is the best player in the NBA hands down. Who they need to get rid of is MITCH KUPCHAK and bring back JERRY WEST. When WEST was in control, they got the players they needed to win. They don’t have that now and I don’t believe ANDREW BYNUM is now or ever will be that player. With a franchise like THE LAKERS, the winning needs to happen now. I’ve been a fan of THE LAKERS since 1979 (when the got MAGIC JOHNSON). I was 13 years old then. I was still a fan when RICK FOX was their leading scorer and is still a fan today. When KOBE retires or gets traded (God Forbid) I’ll still be a fan but in that market you need a superstar and BYNUM is not. The choice would have been easy for me. To see a talent like KOBE go through this is sickening. You had the chance to get JASON KIDD or JERMAINE O’NEAL or KEVIN GARNETT and you wouldn’t trade BYNUM? I even heard that BARON DAVIS wanted to play with KOBE. Makes no sense to me. Good luck KOBE and ANDREW. I hope the kid matures quickly. We need it !
Rob Clark
December 5, 2007
Dustin, to take the example of the Knicks high payroll versus bad record record to support this sterile approach seems purposefully misguided. In statistical analysis aberrations exist and are routinely adjusted for. And more to the point it suggests that the Knicks don’t use any statistical analysis in their signing of players, which I’m sure they do. The main point I think is, if you create a statistical model, and it creates unexpected results, like Andrew Bynum is more valuable than Kobe Bryant, or even as valuable as Bryant, one needs to revisit your model. It seems as if DBerri is more interested in the novelty and interest putting forth an outrageous claim than he is in building a model that really works. I might add that objectivity is an ideal that is realistically impossible to attain.
dustin
December 5, 2007
I don’t necessarily think the model says andrew is better than kobe. I think it says a good big man is more important than a good shooting guard.
RG73
December 5, 2007
It is ironic that Rob calls Dberri et al. lazy, then attributes this to them ‘coming out of’ Stanford. What is lazy Rob is thinking that because the authors had a book published by Stanford University Press, they ‘came from’ Stanford. I’m also not really clear why ‘coming from’ Stanford is considered a bad thing, but that’s besides the point. I’m also rather perplexed as to how reductionism is lazy; reductionism involves, oh, thinking about all the variables in a system, making hypotheses, figuring how to test those hypotheses, collecting data, analyzing the data, then refining your models. It is, in fact, the antithesis of lazy. Lazy is just watching a game casually and assuming that your ‘common sense’ and observations have all the explanatory power needed. There is a reason why guys like Kevin Pelton and Dean Oliver get hired by NBA franchises and casual fans with hand wavy just so stories are watching the games at home. Hand waving has demonstrated very little predictive value or utility in the NBA.
As for First Born Productions (and several other clonemates, judging by their posts)–why would you come into a statistical blog and post things like “Kobe is the BEST hands down,” and expect that to have any merit? At least provide some statistical basis for your argument, otherwise it holds about as much weight as a single electron. You’re not alone, of course, as I alluded to. The gist of comments here seem to be along the lines of “I think Kobe is the best because I’ve watched him but I don’t really have any data to support my magical thinking and I don’t want to be disabused of magical thinking, therefore I will shout that Kobe is the best even louder.” If someone kept track of degree of difficulty on shots, conversion rate of high degree of difficulty shots, number of jaw-dropping plays, number of ridiculous scoring games, amount of defensive attention drawn and the like, sure, Kobe is probably far and away the best. But you don’t win basketball games on style points. You win on getting the ball in the basket more than the other team, no? Everyone is absolutely right in that you can’t measure Kobe’s ability to make high degree of difficulty shots, to score against double or triple teams, or his ability to single handedly outscore a championship contending team over 3 quarters. Most people also think Kobe is the most clutch guy in the NBA. They might think that because they’ve seen him single handedly win a few games, hit a game winner, etc. The problem is that they do keep track of these sorts of stats. I know when 82games did an extensive analysis of clutch stats (e.g. final 5 minutes of a game that is within 5 points), looking at everything, points scored, FG%, fouls drawn, assists, turnovers, rebounds, etc., I think Kobe came in somewhere around 35th overall in the league. These aren’t stats that you can make ‘lie.’ They are actual data from actual games–Kobe did take x number of shots in the last 5 minutes of x number of close games, made such and such a percentage of them, turned the ball over a certain number of times, etc. 82games also investigated game winning shots from 03-04 to 05-06. In that span, Kobe had only made 7 of 32 attempted game winners, for a sad 0.219%. The league average over that same span of time was 0.29%. So actually you’d be better off letting any random player shoot a game winner than Kobe. Paul Pierce, who came up in DBerri’s earlier Kobe Myths, hit 35% (7/20), and also dished for 5 assists to win the game (Kobe had zero). Melo hit 11/17 shots for an amazing 64.7% game winner conversion rate. Kobe did draw 9 FTAs attempting a game winner (Dirk and Pierce both had 10 on 20 FGAs), but even taking that into account, he’s not as clutch as we imagine him to be. The thing is that he demands the ball almost every single time in a clutch situation. Those situations are always about the mythology of Kobe, both in his own mind I suspect, and in the minds of fans. And on those few times he does convert, its amazing, and our emotions tend to make us forget the 15 or 20 times previous he missed it. This has been consistent for his entire career–recall the 4 consecutive missed 3s against Utah in the playoffs years back. Fearless under pressure, without a doubt. Hubris beyond compare, absolutely. And this has been the story of Kobe’s career, and all of us who watched him closely his entire career, and are honest about it, know that his strengths have also been his downfall. He makes for a great narrative, but on the court, he’s not quite what he (and we) might imagine him to be. And if we’re all really honest, we know this–we know that what separates Kobe from Mike isn’t really raw talent (though Jordan’s monster hands and slight edge in athleticism probably help as well), its mental. Pass the ball or shoot over 2 defenders? Pass the ball or dribble into a triple team? Take the easy shot or the hard shot? Drive to the basket or take the 3? And it isn’t that Kobe is making bad decisions all game long, not even close. But the difference is, oh, 5 or 6 possessions a game where Kobe takes the hard route, the ego route, instead of doing the easiest (and smartest play). We can blame some on teammates, but, in the end, a few less 3s, a few less contested shots, a few more passes, and, suddenly Kobe is shooting closer to 50%, is getting 6 or 7 assists per game instead of 4 or 5, and is turning the ball over 2 times instead of 3 or 4. More passing instead of forcing shots, less insistence on taking every single shot with the clock winding down, less contested shots at the buzzer, higher conversion rate. It isn’t going to happen, of course. That’s one thing I’ve taken home from WoW’s line of research–the consistency of NBA players (which is also why its also futile for that other contingency of Lakers fans to think Odom will ever turn some magical corner and become an all-star). But that’s why the data doesn’t show Kobe is the best. If we could quantify basketball skills, one-on-one skills, number of moves, handling skills, etc., sure, Kobe again probably wins. But if we are measuring impact on games, all those ‘oh wow!’ shots count just the same as a 5 foot jump hook by Bynum. And those 1-2 hubris plays each quarter also add up so that Kobe’s amazing talent has less NET effect on the outcome because of the negatives. I’ve also been watching the Lakers for almost 30 years, and Kobe is an unbelievable talent. Hall of Fame material, no doubt. He’s had some amazing playoff series, amazing single games, amazing moments. But over the course of 82 games, surrounded by pretty average teammates he doesn’t have the biggest impact on winning games (which is kind of obvious since he’s been on a .500 team for a few years now). Not a big surprise–bigs always have more of an effect than shooting guards. Hence, the Bulls lose Jordan, they’re 2 games worse over 82, and get to the conference semi’s (though Jordan was clearly the difference between conference semi’s and the Finals). But then you look at guys like Duncan or Robinson and see a huge, immediate impact on games won (or, more recently, Dwight Howard or KG in Boston, or his absence in Minny). Andrew Bynum is going to be worth more wins in another year or two than Kobe simply because he’s 7 feet, 285, mobile, has freakishly long arms and some athleticism. Kobe is averaged sized for the NBA, Bynum is pretty much the biggest guy out there most nights. Not really hard to see why that would have more impact on net numbers. He will probably never be as skilled as Kobe (or even his mentor, Kareem), but just being big, pretty skilled and decently athletic, is enough to change the outcome of games. It has always been that way. Think Mikan was the best basketball player of his era? Didn’t matter–he was the biggest; Shaq, ditto–biggest, strongest, freakishly athletic. Hell, we may see the same thing with the careers of Dwight Howard and Lebron. Lebron is the more skilled and versatile player (and damn big for his position to boot), but Howard has a few inches and about 20 odd pounds on him. DH will probably wind up having more win shares over his career, but might not be the ‘better’ player. Of all the ‘common sense’ assumptions that we have, bigger is better is probably among the few that actually has some truth to it (most of the time).
Walter
December 5, 2007
This article is another prime example of someone using a couple statistics without digging and deeper.
Anyone who has watched the Lakers closely knows that Bynum has been VERY dominant against teams with no solid Center and has looked average at best against the better front lines in the NBA.
How has Andrew looked against some of the better centers in the league??
vs Yao: avg 5 pts
vs Chandler: 8 pts
vs Garnett: 4 pts
vs Howard: 10 pts
Hardly dominating permformances against the better Centers of the league. Bynums best games come against small teams like Phoenix, Seattle, Golden State, etc…
Last time I checked none of those team has made the NBA Finals.
Ryan Schwan
December 5, 2007
Hey DJ,
My personal observation is that most of the commentators for this post think you’re a stupid idiot. Perhaps for your next trick, you should create a stastical model proving you are not one.
:)
Ryan Schwan
December 5, 2007
And I have proven that I AM an idiot by spelling statistical as stastical.
I’ll go away now.
Ben Guest
December 5, 2007
Owen,
Thanks for the link, although I was thinking more along the lines of all-time underpaid (or at least as far back as DB’s data-set stretches). The problem with looking at last year (or any of the last few years) is that the rookie wage scale skews everything. I’m interested in how many really productive players have not been recognized by the market in terms of wages.
RG73
December 5, 2007
Rob, first of all, I fail to see why this approach is ‘sterile.’ This is how you analyze data. There really isn’t a way to analyze very large data sets without using statistics. While I agree that it is problematic when your model gives you results that don’t match observations very well, you can’t throw out models that disagree with your assumptions. That is why we have statistics. We can ‘think’ we know things, but often the analysis shows us that what we think is wrong. That is why science tries to disprove hypotheses, not confirm what we think we know.
Now if the WoW model produced outrageous results left and right–like, oh, Daniel Gibson is more important to the Cavs than Lebron, or it predicted 30 wins for a 60 win team, then, sure, we could assume the Bynum/Bryant result was an error in the model. If, however, the results are pretty robust (they seem to be–I haven’t thought about it too deeply yet, there may be issues with the assumptions, confounding factors in the analysis–all stuff I’m sure has been covered in this blog already anyway), then we can’t discount this PARTICULAR result because it doesn’t meet our expectations. You can’t throw away results for that reason–it’s pretty much intellectual and academic fraud (if this were submitted for publication).
The fact is that if we use other metrics, which aren’t really bound up in assumptions, we see something similar. Basketballvalue.com keeps track of on/off stats for every player for every minute they’re in the game. This is raw data. When player x is on the floor, his team scores x number of points, gives up x number of points. Raw, net impact. The Lakers score more when Bynum is on the floor vs. Kobe (109.78 pts per 100 possessions vs. 104.70) and give up less (102.56 vs. 103.03–this result is probably not significant though, I’m guessing). More telling is off the floor stats. When Kobe steps off the court, the Lakers drop 119.9 per offensive possession, while giving up 106.34. This jives with the perception that the Lakers bench pushes the tempo, but they only give up a little more defensively. Clearly, offensive efficiency goes up dramatically with Kobe off the floor. That is telling. Sure, its against 2nd units, etc. Bynum goes off the floor, offensive efficiency drops to 106.47 and they give up 105.55. So there’s a pretty equal effect on defense when Kobe and Bynum step off the floor, but a much larger effect on offense when Bynum goes to the bench. You can try to explain this (again, 2nd units or whatnot), but it is a fact.
Other areas where Bynum has impact–when Kobe is on the floor offensive rebounding declines about 8%. With Bynum it increases about 1%. Defensive rebounding rate increases about 5% with Kobe, 4.5% with Bynum. What is likely going on–when Kobe is on the floor offensive efficiency is down, they take too many 3s, too many long rebounds. With Bynum on the floor, they go inside more, misses are closer to the hoop, offensive rebounding opportunities increase. So Bynum leads to more possessions, better scoring efficiency. Obviously this will show up in win shares or any other measure that tries to gauge net impact on a game.
Of course, Bynum has played most of his minutes on the floor with Kobe. And if you look at 5 man units and their net +/-, most of best units involve Kobe AND Bynum on the floor together. So how do we know Bynum is having a large effect? When Kobe plays with non-Bynum units, he has some of his worst net numbers.
And this again correlates well with what we think we know–Kobe needs a big man to do well. Bynum is averaging a double-double, shooting a high FG%, and, despite fan perception, is playing decent defense. He’s superficially putting up similar numbers to Tyson Chandler (I don’t know what their win share comparison looks like)–and we know Chandler has a big effect in New Orleans. No one would argue Chandler is ‘better’ than Paul, but like Bynum and Kobe, Chandler has better +/- numbers than Paul (in this case its mostly an impact of defense being much, much better with Chandler on the floor than off relative to Paul). So this result isn’t terribly surprising.
All it takes to shift this result to Kobe’s favor is Kobe shooting a better percentage and getting a few less turnovers–then I imagine we’d see him having more of an impact. But if he keeps getting 4 turnovers and shooting 45-46%, and Bynum keeps shooting close to 60%, and getting nearly twice the rebounds, I imagine that the result will hold over the season. Again, it doesn’t mean that Bynum is better than Kobe–it simply means that a decent 7 footer has more net impact on the bottom line than a great SG.
RG73
December 5, 2007
Walter I’m not sure how simply looking at points scored vs. a certain center in a small subset of games is ‘digging deeper.’ In fact, taking one number out of a more complex data set, without justifying why it is the most important number (and the one that explains most of the observed result), and then only taking that number from a handful of games in the data set, that is the very definition of superficial analysis.
Digging deeper means looking at the entire data set and doing statistical analysis on it. Comparing Bynum’s points scored in 4 games versus 4 other centers doesn’t tell us much of anything. Just so stories are nice, but they don’t really fly in science.
Asher Steinberg
December 6, 2007
I haven’t researched this subject well at all, and I understand that you’re a very well-respected authority in the field. And what I’m about to say has probably been said more articulately a million times before. But it strikes me that, if Player A takes x shots a game and makes y%, and Player B takes 2x or 3x shots a game and makes, say, 0.8y%, Player B is – possibly – much more valuable, all things being equal. The reason being, a lot of the Player A types would make a lot less than 0.8y% of their shots if you asked them to take 2-3x shots a game. We can arrive at this conclusion by good old-fashioned scouting, that is, seeing with our own eyes that the Player A’s of the world, i.e. Andrew Bynum, Samuel Dalembert, Chris Kaman, etc., aren’t really that offensively skilled and only appear to be so efficient because they mostly take easy shots or the shots the defense gives them – or, better yet, we can look at what happens when the Player B’s on their respective teams get hurt and the Player A’s are asked to take more shots. Consider, to pick one example, Drew Gooden. Drew Gooden has been, over his career, an above-average shooter from the field, if you just look at field goal percentages. And prior to LeBron’s injury a few games ago, he was shooting over 47%. With LeBron out, however, Gooden has shot 22 for 57 – a little under 39% on 14 attempts a game, and with just one three attempted. An insignificant sample, to be sure, but let’s pretend it’s significant for a moment and draw some conclusions as to why he’s shooting so much worse. A, he’s shooting more than he usually does, and B, he doesn’t have LeBron to divert the defense. Now, do you think it is possible that Bynum would also be a lot less efficient if he (a) was forced to take more shots and (b) didn’t have Kobe around? Is it not somewhat significant that in games when Bynum takes fewer than 10 shots he shoots 61% from the field, but in games when he takes 10 or more he shoots 51% from the field? What might happen to Bynum’s efficiency if he were asked to take Kobe’s 20 shots a game? If Kobe’s really not helping the team so much, maybe your method would prescribe just that. The Lakers could ship Kobe out for a guy who rates higher on your metric, perhaps another really good rebounder, and Bynum could get the lion’s share of touches – after all, he’s putatively their most efficient player. I humbly submit that that wouldn’t work out so well. With a few exceptions, high-volume shooters will never be the most offensively efficient players out there; that’s not going to happen when you’re taking the most shots, the toughest shots, and are the most aggressively defended guy on the court. But – with some notable exceptions – high-volume shooters are high-volume shooters for a reason – not because they’re selfish, inefficient, gunners, or because their coaches are idiots, but because they’re the players on their team who can most efficiently shoulder the responsibility of being the go-to guy on offense. Now, rebounding’s extremely valuable, but one thing that your approach may lack is a recognition of the fact that, often, if it wasn’t for Player X getting a rebound, someone else on his team would’ve gotten it anyway. I haven’t thoroughly studied your metric, but it seems to me that there’s a sort of assumption being made that, if not for a player getting a rebound, his team would necessarily lose a possession. In baseball they now have this notion of contributions above what a replacement player would give you, and I think somehow you have to figure out how to measure how much a player’s 10 rebounds actually add to his team’s rebounding margin. It’s not the case that, if it’s not for so and so getting 10 rebounds, his team would have 10 fewer rebounds – it may well be the case that, if that player sat on the bench all night, his team would have gotten just two fewer rebounds, or maybe even no fewer rebounds depending on how good the rest of his team is at rebounding. Just like you wouldn’t say, Iverson scored 50 points tonight in a 4-point loss, ergo, if not for him his team would’ve lost by 54, you can’t just blindly count rebounds as if they couldn’t be replaced too.
Rob Clark
December 6, 2007
RG73, Don’t get me wrong I completely agree that in hard science one should never adjust method to fit your assumptions, but this is not not hard science you’re doing. The first problem with applying this sort of analysis to basketball is that the statistics that you have access to only represent a very slender slice of the game, and that is mostly concentrated on offensive production, and most of that is based on the individual performances. You have some data that reflect defensive and team components, but there is just not enough of it, and it’s not that meaningful to rely on too heavily. I’m not against using statistical analysis to help interpret the game, I’m just very dubious of those who rely too heavily on it.
I don’t think you too much help to understand that a competent center is a great value to any perimeter player, not just Kobe, that’s just the nature of the game. And while I disagree with your “decent 7-footer” having more impact than a “great SG ” scenario, it’s also true that dominant centers are traditionally the way to get championships.
To say at this point that Bynum is more valuable than Kobe is just not supported by reality. Your approach becomes sterile when you let the numbers overwhelm your senses. Numbers are meaningless without proper context.
Here is an example. Watching Allen Iverson go nuts last night against the Lakers I couldn’t help but think that while AI’s numbers were going to be incredible, through 3 quarters he had a point total in the high 40s, while missing maybe 5 shots. He ended up with 67% shooting average. That looks great on a stat sheet. But what won’t show up is how many times the only player to handle the ball on those possessions was Iverson. I watched while his teammates watched him shoot five or six times in a row. I watched as the Laker’s defensive finally clamped down on him, and the Nuggets struggled to score.
You look at the stat sheet and think, ‘wow, how did the Laker’s survive that game?’ Well the answer isn’t found on the stat sheet, because it involves human behavior.
I really believe that you’re are just putting too much emphasis on the raw data, and not enough on the context, which inevitably is what gives the numbers real meaning.
Rob Clark
December 6, 2007
“Statistics are like bikinis,” noted San Antonio humorist Brent Barry said the other day. “They’re nice to look at but they don’t tell you the whole story.”
Owen
December 6, 2007
“the answer isn’t found on the stat sheet, because it involves human behavior.”
Rob – When I look at the stat sheet,, I see that Kobe played really well, He accumulated just two points of Winscore less than Iverson, while playing 18 less minutes. Looking at the stat sheet, iit makes sense that the Lakers won. They got good games from Vlad and Fisher, and they didn’t have J.R. Smith going 1-10 for them.
http://www.winsproduced.com/gamestats.php?game=271205007
http://www.winsproduced.com/gamestats.php?game=271205007‘
Outsidergua
December 6, 2007
No disrespect to you as a person.
Your column about Bynum being better than Kobe is crap though.
At first it made me think you were either stupid or just a hater.
Then I realized that all you wanted was more traffic in your website.
Congratulations you managed to be center of attention for the wrong reasons.
I WILL NEVER READ YOUR COLUMNS AGAIN until you get a grip and start making sense again.
Panda Bear
December 6, 2007
Outsidergua,
Your argumet is trenchant and cogent. Your categorization of the column as “crap” is very, very persuasive. You are an idiot.
victor
December 6, 2007
well regular stats are obviously alrite as far as percentage, turnovers, points, shot attempts but when you decide to go EVEN DEEPER ….you must just be extremely bored
lakersfanboy
December 29, 2007
Bynum is considered as one of the teams main cast. He can play well with the Lakers and has a lot of improvements on his play.
JEM24
Lakers fan
Niko Sports Blog
March 2, 2008
bynum will be one of the elite centers in the NBA. I was one of the many people who criticised Kupthcak for not trading Bynum…But now, I take it all back as they are a better team now than if they traded bynum away last year for either J.O. or Kidd.