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. Ever.”
There have been 892 posts in this forum, and although I don’t wish to disagree with Jason, am not sure I think this was the best post ever. Then again, Jason is a Jazz fan. And I might not be the best judge of what is “best”.
So with Chandler’s words in mind, I thought I would see if I could strike gold with fans of the Boston Celtics. So here is what every Boston Celtic since 1977-78 has done with respect to Wins Produced.
Table One: Ranking the Boston Celtics (1977-78 to 2008-09)
Topping the rankings is… Larry Bird. Larry Legend produced 261.9 wins for the Celtics. Across these 32 seasons, this mark is easily the best. Of course, one suspects that if we went back before 1977-78 we would see Bill Russell produced more than Bird. But alas, we don’t have the data so we don’t really know (well, we have enough data to be pretty sure Russell would be number one in Boston history).
Sticking with the years where we have data, here is the rest of the top ten.
2. Robert Parish
3. Paul Pierce
4. Kevin McHale
5. Cedric Maxwell
6. Danny Ainge
7. Rajon Rondo
8. Reggie Lewis
9. Kevin Garnett
10. Dee Brown
Looking over the list we see a couple of surprises. For example, I am not sure Maxwell is regarded as one of the five most productive Boston players across the last three decades. And it’s hard to believe that Rondo (in just three seasons) and KG (in just two) already are in the top 10. Beyond who is on the list, the other big surprise is that 64.6% of the team’s Wins Produced since 1977 can be tied to these ten players.
Beyond reporting the rankings, I wanted to take a moment to comment on reactions to such analysis. In general, reactions to any post where players are ranks follow two forms. If the person reacting likes the analysis (i.e. I always knew Larry Bird was the best), then the reaction will look like this… “Professor Berri – with some of the best analysis I have ever seen – has confirmed that Bird is the greatest Boston player since 1977.”
If the person, though, doesn’t like the analysis (i.e. Danny Ainge is the 6th?), then you see… “Berri (does anyone seriously thinks he knows what he is talking about?) actually thinks Ainge was a good player. That’s all you need to know to see how stupid all the advanced stats are. Why can’t these geeks put the computer down and watch a freakin’ game.” Or something like that (usually the language is more colorful).
Although I like the first approach (and I am not too keen on the second), both reactions have the same problem. In both instances the person reacting is arguing from conclusion back to evidence. In other words, their reaction to Wins Produced is entirely dictated by whether or not what it says confirms what the person already believed. If it does, then Wins Produced is great. If not, then it’s stupid.
Unfortunately, this is not how one should do analysis. When we do research we start with the evidence and work to the conclusion. And if we think a conclusion is incorrect, we have to actually go out and find sufficient evidence that allows us to reach a different conclusion. Oh, and by sufficient, I mean the new evidence shouldn’t be accurately described as “horseshit”.
One last note that is completely unrelated… previously I mentioned that there have been nearly 900 posts in this forum. On average, each post is at least 1,000 words. The Wages of Wins was only about 120,000 words, so this means I have offered enough material in this forum to fill seven more books. And that doesn’t count the comment section. The Wages of Wins is currently selling for $13.57 at Amazon.com. If you read all these posts (and if you did, I am sorry), does this mean you now owe me $94.99?
– 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.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Brandon
May 28, 2009
I’m curious to know if maybe WP48 should be adjusted to the era each player played in. You have said that the average WP48 for a player is 0.100. Does this hold true for older generation players such as Larry Bird? Was the average player 0.100 back then as well?
dberri
May 28, 2009
Brandon,
Yes, every player in each season is evaluted relative to the other players in that season.
Anon
May 28, 2009
These “rank every player” posts are really fun. If you did one of these for every team I would not be displeased.
I like going over the list and seeing who is where. On first glance, there’s not a whole lot you can argue about on that list. Especially the top 4 is entirely believable even if you don’t like WP48.
I’m surprised Toine is as high as he is. Watching him play was always very painful for me.
Mike
May 28, 2009
Ok, what’s your paypal account so I can send in the $94.99!
Thanks for putting up all this great information.
brgulker
May 28, 2009
I would say,
“Best. Post. Ever.”
If this were about the Pistons.
brgulker
May 28, 2009
And I was surprised to see Dana Barros on there. There’s a blast from the past.
Jeremy
May 28, 2009
As a Celtics fan, this just has to give you a chuckle. Then again, seeing how many minutes Baby and Scal were given this postseason, that chuckle tends to go away REAL fast.
TK
May 28, 2009
And Starbury, too. And even Mikki Moore. Woof. That’s four players with negative WP48s — two of them worse than -1.00! — in the rotation for the playoffs. Has such a team ever gone 14 games into the playoffs before? The mind reels…
Michael
May 28, 2009
I must admit I am a little suprised at how good Larry Bird was. I really thought those Celtics were more of an ensemble team. Just out of interest did he spend most of his seasons around the 0.365 mark or were there some far below and some far above it?
romalley
May 28, 2009
“I’m surprised Toine is as high as he is. Watching him play was always very painful for me.”
He is only high because he played so many games for the Celtics. His WP48 of .59 suggests that you were right in feeling pain watching him play. The same goes for Danny Ainge. His WP48 shows he was certainly a “good” player but he wasn’t great. He just played a lot of games for the Celtics. Bill Walton certainly was a better player but just didn’t play as much. WP per season might be more accurate in determining who was better but this works well enough. Great post.
Jeremy
May 28, 2009
Wow. Is there really a chance that Rondo might eventually eclipse Bird?? Assuming Rondo takes his efficiency even higher (or keeps it at 08-09 levels)over the next ten years, and stays in Green, he might eventually pass Bird. Thats just unreal.
Wayne
May 28, 2009
Haha. Nice one. I’m thinking of getting the book from the bookstore soon.
Peter
May 29, 2009
Dave, just out of curiosity, could you do a list on the greatest Lakers since 1977? The list would cover names from both the Showtime Lakers and the Shaq and Kobe era, as well as where the stars of each era ranked with each other.
mike
May 29, 2009
rondo, reggie lewis, and i write this in total disbelief, dee brown, dee brown… ahead of dennis johnson??? this article loses all credibility with me. laughable to say the least.
DSM
May 29, 2009
@ mike
This isn’t opinion… this is what the statistics say. Read the background and you’ll understand more…
Anon
May 29, 2009
I think mike meant to say: “A and B”
Petr
May 29, 2009
John Havlicek at position #73?
Couldn’t you have at least tried to normalize? Or cut off anybody for whom 1977 was the last full year of their career? Apropos of continued un-scientific efforts: I agree with your assessment of Russel beating out Bird, but don’t forget Cousy either…
Oh, and thanks for reminding me that Dan Dickau was once a Celt…. gaaahh!
Jerry
May 29, 2009
I understand your point about arguing from preconceived conclusions Professor, but I had a quick question. Isn’t it valid to “test” this objective metric against the real world?
For instance, if based on WP48, Steve Kerr was the most productive player of all time, we would doubt the metric used, wouldn’t we? So where is the line between arguing from a conclusion and “testing” the metric?
P-Dawg
May 29, 2009
See, what’s most interesting to me is the WP48 score. Antoine Walker may be 13, but his WP48 is a pathetic .59. I’m really surprised to see that Kevin McHale’s score is a good but not great.179. He wasn’t really the same player after the ’87 season, though, and his rebounding numbers weren’t as good as I thought. Ed Pickney on the other hand had an eye-popping .203 WP48. So maybe Red knew what he was doing when he traded Danny Ainge, huh?
I’d LOVE to see real numbers for Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn, Havlicek and Cowens. Russell and Cousy in particular must be off the charts.
Finally, consider this: Bird, Parish, McHale, Maxwell, Walton, Pickney, Ainge, Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn, Havlicek, and Cowens all have one thing in common: They were brought to Boston by Red Auerbach without, as far as I know, a SMIDGEN of statistical analysis. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? And what, then, does that make RED’S win score? : >
derz
May 29, 2009
So scalabrine is the worst celtic ever? yeah…makes sense.
mike is a dumbass
May 29, 2009
yep.
rt
May 30, 2009
jiri welsh baby. i knew he was productive when he played
Sophomore
May 30, 2009
One more vote for ranking the players by wins/48 minutes played. Mediocrity over a long career shouldn’t count for so much.
Also – I’d give a few bonus points to Theo Ratliff and his expiring contract for making KG possible. That got us a lot of wins : )
Sophomore
May 30, 2009
Whoops. Pulled the trigger too fast. Some pretty mediocre players look to have put up mad numbers for a short time. Have a look at Danny Fortson (!) I withdraw my comment. It’s a problem that somebody like Toine ranks so high, given his contributions/48, but I don’t have the solution.
JoeM
May 30, 2009
You could just look at WP Above average.
Any play that produced below the .100 threshold would be below anyone who contributed above the .100 threshold though.
Boston Rob
May 30, 2009
Absolutely unforgivable… Where’s Brian Scalabrine on the list???
@boston rob
May 30, 2009
calm down. im pretty sure scalabrine is #11
mrparker
May 30, 2009
I’ve always wondered what the best way to quantify contribution to a franchise was. I propose we come up with some sort of GPA. After all we wouldn’t reward a D student for staying in college 15 years.
TylerH
May 31, 2009
Professor:
Just looking for some ammo to argue with the kobe fans out there….and would like to know what Lebron would have done with teammates the quality of Kobe’s. Is there anyway to rate the quality or their respective teammates? I would imagine using winsscore you could do this. Who has the best teammates, statistically anyways? I would assume the Lakers are #1….Thanks
Anon
May 31, 2009
i’m pretty sure WP48 has pau gasol as the most productive laker.
Phil
May 31, 2009
mrparker,
As someone a lot more clever than I once said, “The most important ability is availability.”
Tyler,
Last year, I believe the Rockets had the best supporting cast of any team according to WP. Makes sense – they’ve been able to have (relative) success even with Yao and/or TMac out of the lineup. The Jazz and Blazers, like the Lakers, also have a ton of above average players.
If you want to calculate a player’s teammates’ worth (according to WP), just subtract that players wins from the team’s predicted win total. In the below link, dberri did just that (and adjusted for if the player was replaced by an average teammate).
http://www.wagesofwins.com/2009MVP.html
The Lakers are still a playoff team without Kobe, by the way, but probably not contenders.
Michael
May 31, 2009
Professor can I ask a question please. You said ‘every player in each season is evaluted relative to the other players in that season.’ I am wondering are players today in general better than they were in the 80s and 90s, or were the better in general back then?
The reason I ask is say Michael Jordan has a 0.4+ wp48 in the late 80s early 90s, and Lebron James has the same score in 2009, who’s score means more relative to the strength of the league in general? Is that something you have kept track of?
Thanks
David M
May 31, 2009
How the hell is rajon rondo up there at number 7 and ray allen is not like seriously this is a joke and KG aint even play tis year last year ray allen was the real finals MVP paul pierce was the playoffs MVP but it was ray allen that got them that championship and he pretty much led the celtics through chicago this year and hes not on this list but rondo is GTF outta here
ilikeflowers
May 31, 2009
I recently spoke to David M, he apologized for the wasted space and said ‘what I really had meant to say was B and C’.
Michael
May 31, 2009
Wow the link from nes 24/7 has really attracted an insightful crowd.
Stephen
May 31, 2009
Rajon Rondo… Really?
What about Antoine Walker in his hey-day
Mark T
June 1, 2009
I think that the ranking of Dennis Johnson shows the weaknesses in a box-score-based methodology. In the 4 years before DJ joined the Celtics, they made the NBA finals once. After he joined them, they made the next four straight. There were no other big changes among the players getting minutes. There couldn’t be better evidence of his value than that.
Maxwell was a very, very good player, just overshadowed by publicity given Bird.
simon
June 2, 2009
Mark, I think the Celtics’ newly found success had more to do with natural development of its then-young core and decline of the 76ers.
Dennis Johnson had memorable moments and his defensive contribution might’ve been underestimated by the WoW model, but I don’t think the said team success necessarily proves DJ’s worth one way or another in this case.
kevin
June 2, 2009
I agree with Mark T… to an extent. Boxscore statistics underrate straight-up defense, DJ’s calling card. He also tended to make the pass before the pass before the basket, so his assists numbers don’t help him.
Beyond that, this list is really fun. I’m not surprised by maxwell’s high rating. His FG% was ridiculously high and he got goodly numbers of rebounds, blocks and assists.
Check out the bottom of the list. In over 9000 minutes, Walter McCarty could crack the bottom 10. Now you know why Rick Pitino sucked as a pro coach.
kevin
June 2, 2009
That should say “couldn’t” crack the bottom 10.
I wish there were an edit function…
lupita
June 4, 2009
the boston celtics are the best then are the san antonio spurs third is the orlando magic!!ball that shtt outta here.
misterchomps
June 19, 2009
Regarding DJ, Larry Bird throughout his career stated that Johnson was the best player he’d ever played with. I realize his anecdotal remark pales in significance compared with statistical analysis, but I timidly hypothesize that Bird may have known something about winning basketball games.