This past season was the 35th in the history of the Jazz. In honor of this anniversary, The Salt Lake City Tribune spent the season counting down the top players in the history of the franchise. Each morning another player from Jazz history would be profiled and as I read these stories over breakfast I wondered: What would this list look like if we ranked each player in terms of Wins Produced?
Wins Produced can only be calculated back to 1977-78, so the first three seasons of this franchise cannot be considered. Still, I do have enough data to rank every player who ever played in Utah (there were 193 players) and a few who played in New Orleans. The rankings – which only consider what a player did for the Jazz franchise – are reported in Table One.
Table One: Ranking the Utah Jazz: 1977-78 to 2008-09
The big question in ranking Jazz players is where you place John Stockton and Karl Malone. The Tribune apparently punted on this question. When we look at Wins Produced, though, we see that Stockton produced 311.1 wins while the Mailman produced 287.8. So according to Wins Produced, Stockton was slightly more productive. In looking at Stockton and Malone we must keep in mind that the summation of Wins Produced for this team across this time period is 1,428.7 (the team actually won 1,445 games). This means that across these 32 seasons, Stockton and Malone produced 42% of the team’s wins. So obviously – and I don’t think you need Wins Produced to see this – Stockton and Malone are the two most productive players by far in the history of this franchise.
Once we get past Stockton and Malone, the top 10 according to the Tribune was as follows:
1&2: Stockton and Malone
3. Adrian Dantley (4th in Wins Produced)
4. Pete Maravich (186th in Wins Produced)
5. Mark Eaton (5th in Wins Produced)
6. Jeff Hornacek (6th in Wins Produced)
7. Deron Williams (11th in Wins Produced)
8. Darrell Griffith (25th in Wins Produced)
9. Carlos Boozer (8th in Wins Produced)
10. Ricky Green (7th in Wins Produced)
After each name is where the player ranked in terms of Wins Produced. For many of these players the Tribune and Wins Produced came to a similar conclusion. The exception that stands out is Pete Maravich. About two years ago I made the argument that Maravich really wasn’t that productive. He was an inefficient scorer who was prone to turnovers. Still, he was a prolific scorer and that tends to lead people to think he was helping his teams win games (although his teams were generally unsuccessful).
Although Maravich is by far the biggest difference, Wins Produced also argues that Williams and Griffith were not top 10 players (although Williams will probably crack the top 10 after next season). According to Wins Produced, Maravich, Williams, and Griffith should be replaced on the list by
3. Andrei Kirilenko (12th on Tribune rankings)
9. Greg Ostertag (22nd on Tribune rankings
10. Byron Russell (16th on Tribune rankings)
Ostertag was actually the subject of one of the first posts in this forum. The comments on that early post included some attacks on Ostertag, which were actually answered by members of his family.
Let me close by making two observations. As I have noted before, most of a team’s Wins Produced is created by a small number of players. The top 10 players in the history of this team (history since 1977-78) have produced 75% of this team’s Wins Produced.
And I also want to comment on Carlos Boozer. Boozer’s WP48 compares favorably to what we saw from Karl Malone. The big difference between the two players – as Jazz fans have told me – is that the Mailman always showed up for work. Boozer, though, is often on the bench. And on the bench Boozer doesn’t help.
The question facing the Jazz this summer is whether they should keep one of the top ten players in the history of the franchise. If they think Boozer can stay healthy and productive, then the team should try and keep him. If not, they should let him go. Unfortunately, I don’t know how you can predict the future health of a player. So although I can say Boozer has definitely helped when he has played in the past, I can’t say for certain he will be helpful (and worth a huge contract) in the future.
- DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
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.
24 responses so far ↓
Italian Stallion // May 24, 2009 at 1:28 pm
This is the same story over and over.
Your model rates scorers like Maravich lower than some other models, most NBA players, the general media, and the fans.
While I totally agree that all those other sources tend to overrate very inefficient high scorers like Maravich, AI, etc… , there is never going to be a true meeting of the minds until more aspects of a player’s contribution are both measured and analyzed PROPERLY (repeat PROPERLY)
There is no stat for how often an especially skilled player draws a double team and how that double team impacts his own efficiency and the efficiency of his teamates that often get a wide open look when he passes.
There is no stat that measures the impact on a player and his teamates when the entire opposing defense is geared towards stopping him because he’s that great an offensive threat.
There is no stat that measures what would happen to a team if an elite scorer was told that his future salary was entirely based on “your efficiency model” instead of his own decision making and scoring.
Would all those low usage efficient players that are less athletic and skilled make up the net scoring difference and retain their efficiency or would the team suffer on a net basis.
There is no stat that measures the contribution that good outside shooters make in terms of spacing the floor and making it more difficult to double team the typically more efficient big men that score inside. They take the occasional tougher 2 point shots because someone has to in order to create space and because sometimes it’s the only shot or best shot available. Yet statistically, their efficiency is punished for their role.
I am a huge fan of Trevor Ariza and curse the day the Knicks traded him because he does so much so well, but does anyone on earth really believe he would get as many wide open 3s if there weren’t so many other offensive options on the Lakers (especially Kobe).
IMO, it’s obvious that some of his huge contribution is really in part a credit to the talents and skills of other players on the team that are so darn good, the defense is willing to suffer and allow Ariza the open look and pray he stops hitting them.
Tom Mandel // May 24, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Notably missing seems to be whoever was 3d in WP in Jazz history — who was that?
(or did I miss something…?)
Tom Mandel // May 24, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Oh duh…. sorry. Obviously, AK was 3d.
Michael // May 24, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Wow Amy Ostertag kicked a** and took names in that comment section!
Excellent stuff.
mrparker // May 24, 2009 at 8:50 pm
re ariza,
I dont think he is rated highly by win score because of his offense. After all he’s a low usage guy whos offensive rating is only 112. He’s rated so high because he is highest rated player on the team defensively and he plays small forward. He is particularly adept at steals. Is he getting steals because Kobe Bryants shoots so much?
JChan // May 24, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Best. Post. Ever.
I spent way too much time looking at this post and remembering old players. It’s interesting to see how many good players spent one crappy year with the Jazz. I was surprised that Donyell Marshall scored so high. I remember being disappointed when he left, but not THAT disappointed. Also, I was shocked to see that Jarron Collins was not last place.
Anon // May 24, 2009 at 10:48 pm
if only this model didn’t favor low-usage players like stockton and malone so much.
/sarcasm
TRad // May 25, 2009 at 6:57 am
Re: Boozer
I think you’re missing one point. This Millsap guy isn’t a stiff. And if Jazz decide to let Boozer go they will replace him with Millsap.
The sum of WP tells us about the past. But Jazz decision will be about the future. WP48 suggests Jazz with Millsap wouldn’t be much worse than Jazz with Boozer (I think we could agree Jazz won’t keep both of them). Millsap is younger, healthier, and probably cheaper.
The question is: what would Jazz do with the saved money? Could they sign somebody who would recompensate the production lost by going from Boozer to Millsap?
Who is really better? « // May 25, 2009 at 7:31 am
[...] • Dave Berri at the Wages of Win blog just gave some statistics that made my heart flutter: John Stockton is statistically the best player in the history of the Utah Jazz. And of course, I could have told you this empirically: ever watch him [...]
Sean Stormes // May 25, 2009 at 9:28 am
I always laugh when I read stories about Pete that claim “he wasn’t a winner.” What garbage. The New Orleans Jazz went down in history as the most successful – as measures by WINS – in the history of the league. Why?? Because of the Pistol – purely. Do you know that the Jazz has a WINNING record with Pete in the lineup vs. when he was not?? That’s true – do your research. So, with an ownership group that is widely regarded as the worst in league history, save for probably the LA Clippers, Pete succeeded with the deck stacked against him. I don’t want to waste my time here – go to Amazon.com, look up my comments on the book, “Maravich” by Terrill and Federman, and you’ll find all the facts there.
Pete was indeed a winner. Freakin’ Red Auerbach once said that had Pete gone to a team like the Celtics in 1970 vs. Atlanta (and subsequently New Orleans), that the Celts would have won 3 championships BECAUSE of him. Anybody want to argue with Red???
Give me a break. It’s people like you who try and brand Pete a loser. Pistol – while a gunner and scorer – always wanted to win, always tried to win. But with a cast of hateful teammates (Atlanta) or substandard (New Orleans), it was virtually impossible.
Yet before the knee gives out in the winter of 1977-78, the Jazz are on the verge of the playoffs. An expansion team just three years earlier!! The greats of the day said that Pete was playing the greatest ball EVER played by a guard that season, and he was still leading the league in scoring when he went down.
Shove it. I hate these one-sided blog posts. Learn your stuff before you come to the hole with weak spreadsheets.
Sports will never be a “one player makes the difference.” Who the heck is Stockton without Malone?? And vice versa? The Mailman simply becomes Dominique Wilkins, and Stockton … Mark Jackson.
Period.
Jason E. // May 25, 2009 at 10:10 am
Sean Stormes wrote: “The New Orleans Jazz went down in history as the most successful – as measures by WINS – in the history of the league.”
I always laugh when I see someone say something that is easy to verify and prove false. I am tempted to write the entire post off as a crackpot or troll job. The New Orleans Jazz never had a winning record. How 6 losing seasons makes you one of the “most successful” teams in history is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps an all-caps “WINS” means something different from actually winning basketball games.
mrparker // May 25, 2009 at 11:10 am
wow
Nick // May 25, 2009 at 11:22 am
To follow Jason E.’s point:
From 1974-75 -> 1979-80, the years where Maravich played on the Jazz, the records were:
23-59, 38-44, 35-47, 39-43, 26-56, 24-58.
During which the last year Maravich was waived, and then signed with the Celtics.
I did not verify how what the records were of the Jazz when Maravich played vs. When He Did Not.
Talent, desire and passion is not what is being judged here. The idea here is based on what we have available for statistics, how an individual’s performance relates back to wins.
ilikeflowers // May 25, 2009 at 11:40 am
‘The New Orleans Jazz went down in history as the most successful – as measures by WINS – in the history of the league.’
Jason E, apparently you are not familiar with Sean’s source. This is a direct quote from the Book of Maravich, Chapter 4 Verse 3. It’s truth is implicit and absolute.
TRad // May 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Re: Maravich
TRad // May 25, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Re: Maravich
Sean
I went to amazon.com and read your review. I checked one fact.
You’ve written
“When Pete had 68 against the Knicks in 77′, he would have been over 80 easily with the three-point line. And not against the Raptors, aka Sisters of the Holy Rosary of Canada. No, Pete’s 80 would have been against the greatest defensive guard of the day, Walt Frazier”.
Actually in 1976/77 Knicks were below average defensive team, with 100.1 DfRat (NBA avg was 99.5). As for Frazier – he was 31 then and nothing close to “the greatest defensive guard of the day”. Knicks had a very good defensive teams earlier in the decade, but not in 1976/77.
Michael // May 26, 2009 at 6:32 am
Sorry I don’t want to inadvertently be drawn in to this argument (the Greg Ostertag thread showed me that it is poor form to denegrate past players, especially players who had such a short and tragic life) but T Rad is it not possible to be a superior defensive player on an inferior defensive team? And is it not also possible, that similar to scorers like Anthony or Kobe etc, that Maravich was a guy who could absolutely dominate when he was on, but was not on enough to have a strong statistical representation?
Oh and Jason E I think the Jazz were in NO for 5 years.
Tball // May 26, 2009 at 7:44 am
For discussions of Pistol Pete, this is probably the wrong column. Because it is limited to stats accumulated on the Jazz beginning in 77-78, from only three years toward the end of Pete’s career are utilized. db has written more expansively on the limitations of Pete based on the full extent of his career.
Also, my guess is that the paper would not have put Pistol Pete in the top 10 if they had only been crediting three years of his career.
On the injury question, hasn’t there been any study in basketball to show that past performance is indicative of future results? I would suspect that if a player is only healthy enough to play in 65% of his games (I haven’t looked at Boozer’s exact numbes) over his first seven seasons and if that player starts at least 70% of the games for which he’s healthy (indicating the games on the bench are not simply DNP-CD), that player will not play in 80+% of his games going forward. I can’t think of too many players that outgrew being injury prone.
Health tends to decline for NBA players reaching 30. Camby and McDyess have been healthier the past few years, at least compared to their early careers. I think this is uncommon and I’d imagine someone can point to a study more definitively answering the question.
Ranking Every Player for the Boston Celtics since 1977 « The Wages of Wins Journal // May 28, 2009 at 11:03 am
[...] 28, 2009 · No Comments A few days ago I posted a Ranking Every Player in the History of the Utah Jazz. Jason Chandler noted in the comments to this post that it was “Best. Post. [...]
Ranking Every Player in the History of the Los Angeles Lakers since 1977 « The Wages of Wins Journal // May 31, 2009 at 3:12 pm
[...] Ranking Every Player in the History of the Utah Jazz [...]
Italian Stallion // June 1, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Mr. Parker,
I agree that Ariza is highly rated here because of the other things he does well.
I was pointing out that his recent shooting success in the playoffs has as much to do with Kobe drawing double teams, Gasol being a force in the paint, and other offensive weapons etc… by getting him wide open looks as it does to Ariza’s ability as a shooter.
However, when it comes time to calculate the results, Ariza will get most of the credit for hitting those wide open 3 pointers and the guys that enabled him will at best get a minor credit for an assist and at other times be penalized for missing a tough shot when Ariza wasn’t wide open.
Italian Stallion // June 1, 2009 at 4:02 pm
ANON,
Funny sarcasm does not mean you are right .
The basic problem is that regardless of whether the author agrees or not, any 15 year old basketball player can tell you that his own offensive output is a function of his personal skill set and his aggressiveness.
He can up his scoring, but not without taking extra lower percentage shots.
He can up his FG%, but not without lowering his scoring.
The only way he can really improve is by upping his skill set and making better decisions, which in turn will allow for him to take more shots at high percentages.
The problem that most teams face is that they need enough scoring to win but there aren’t enough dunks, layups, shots inside the paint with a foul, and wide open 3 pointers by a gun slinger to go around etc… Those are the kinds of shots that lead to high levels of efficiency.
As a result, on any team, there are some more skilled players that wind up taking some of the more difficult shots that space the floor, that draw double teams, that are forced because the clock is winding down, or because they are the decent option in that offensive sequence etc…
Those guys are contributing in ways that allow other lower usage, lower skilled role players to reach their maximum use and efficiency.
This model does not reward those higher skilled and higher usage guys properly.
It’s puts too much weight on efficiency and not enough weight on usage. It has the opposite problem of PER where very low efficiency players are undeservedly rewarded for their scoring. That’s why this model winds up with some results that conflict with common sense, let alone every coach, NBA player, and semi conscious fan.
Jazz Music CD // June 3, 2009 at 6:05 am
Excellent !
Sean Stormes // July 12, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I stand corrected: I meant to say the most successful “expansion” team in the history of the league … through their first four seasons.
My mistake. But that fact is true. Resarch it.