As we wait patiently for the 2010-11 season to get started, ESPN.com is entertaining fans by holding a vote for the greatest players in the history of each NBA franchise. Henry Abbott – of TrueHoop – checked in on this vote on Monday and discovered a result that left him unhappy.
Something terrible has happened. …Perhaps the most important player in Blazer history didn’t even make the starting five. Maurice Lucas should come in first or second as the franchise’s all-time MVP, and instead finished behind both Rasheed Wallace and Sidney Wicks. Lucas got just 14.6% of the lousy power forward vote.
For those unfamiliar with NBA history, Lucas began playing in the ABA in 1974. When the ABA merged with the NBA, Lucas joined the Portland Trail Blazers in 1976. That first season, Lucas produced approximately 10.2 wins* with a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.171. So Lucas was an above average performer on a team that went on to win the NBA title in 1977.
The next season the productivity of Lucas slipped to only 5.8 wins and a 0.131 WP48. In 1978-79, though Lucas returned to what we saw in the championship season. His WP48 that season was 0.166 and he produced 8.5 wins. In sum, Lucas was an above average performer from 1976-77 to 1978-79, posting numbers that are similar to what we saw from Amare Stoudemire this past season (Stoudemire’s WP48 was 0.170 in 2009-10).
Despite these numbers, Portland fans prefer Rasheed Wallace and Sidney Wicks. Both of these players, though, offered less than Lucas. Rasheed’s very best season – in terms of Wins Produced — was in 2001-02 when he produced 8.5 wins and posted a 0.138 WP48. In other words, Wallace at his very best, was not as good as Maurice Lucas.
Sidney Wicks, though, might have been a little bit better. At least for one season. In 1974-75, Wicks** produced 11.8 wins with a 0.179 WP48. Wicks, though, was below average in 1973-74 and 1974-75, and produced in the negative range for the Clippers the last three years of his career (1978-79 to 1980-81).
In contrast, Lucas just got better after leaving Portland. Lucas was sent to the New Jersey Nets in the midst of the 1979-80 season. Across the next five seasons, Lucas posted the following numbers:
- 1980-81 (Nets): 5.5 Wins Produced, 0.122 WP48
- 1981-82 (Knicks): 14.9 Wins Produced, 0.267 WP48
- 1982-83 (Suns): 9.7 Wins Produced, 0.180 WP48
- 1983-84 (Suns): 11.9 Wins Produced, 0.248 WP48
- 1984-85 (Suns): 6.3 Wins Produced, 0.180 WP48
After the 1984-85 season, Lucas was 33 years old. He then played three more seasons with the Lakers, Sonics, and then Blazers. But across these three years, though, he only produced 6.7 wins.
Prior to age taking its toll, though, Lucas was very productive. And his career WP48 of 0.159 easily tops what we see from Wallace [0.089 career WP48] and Wicks [0.079 career WP48]. So if your choice is Lucas, Wallace, or Wicks, then I think Henry is on to something. Lucas was the more productive power forward in this trio.
Of course, Portland fans did have another choice. About 6% of fans chose Charles Linwood Williams as the best power forward in team history. Buck Williams began his career in 1981 and came to the Blazers before the 1989-90 season. Williams had his best season in his career with the Nets in 1981-82. That year he produced 22.3 wins and posted a 0.362 WP48. Williams never surpassed the o.300 mark again, but he did post WP48 marks beyond the 0.200 threshold in eight more seasons (something Lucas only did twice in the NBA). Three of these were with the Blazers, with the best season coming in 1990-91. That year Williams produced 12.4 wins with a 0.231 WP48. Those numbers surpass anything offered by Lucas, Wallace, or Wicks. In sum, I think one can argue that Buck Williams was the “best” power forward in Portland team history.
Let me close by noting two issues. First, Buck Williams – relative to Maurice Lucas – was the more efficient scorer. And this is primarily why Williams was more productive. Secondly, I have a table ranking the most productive players in Blazer history. And it appears Wins Produced strongly disagrees with the fans of the Blazers at another position. My hope is to post this table — and a corresponding discussion—tomorrow (or some day soon).
– DJ
*-The NBA did not start tracking turnovers for individuals until 1977-78, but given what we know about his career, we can estimate for Lucas how many turnovers he committed in 1976-77. Therefore we can estimate his Win Score – and therefore Wins Produced – for the 76-77 season.
** – Wicks began his career in 1971-72. Until the 1973-74 campaign, the NBA did not track steals, blocked shots, or turnovers for individuals. Given what we know of his performance later in his career, though, we can estimate what Wicks did with respect to these statistics. It is with these estimates that we can approximate his Win Score and Wins Produced.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Sam Cohen
September 22, 2010
I’m assuming that the “*” and “**” marks are meant to indicate that the wins produced for those years are estimates because of a lack of turnover data. Is that correct?
dberri
September 22, 2010
They mean that there are footnotes. Right now, these are invisible :) Later on today I will make the visible. And yes, they essentially say that I had to guess at some data to calculate Wins Produced.
jbrett
September 22, 2010
I had this one right a split-second after reading the title of the article, and I doubt I was the only one. For the first six years of his career, Buck averaged nearly 17 ppg in around 37 minutes a game, despite shooting around 65% from the foul line. He could rebound and defend a little, too.
One could make the case that his shot selection was very, very good–so I’m about to pick a fight with the shot creation crowd. I didn’t see every game of his career, but I don’t remember Buck making a shot beyond 12 feet. Ever. Yet, in his prime, he was a decent scorer. Should he have shot more? Even if his % dropped?
Different question: I employ a Maurice Lucas type at PF. Like Mo, my guy has eked out one year barely over 50% shooting. I offer him a contract with a bonus if he gets to 55%. What happens? I say he balks at the incentive (or his agent does), in favor of something more appealing, like higher ppg. Let’s say I throw in the bonus, gratis; here’s what I want to know–assuming the player has the desire to raise his FG%, does he have the ability? Can his agent, or wife, or dad, or coach, or the team statistician, do what the Hawks must have done with Josh Smith, and convince him to stop shooting the shots he flat can’t make? Is Josh the poster-boy for “coaching ’em up?” He fits the profile now–one year barely over 50%; if he stopped shooting from 16-22 feet, could he get to 55%? And would he be a more productive player? I’ll go ahead and posit an answer to that last one: Yes.
Larry Weyer
September 22, 2010
Averages are misleading. People can easily drowd in a lake that’s average depth is six inches. So let’s get down to the question. Luke was THE BEST power forward in team history. PERIOD. You have to remember, it’s been thirty-five years since he won a championship for Portland, so a lot of voters had no idea what he did for the team.
Also, being from a small hick town, I remember running into Luke on a Portland street the last year he played for us. I was coming from a meeting and he was going to one. My friend and I stopped him and started asking him a bunch of questions and he stayed and answered them as if he had all the time in the world. That’s when I learned that “THE INFORCER” was really a nice man. To even mention Sheed in the same breathe as Luke is quite frankly sickening.
Leroy Smith
September 22, 2010
So, Larry, because he was such a nice guy we should disregard the stats? No offense, but your point was well made (even with no facts) before the little additon about how nice he was to you and your friend.
Alex D.
September 22, 2010
You just made a whole post about Maurice Lucas’s career without once mentioning Bill Walton. This is like describing Pippen’s career without mentioning Michael Jordan. Is this supposed to be a basketball blog, or what? I understand that Wins Produced is meant to aid us in our understanding of basketball, but it’s one number, people. It’s not the ultimate arbiter of who is “above average” or who is “most productive over the season.” It cannot be used to settle an argument. It’s just a strong indication that “hey, maybe Melo isn’t the fourth best player in the league, let’s be more cautious with such statements” for example. It isn’t a substitute for watching the games, nor is watching the games a substitute for statistical analysis; Win Produced is a certain type of description that makes sense in some situations and not in others – just like any empirical description. The unwillingness to qualify or even buffer the descriptions of WP with just a hair of doubt make the reasonable skeptic extremely suspicious.
jbrett
September 22, 2010
Alex,
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting DJ, or anyone, doesn’t think Bill Walton could play? Or that Lucas was better, or worse, for teaming with him? I can’t tell. You want more focus on Mo as part of a team? Well, so is every NBA player, ever; how is that relevant?
As to your other complaint, there’s a conversation over at NerdNumbers on the very subject of the ‘have to watch the games’ chestnut. Bottom line? You can’t watch enough to really know anything beyond who’s pretty and who isn’t–and it doesn’t tell you who produces and who doesn’t. It’s just math. None of us have that kind of time, or the eye to see everything going on. Under what circumstances would a metric that produced a 94%-accurate representation of the many things your eye can’t keep track of NOT make sense? No, it isn’t a pefect representation of reality–but if you think you’re better off with your one set of eyes (and one dry throat, one empty stomach, and one full bladder), you’re kidding yourself.
What is it you think you see that Wins Produced doesn’t address? Your post doesn’t tell us; for all I can tell, you’re basing your argument on intangibles, or vertical leap, or shoe size. At least Larry has a personal encounter to cite; I would suggest his case be rephrased as Mo Lucas was the best PERSON to play PF in Blazers’ history, and while he might not agree with my editing, I can at least follow his train of thought. But to say this isn’t a basketball blog because it doesn’t jibe with what you haphazardly observe is frankly old hat here; you may not have known that before, but be assured you’re not the first poster to arrive here via turnip truck.
Larry Weyer
September 23, 2010
To clarify my earlier post: There was a reason Luke was called ‘The Enforcer’. Go to ‘YouTube ‘ and search it. He had Daryl Dawkins running around the stadium like a little girl running from a snake. 76er’s had the series in hand until that happened. It’s not a very good clip and doesn’t show all that happened but ‘I’ remember it. Philly folded after that and Portland took the Championship. I also remember CBS cutting away to regular programing immediately after Portland won the series. If Philly had won there would have been post game enterviews into the wee hours…alas, we have a small market. I degress again. I was a Lucas fan long before meeting him on the street. Yes, I was surprised by his patience with utter strangers, but he had already had set himself up as the Greatest Power Forward in team history.
Sorry, I’m not a collector of numbers, only memories. He brought fear to opponents and respect to a ‘small market team’.
notherbert
September 23, 2010
Larry mentioned what comes to mind for me and the Portland championship, Philly came out strong in that series then there was a big fight and the series changed. it was actually a bit shocking to see such a shift in a series, especially when Philadelphia was so highly favored. i don’t remember the series well enough to know how much responsibility Lucas should get for the fight but here is an interesting moment that changed a short series of games that turned out to maybe be the most important aspect of a franchises history, a very interesting and relative thing to try and figure into a player’s “bestness”.
to defend Alex a bit, i can say i agree with the sentiment of his last statement. there are times while reading Wages of Wins network articles that i’d like more context or story line mixed in with the metrics. i like WP48 and it gives me a good picture of what a player is doing but sometimes i like to know a little bit more. added story line that i’d like in the future would be to flush out the variance in a players WP48 from year to year with a little description of what built the metric change, like when Lucas doubled his production with his move to the Knicks, was it because he crashed the offensive glass for the first time in his career or did he move to the high post and became a facilitator, averaging double digit assists? these are silly suggestions and Lucas’ WP48 were just listed to show year to year production but i think there is space in the WOW network to include a bit more context to the metric, especially when there is greater variance shown in a players WP48. i tend to feel more confident about findings when the doubts of the field are described.
Sam Cohen
September 23, 2010
Alex D. (and anyone else who wants a discussion of the relative importance of Bill Walton to the Trailblazers)-https://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/is-it-teamwork-a-history-lesson/
Alex D.
September 23, 2010
“Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting DJ, or anyone, doesn’t think Bill Walton could play? Or that Lucas was better, or worse, for teaming with him? I can’t tell. You want more focus on Mo as part of a team? Well, so is every NBA player, ever; how is that relevant?”
Because Lucas was a speedy fast-breaking player in Bill Walton and Jack Ramsay’s Portland system, that was known as an “enforcer” and an outside threat. These are basic facts as important as the fact that he played power forward. It’s not just that he was on the team, it’s that his production was in the context of the team, and the fact that Lucas was the perfect type of power forward to play with an injury-prone, UCLA-fast-break, outlet passing Bill Walton.
Not believing these facts are salient is one thing, but not even *noting* these facts and skipping right to WP48 (in a discussion of best PF in Portland history) is bizarre. Contextualize and you will be right more often and more broadly. That’s all I’m saying.
nerdnumbers
September 23, 2010
Oh man some great stuff here. First off JBrett has made some great points about “I saw that player play and I know they were great” comments. Glad to see my one post on it didn’t change everyone’s minds.
FACT using uppercase words in an arguments proves your point without evidence. . .FACT
“Contextualize and you will be right more often and more broadly. ”
I just want to point out to contextualize means to fit within a context. How is making something more specific going to help your argument be more broad? Not saying there is not room to help explain things but to claim doing so makes your argument more general is wrong. Also the question at hand was best PF, so bringing up Walton seems a little out of place beyond maybe saying “In a great championship season with. . . “
Alex D.
September 23, 2010
“As to your other complaint, there’s a conversation over at NerdNumbers on the very subject of the ‘have to watch the games’ chestnut. Bottom line? You can’t watch enough to really know anything beyond who’s pretty and who isn’t–and it doesn’t tell you who produces and who doesn’t. It’s just math. ”
Also, I feel I should address this, given that I watched several games last year, and I have read several statistical interpretations of the game of basketball, the strongest of which is generally WP48.
We can’t watch enough to know the production of every player in the league, I agree. But I think it’s a bit ridiculous to claim that someone that is, say, watching fifty or sixty different games for three separate teams can only judge who is pretty. The claim is ridiculous in precisely the same way it is ridiculous to claim, say, statistics can only tell us “meaningless numbers”. The “Wages of Wins” book accurately counters the first claim with “Well, if you think statistics don’t matter, then why don’t we disregard the score, which is just a statistic?” To counter the second claim, analogously I would add that someone has to be watching the game to score all those points, rebounds, assists, and FGA in the first place. If we’re going to allow that a small group of people can accurately determine who is scoring and who is rebounding, and so on, virtually on the fly, why couldn’t we acknowledge that a sufficiently well-versed viewer should be able to allocate responsibility for a play better than a (necessarily abstracting) statistical description of that play? The thing is, a solid percentage of viewers *are* this well-versed (especially in the wake of statistical blogs like this that emphasize efficiency), and that disregarding these viewers’ impressions of a play totally is as ridiculous as disregarding the box score.
In any case, I think we can all agree that statistics could be better kept, which could close the gap in our perspectives, but we cannot just pretend that the other side of the gap is acting from pure symbol manipulation or nebulous aesthetic.
nerdnumbers
September 23, 2010
Alex,
First off my major point on “watching games” was how for most people it is not a viable method for getting information. Also it takes a lot of time. Now the next part is how people handle multiple information streams. Watching games may help but I seriously doubt it is as good as using good stats models. The problem is many people who get both will trust their eyes over the model. (Essentially they try and mold the model to what they saw as opposed to letting their eyes help contribute to what their model said)
The other way I’ll put it is this. Give me all of Berri’s, Hollinger’s and Oliver’s work OR all of the opinions of every analyst on every network and I take the models every day of the week. People do not weight different forms of information and when it comes to the eyeball model that is a very dangerous thing.
Westy
September 23, 2010
You note that you estimated those prior numbers used here. Have you ever given thought to estimating numbers for all prior players and calculating WP for players from the ’50s-’70s? Even if just estimates, it seems it would be good information, and with an appropriate disclaimer, it couldn’t hurt. Maybe Andres’ site can be expanded to include these players.
In fact, I believe the folks over at Basketball Reference may have already done player stat estimates for those prior years. I wonder if they’d share that information?
jbrett
September 23, 2010
Ok, I’m gonna take a shot at this, on all the different levels getting responses.
Larry Weyer and notherbert have argued that Lucas’ presence, physicality, and fit within the team concept make him the clear choice at PF. I understand the argument; I’m reminded of the ’84 Finals, and how momentum swung when McHale clotheslined Rambis–just a foul on the stat sheet, but seemingly huge in the real world. I get the idea. However…
Efficiency differential is a solid predictor of team success, right? (If you don’t agree, you’re probably on the wrong blog.) I went back and looked at the numbers for BOTH finals–and the teams that won should have been EXPECTED to win. I’m not saying I’m certain that the ‘enforcer’ plays in each series were irrelevant–but I am saying the evidence that they CHANGED either series is sketchy at best. I know what it LOOKED like; I’m much less sure what it actually WAS. You may FEEL otherwise, but you have zero proof; what you have is ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc.’
(By the way? Big Mo Lucas fan. Just trying to be objective.)
Alex D. trusts his eyes, at least way more than I trust mine. I didn’t miss eight Laker games last year, or any playoff games–and I still come away from every game believing Shannon Brown is a solid contributor. Wins Produced says he isn’t even close to it. So what am I seeing?
Best guess? He LOOKS good. He’s a physical specimen. He’s not making the team better; he’s close to making them worse. I KNOW this–and yet, every game, I think, “Maybe he’s turned the corner,” but his numbers are always what they are. MY EYES ARE WRONG. OVER AND OVER. And so are yours. Maybe you’re a much better observer than I am–way, way better. You’re a supergenius, and your observations are twenty times more accurate and comprehensive than mine. You’re still wrong a lot of the time–and worse, there isn’t enough time in your whole life for you to improve to an empirically useful level. If you’re unwilling to use the statistical tools that are readily available to inform your hopelessly skewed eyeball conclusions, rather than the other way around, then I have to believe you either have an emotional agenda or an intellectual block.
Alex D.
September 23, 2010
“If you’re unwilling to use the statistical tools that are readily available to inform your hopelessly skewed eyeball conclusions, rather than the other way around, then I have to believe you either have an emotional agenda or an intellectual block.”
If you were actually reading instead of huffing and frothing, you would have noticed that no one is saying “disregard stats it’s all just numbers somewhere.” I’m saying let’s supplement our stats and eyeballs to strike a balance because both media are flawed in their own ways – for those of us that know math and have watched some of these teams for 90 or so hours, that’s not the most insane-sounding proposition, now, is it? I realize that some here (nerdnumbers, quite eloquently) doubt that the eyes have ANY value, and I sympathize with that view. But insulting me because of your petty fixations speaks only of yourself. dberri needs better followers than you, jbrett, but luckily for you you’re probably driving them away.
jbrett
September 23, 2010
Alex D.,
You’re quoting a sentence that sounds insulting ONLY if you disregard the rest of the paragraph it ends. I can have no way of evaluating your ‘eyeball test’ abilities, nor was I offering an opinion; I’m saying that even if your observational skill is 20 times better than mine, it is STILL hopelessly skewed. You can disagree with the premise, but you cannot in fairness froth it into an insult. I’m also saying that letting your eyes inform your interpretation of the data is, in my view, putting the cart before the horse; it is far too inefficient.
And if you are insulted by the suggestion you might have an emotional agenda, you must have missed my confession to one of my own, regarding Shannon Brown; if you feel I’m slighting you by suggesting that you are intellectually blocking, it is because your premise is not subject to quantification or verification: ‘My eyes tell me otherwise.’ If I wanted to be insulting, I might have picked at your statement about allowing a small group of people to determine who is scoring–but I understood what you meant. I don’t even intend to say that I’m free of intellectual blocks, myself; I really want to believe that Boston beat LA in ’84 because the officials allowed the brawlers to get away with criminal behavior, rather than that the team with HCA and the better differential won in seven. I feel rational when I suggest that had LA drafted Dominique Wilkins over Worthy, he would be spoken of in the same breath as MJ. I just don’t know how much of either judgment is pure fact, and how much is really my personality.
I don’t trust my eyes, or yours, to be cameras; we can watch the same thing and reach vastly different conclusions. (Also, I’m watching to enjoy the game, not break it down.) That’s why the stats are critical; without an objective framework, every discussion will devolve into “didn’t you see that?” or “I remember when he…” or, finally, “you don’t know what you’re talking about.” I can NEVER watch enough games to claim I’m doing more than interpreting what I believe makes a good player, and I don’t think I believe anyone has proven to me that they are good enough at it to even deserve a paycheck for the effort; track records border on random. Are there statistical errors? Sure. Are they more misleading than you, me, and David Kahn all thinking we’re seeing the same things? I say not a chance.
notherbert
September 25, 2010
hmmm jbrett, you include me in your chatting, so i will chat.
i read the WoW network to learn more about basketball. i don’t do complicated work on Calc. i enjoy thinking and maybe yes expanding and connecting.
i like Buck Williams more than Lucas, is that relevant? i don’t know but i like thinking it. i also know, that i know nothing about these players and wouldn’t state who’s better. i think its neat to look at the idea that in some people’s minds championships are really ‘great’ and i wonder how a championship haver would do versus and better WP48 player. i have no clue, but am curious and try to live in a waterfall world where questions don’t always have opinions.
i think a rake is more appropriate than a leaf blower but in reality, i rent and use neither.
jbrett
September 26, 2010
notherbert,
You have a pleasant way of phrasing things, and it sounds like you are unlikely to work yourself into a frenzy over abstract discussions of sports; I envy that a bit. I don’t do much math, either; I liked both guys, but I always thought Mo looked the part of a power forward more than anyone else. I’m glad if I haven’t offended you the way I appear to have offended Alex D.; perhaps I should have used a more neutral voice, or avoided personal pronouns.
At the risk of churning things up again, I’d like to say that I think it is important, particularly on this and similar blogs, to be aware of the difference between how much you or I enjoy watching a player, and how valuable he actually is to his team. There are plenty of guys I really like to see on the court, and I am relatively new to the concept that they might not be producing anything more than a pretty picture. I grew up on the Showtime Lakers; I have a major soft spot for passing wizards, and greyhounds who can finish on the break. I loved all the aging veterans they brought in to provide a lift off the bench, or spell an aging Kareem. It is tough to come to grips with how many of those players contributed very little to the teams’ success–but I can find tons of places to share stories about Magic’s amazing passes, or Coop and Byron and AC and Worthy throwing it down.
There are way better places for that than here, a blog created to quantify players’ actual contributions to winning. I’ll talk basketball with anyone, all day, as far back as I can remember (Game 5, 1970, West’s 63-footer at the buzzer), and I’ll hound you for stories if you’re older than me; I just won’t do that HERE. It doesn’t make sense for THIS space to be about anecdote, or fandom, and it doesn’t make sense for guys like Alex to open up with incendiary posts that boil down to “How dare your analysis draw that conclusion; I saw that guy play, and your math must be flawed,” and then be offended when someone points out that it’s apples and oranges.
To be clear, I don’t have any problem with someone illustrating a point with story or anecdote; however, if the whole point of the post is “My memories trump your math,” the poster is likely preaching to the wrong congregation. Should I come out with guns blazing every time it happens? Probably not. And I am absolutely NOT referring to you; this is a general comment only–but posters should not be surprised if the Luddite tone of their remarks gets a chilly reception.
I don’t know if this is a dialogue that interests you; if you care to respond, or offer a different perspective, I’ll be glad to continue.
evanz
September 26, 2010
Now that the ESPN Best Franchise tourney is down to Chicago vs. LA (which looks like LA is going to win), WoW should do an article on who would *really* have won the tournament based on career or peak WP48. That would be interesting to see.