There has been some confusion on my post from a few days ago entitled: Do we under-value scorers and should Al Harrington cash in?
The purpose of this post was to refute the contention that we under-value scorers. Please go HERE for the analysis of scorers in 2005-06 which shows that most of the game’s top scorers also score high in Wins Produced.
Now our research does show that inefficient scorers are over-valued in the NBA’s free agent market. So player’s like Allen Iverson, who was above average in Wins Produced this past season but not ranked as high as his media hype would suggest, tend to be paid more than their actual contribution to team success.
By the way, here is what Steve Kerr said about Allen Iverson just two days ago:
“This is not Charles Barkley or Shaquille O’Neal being shopped – a physical specimen who can dominate games and change the course of a franchise. Iverson is tiny – a ferocious competitor, yes, but a slightly built, high-volume, low-percentage shooter. (He has shot 42 percent for his career.) Yes, he’s a brilliant scorer – he poured in 33 points a night for the Sixers this past season – but he needs a lot of attempts to score his points. He dominates the ball and would dramatically alter the look of any team he joins. So any team that has a plan in place and is making progress would be very wary of threatening its blueprint by adding Iverson.”
Kerr seems to indicate that there are deficiencies to Iverson’s game. Furthermore, let me repeat the last sentence: “…any team that has a plan in place and is making progress would be very wary of threatening its blueprint by adding Iverson.”
Okay, enough on Iverson. Let’s get back to the point of this post (as if these posts had a point) and talk about another scorer – Reggie Miller.
Reggie Miller was an All-Pro shooting guard for the Indiana Pacers for 18 seasons. In his career he was definitely a scorer, averaging 18 points per game and more than one point every two minutes played. But looking at the other dimensions of performance – rebounds, steals, turnovers, assists, blocked shots – there is no other area where Miller excelled. His only real contribution to his team was as a scorer.
So what does he look like in terms of Wins Produced? If you go HERE you will see that from 1991-92 to his retirement in 2004-05, Miller produced 126.9 wins. His Wins Produced per 48 minutes (WP48) averaged 0.164. And this number is deflated since I left out his first four seasons (because I don’t have those years completely analyzed and I don’t want to do this analysis for a simpe post).
Why was a pure scorer so adept at producing wins? The key is Miller’s shooting efficiency. About ten years ago Rob Neyer – quoting Michael Canter — argued that one good way to assess efficiency from the field is to subtract free throws made from a player’s points total and then divide by field goal attempts [(PTS-FTM)/FGA]. The average player in the NBA scores a bit less than one point per field goal attempt. In every year of Miller’s career he averaged more than one point per shot from the field. Not suprisingly, such efficiency translates into victories.
In sum, I do not think the evidence shows that we undervalue scorers. Then again, if someone produces a model with the statistics valued differently – and that model can be shown to have greater explanatory and predictive power – then I am all in favor of using the new model. But you can’t just say you have a better mousestrap, you have to show me the dead mice (okay, that analogy got away from me a bit, I think I better stop writing today).
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Harold Almonte
July 20, 2006
I´m a newcomer about all of this basketball moneyball, but I´ve could see there are too schools of rating analysts: the staticians, who use regressions and all that stuff I don´t understand (I think are averages based on game history, I don´t know if it´s fair to do that, even to analyze wins); and those who assign values based on their knowledge or their logic about the game (trying to translate everything to possesions, I suppose), and no one undervalue scorers, maybe another stat. Both have Scoring and it´s efficiency as the most important weight, for performance and for winning.
Travis
July 20, 2006
DJ,
I want to start by thanking you for mathematically proving something that I have been saying for years which is that Reggie Miller has always been overrated as a teams go to guy. I know a lot of people that worship Reggie Miller (I live an hour outside of Indianapolis)and are always touting his greatness. But I have always been quick to say that he was never a good defended and only an average dribbler and passer. He could hit three’s but when thats all you can do then well thats all you can do.
I was also wondering if you have ever ran your Win Score model on the duo of John Stockton and Karl Malone? I think it would be interesting to find out which player was more valuable in terms of wins produced (compared to their positions) on those great Jazz teams in the mid 90’s. Even though Karl Malone scored efficiently and rebounded well I suspect that Stockton (despite his short shorts) was more valuable because he could shot very accurately and is the NBA’s all time leader in both steals and assists.
Keep the posts coming they are great every time,
-Travis W
dberri
July 20, 2006
Travis,
Thanks for the kind words but I thought I was saying that Reggie Miller was really a great player. Yes, he only had one real skill. But he shot so well that it overcame the fact that his contributions elsewhere were minimal.
As for Stockton and Malone… this is quite interesting. From 1993-94 to 2002-03, Malone produced 162.4 wins. Over these same years, Stockton produced 162.1 wins. Now Malone did play more minutes over this time period, so on a per-minute basis Stockton was the more productive player.
So your suspicions for Stockton has some supporting evidence.
Tom Mandel
July 20, 2006
In fact, I think your analysis indicates that Reggie Miller was *very much* a “go-to” guy. You would go to a guy in the crunch because he’s an efficient scorer — not because he’s an efficient rebounder or passer.
dberri
July 20, 2006
Tom,
Exactly. The key to producing wins is to do something well (and not do something else that hurts your team). Reggie was an efficient scorer. Ben Wallace is a great rebounder. Both produce wins but in different ways.
By the way, I looked at your website. Very interesting stuff. You appear to have a few more interests in life than basketball (which is good).
Tom Mandel
July 21, 2006
I also have a lot of connections to economics, DJ. My sister Elisabeth is a U of Chi. econ PhD, and her husband is William Landes. My daughter Jessica is a VP at Lexecon.
(But… don’t confuse me with a ‘free market’ theorist!)
Travis
July 21, 2006
DJ,
Thanks for getting the stats on Stockton and Malone up so quickly; you definitely confirmed just how great and efficient both of those players truly were. I wonder what all the Iverson worshippers would have to say when you compared his wins produced with that of the much more efficient and productive John Stockton. I have a feeling they would try and make the “popularity” argument or the scoring argument while failing to realize that there is no correlation between a players popularity and the gate receipts he brings to his team. Stockton may not have the “star power” or ability to score in volume like an Iverson does but he is more efficient and much more valuable, albeit maybe not as exciting to the casual fan.
When I was talking about Reggie Miller I was talking in response to all the people (most of which live in my city) that think Reggie Miller is one of the top five players of all time. Miller was an efficient scorer and I would love for him to play for my favorite team but he is not the type of player that is capable of carrying a team. He is an efficient scorer but like you said not much else. Therefore I think he’s a great player just not in the same league as a Jordan, Bird, Johnson, or even Stockton.
Thanks again and keep the comments coming,
-Travis W
Harold Almonte
July 21, 2006
Many people don´t eat at all the bad shooting efficiency/bad selection as a bad stat or a waste, and talk about: somebody needs to score, clutch shots, score in the 4th. quarter, bad selection isn´t always the shooter´s fault, non assisted shots, make the own shot, principal scoring option, top focus of the defense, and others arguments/ ¿justifies? for scorers (the most of the time shorties long distance shooters) playing in a team of good or bad non-scorers. Many people don´t agree with the possesion value (some people say 1 possesion=0.9 points) of turnovers, rebounds, etc., and talk about isolated or team defense, non-converted possesions has no value even if are wasted by the shooter, it could have been a failed offensive play after all, etc. It´s a “must be” minds against staticians “it was done and stats say” minds. ¿Are really staticians nearer the true?
Ryan
July 25, 2006
Hello DJ
I am looking for ways to apply your productivity measurements to coaching our high-school-aged basketball, do you have a method to translate the Win Scores and Wins Produced to a 32-minute game or 40-minute game format?
Thank you, enjoy the insight from your studies, and wish I had your job.
Sincerely
Ryan
dberri
July 25, 2006
Ryan,
In the NBA teams average close to one point per possession. That is why points are worth roughly the same as rebounds, turnovers, steals, etc… Do you know how many points your high school team scores per possession? If you know that, you can create a formula for high school. At least, I think you can.