With yesterday’s comment on the 76ers, there is now only one NBA team I have not commented on this season. And that team is the Milwaukee Bucks.
Milwaukee History
Two decades ago the Milwaukee Bucks finished the 1986-87 campaign with 50 victories. This marked the seventh consecutive season the Bucks won at least 50 games, establishing Milwaukee as one of the elite teams of the 1980s.
Today, elite and the Bucks don’t go together. In the past twenty seasons this franchise has managed at least 40 wins eleven different times. But only once – in 2000-01 – did the team reach 50 victories. In essence, with one lone exception, Milwaukee has become the embodiment of NBA medi0crity.
The 2000-01 season, though, was the exception. That year the Bucks won 52 games and took the Central Division title. The Bucks even advanced to the Eastern Conference Finals in 2001, losing a seven game series to the Philadelphia 76ers (a Philadelphia team I examined last July).
Looking back on this magical Milwaukee season we see a Bucks team that was led by Ray Allen (17.7 Wins Produced), Glenn Robinson (8.9 Wins Produced), Sam Cassell (8.2 Wins Produced), and Ervin Johnson (7.6 Wins Produced). In the next season each of these players slipped in terms of Wins Production. Where these players combined for 42.5 wins in 2000-01, in 2001-02 this foursome only produced 28 wins. Although Michael Redd joined the team in 2001-02, the team was only able to win 41 games because its leaders were a bit less productive.
Mediocrity continued in 2002-03 and by the start of the 2003-04 season, the four leaders of the 2001 playoff run had departed. The limited success of the 2000-01 campaign also departed the franchise, and so far has not been replaced.
The Bucks in 2006-07
This season the Bucks have only won 22 of its first 61 games. In other words, Milwaukee is once again on pace to win about 30 contests, which is a step below what the team did last year (although consistent with the 2004-05 campaign).
Part of the problem this year has been injuries. Redd, who has posted a Wins Produced per 48 minutes of 0.122, has missed 20 games. Maurice Williams, with a WP48 of 0.142, has missed ten contests. Had these players played the entire season the Bucks might be much closer to winning half its games. In other words, injuries have robbed this team another chance to be mediocre.
Obviously the fans of Milwaukee would prefer something more than just an average team. The problem – as the following review of this team’s Wins Produced reveals — is that this team simply lacks that one star player a franchise needs to achieve NBA elite status.
Table One: The Milwaukee Bucks after 61 games
Currently Milwaukee is led in Wins Produced by Ruben Patterson. Yes, Patterson is above average this season. But if he is your leading Win Producer, you probably have some problems on your roster.
Number One Choices the Second Time Around
Andrew Bogut, as the first player taken in the 2005 draft, is expected to be the team’s major producer of Wins. This year, though, he only offers a WP48 of 0.121. This is above average, but not quite the level of output we tend to think we should see in the second season of a player taken with the first pick overall. Consider the second year performance of the ten most recent top choices (year drafted in parenthesis):
- Dwight Howard (2004): 0.280 WP48
- LeBron James (2003): 0.307 WP48
- Yao Ming (2002): 0.211 WP48
- Kwame Brown (2001): 0.064 WP48
- Kenyon Martin (2000): -0.015 WP48
- Elton Brand (1999): 0.127 WP48
- Michael Olowokandi (1998): -0.031 WP48
- Tim Duncan (1997): 0.254 WP48
- Allen Iverson (1996): 0.140 WP48
- Joe Smith (1995): 0.009 WP48
Bogut’s efforts this season pale in comparison to Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Yao Ming, and Tim Duncan. But Bogut is quite comparable to Elton Brand and Allen Iverson, and much better than Kwame Brown, Kenyon Martin, Michael Olowokandi, and Joe Smith. It’s interesting how many number one choices have failed to develop into major stars. Perhaps that would be a good subject for a future post.
The Bucks and Bogut, though, are the subject of this comment. For Milwaukee, the Elton Brand experience must be what they hope for when they look at Bogut. After his second season, Brand became one of the game’s elite players. If this happens for Bogut, Milwaukee has a significant part of a future championship team. Coupled with the team’s lottery choice this season, the Bucks could see 50 wins or more soon.
Of course, Bogut becoming as productive as Brand is a big if. And as we can see, drafting productive players is difficult. It’s entirely possible that Bogut will not improve tremendously and the Bucks lottery choice this year will be equally unimpressive.
If that happens, Milwaukee will have to search for another way. And given the track record of this franchise, hoping this team will find another way must not be running high in Milwaukee.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Owen
March 6, 2007
Dave – Love the site. This is an off topic comment.
Do you have any response to this post at”
http://freedarko.blogspot.com/search?q=wages+of+wins
dberri
March 6, 2007
Owen,
Hmmmm…”Dave Berri’s Dismal Science.” I read this when it was originally posted and found it to be both flattering and yet somewhat silly. Let me ask you this questions, do you think NBA players have to be paid to shoot? In other words, can you give me an example of a player refusing to shoot because he feared it would cost him money?
Jack Mott
March 6, 2007
I think it is ironic that the author of that freedarko post is keen enough to notice how economists will cut off an arm before admitting many CEOs are overpaid, while failing to notice he is doing essentially the same to avoid admitting the NBA overvalues scoring.
anon
March 6, 2007
i actually think a strong critique of the post is it ignores bayesian updating. incomplete information doesn’t mean no information. We can make strong predictions about the ability of a player to score efficiently based on his prior performance. Sure, you don’t know whether you will make an individual shot. But you also don’t know whether you will get injured going for a steal or rebound. I think all actions in basketball are equally risky. Coaches and GM’s make decisions based on past performance.
I think all that Wages of Wins points out is that Coaches and GMs aren’t interpreting stats properly. They overinvest in aggregrate point totals, which doesn’t necessarily correspond well with wins. But I don’t think they overinvest based on the risky nature of scoring. They operate under the mistaken assumption that aggregate point totals indicates offensive efficiency.
I think FreeDarko attempts to answer a really interesting question that Wages doesn’t sufficiently address: why the market never corrected for the overreliance on scoring? maybe there are institutional reasons why the robust stat market that has emerged in the last few years didn’t exist before.
In any event, all this may be moot as teams start to move towards more robust statistical models of player performance. Houston and Dallas have already moved in that direction. It’s only a matter of time before other teams follow.
Owen
March 6, 2007
I have been fighting the good fight in the Crawford post on Knickerblogger. Thats how I came on the FreeDarko thing. I also thought it was a bit strange, but also relatively thoughtful and cordial enough that you might have responded to it.
I have scoured the web for discussions of your work. I find people very resistant to your ideas both on K-blogger and elsewhere. Trying to advocate your ideas has been a very interesting exercise. I dont think I do it all that well, though I in general I think the quality of responses from your supporters is usually extraordinarily high.
Your work seems to set people off in a very deep seated and primal way. They dislike you and your ideas very strongly, usually without even really understanding them. The reaction to your work is as interesting to me as your work itself. You would think it would be easy to convince Knicks fans after Allan Houston that AI isn’t a winning player, or that Curry could still be a major iability despite scoring with high efficiency. Not so.
In general, I find the caliber and timbre of debate about your ideas in the various nooks of the Internet where I find it very disappointing. Do you think being the most controversial sports blog of 2006 has perhaps hurt the overall project of changing peoples minds about this?
I love your book and blog and wouldn’t be surprised if I am your most frequent visitor. I am 100% an admirer of the WOW and I suppose by extension you and your colleagues. However, I had to admit recently that the tone of your posts in threads especially can be condescending. And this comment from the Free Darko post rang true.
“Does anyone else find that the frame of argument is partly driving the controversy? You could do the same statistical analysis, but title it Why doesn’t a player as good as Allen Iverson win as much as he should?, and the people’s take on it would be totally different. Whether that’s conscious or unintentional, it’s still on Berri.”
Anyway, FWIW
Jack Mott
March 6, 2007
“Why doesn’t a player as good as Allen Iverson win as much as he should” would suppose that Allen Iverson is in fact, a good player, which he is not.
Perhaps “Why doesn’t a player who scores as much as AI win as much as we THINK he should” would be a bit more PC without being false.
I promise you it won’t matter though, when you disagree with someone they will find you condenscending, especially if you are arrogant enough to use evidence and math based arguments rather than telling stories that sound plausible and agree with peoples intuitions.
hk
March 6, 2007
The criticism of WoW I have the most trouble following is Rosenbaum’s on http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/.
Even in the Yglesias post you reference, there are plenty there who criticize you, too.
silverbird
March 6, 2007
(I tried to post a version of this comment earlier but it didn’t go through. My apologies if this ends up being a duplicate).
Having birthed the post in question, i feel obligated to respond. To Mr. Berri: no, I don’t think today’s players are “afraid to shoot”. But this is only because scoring is priced at an above-market value. If scorers were paid the value of their marginal product (Wins Produced), however, then risk-aversion WOULD be a problem. This argument is consistent with a number of economic models – Arrow, Stiglitz, etc. – showing that above-market wages are often optimal in situations of imperfect information, and by extension, risk.
In WoW, you suggest that because players’ WP is highly consistent from season-to-season, productivity can be predicted with relative certainty, and the problem of risk is minimized. But as I show in my post, this consistently proves illusory once WP is disaggregated into scoring and non-scoring production. Whereas the latter is highly predictable across seasons (R-sq > .8), per-minute scoring production varies greatly (R-Sq
silverbird
March 6, 2007
…(R-Sq
Owen
March 6, 2007
I just find a lot of the criticisms exasperating. You see the same old chestnut about Jordan and Rodman all the time. WOW people trying to correct it. Same thing, ad nauseam. The critics always hatch some kind of wierd scheme or statistic, Iverson draws the defenders, Curry leads the league in points in the paint. Has to be very frustrating.
I honestly can’t say I have found something that is a really good criticism. I really can’t make heads or tails of that Rosenbaum thread.
Jack Mott
March 7, 2007
Silverbird, the variability of scoring production I think may simply show how little scoring matters. I would expect it varies a lot because new teamates can come or go adding or reducing scoring load.
If a guy takes 10 shots at 45% shooting, and a new teamate shows up who takes half his scoring load away and shoots 40%, nothing much changes in terms of win production. There is only a point difference. I don’t see any reasons to suspect that scoring must be paid extra for.
What we both have here are plasuible theories as to what it means that scoring is more variable than win production. Neither of our theories have been tested. I discuss this phenomenon on my own blog:
http://humanidiocy.blogspot.com/
DBerri has a story about producing wins that is supported with regression analysis evidence.
Our theories are right now, just that theories. The idea that scorers need financial incentive is relatively easy to test, why don’t you do it?
silverbird
March 7, 2007
Well, one way to “test” my theory would be to look and see if scorers are systematically overpaid vis-a-vis their marginal productivity (which I concede is accurately captured as WP). And what do you know- they are! So, as I see it, the burden of proof shifts to Berri. On this question, he offers only the speculative hypothesis that GMs’ bounded rationality has blinded them to the statistical truth (as presented in Wages of Wins). I find this argument wholly unconvincing. I mean, sure, GMs aren’t often the sharpest tools in the shed, but surely someone in that sprawling, multi-billion dollar bureaucracy has mastered the not-so-dark art of linear regression analysis.
Huey
March 7, 2007
Two popular topics on this blog: Allen Iverson, and the validity of Wins Produced/Win Score.
dberri
March 7, 2007
Just to let everyone know. My laptop died at home, so at the moment I only have Internet access at my office. And I do try and do some work when I come to the office. This is going to leave me little time to respond to all these comments.
I will offer one response to Jesse (silverbird). The research on salaries and stats in the NBA goes back to the 1980s. I reviewed this research in a book edited by John Fizel (Handbook of Sports Economics Research) last year. What this research says is that scoring has been the dominant factor in player pay for as far back as the research goes. I do not think you can argue that NBA people were using linear weights to evaluate players back in the 1980s (in fact, I don’t think you can argue that is happening today either, but that is another story). So your story that NBA people do evaluate players “correctly” but simply choose to compensate people for the risk of shooting has a problem when we look at the earlier time period.
Okay, I got to back to work. I will keep checking in on the comments during the day. Really, many of these are very good.
By the way, I also have something I want to post later today (and Huey, it will not be on Allen Iverson or the validity of Wins Produced).
Bank
March 7, 2007
At team level about 10 of the top 15 on own eFG% are currently on make the playoff pace. The 5 with nonplayoff standing all are below average at opponent FG%.
If you are below FG% as team you better defend well.
Bucks 11th best on own FG% but squander it by being 29th on opponent FG%.
The Franchise
March 7, 2007
Bank’s point is a great argument about how Win Score is a good measurement: if a team shoots a low percentage, it’s likely that they aren’t winning many games.
It seems logical to extend this argument to individual players as well: if they don’t shoot well, they’re not helping the team win, whether they take a large or small number of shot attempts.
silverbird
March 7, 2007
I don’t know why you think GMs in the 1980s wouldn’t be familiar with linear weights or regression-based models of player performance, given that such methods have been around since the early 19th century. Nevertheless, my argument about risk is more fundamental. Let me elaborate.
In your system, players are only compensated if they shoot above 50% from 2-point range; if they shoot below 50%, they are penalized. Thus, even for above-average shooters, there is considerable risk of ending a given season with negative scoring income. Consider Robert Horry: here are his per-minute “Scoring Win Score” (pts-tsa) numbers for five consecutive seasons:
Season1: -0.43
Season2: 0.47
Season3: -0.44
Season4: 0.47
Season5: 1.22
Taken as a whole, these numbers indicate that Robert Horry was an above average scorer – a player who should, over the course of his career, invest in scoring production, even if for some seasons, he will be penalized for it. But Robert Horry at Year1 doesn’t know what his career performance will be; and even if he did, there is always the risk of suffering a career-ending injury before the above-average seasons can be played. Horry isn’t an outlier, either: over any given 2-year interval, one finds approx. 30% of the league alternate between positive and negative Scoring Win Score seasons.
Thus, for many above-average scorers, it would be much less risky (under a WoW compensation system) to invest in, say, offensive rebounding, where the risk of being penalized is nonexistent (unlike shooting, there is no cost attached to missing a rebound). But from the team’s perspective – and the macro perspective of the league economy – this is a suboptimal outcome. Thus, insofar as teams are less risk-averse than players (teams, after all, never get injured), it may be rational to overpay for scoring production, thereby absorbing the players’ risk. And they wouldn’t need regression analysis to come to this conclusion.
Bank
March 7, 2007
Silverbird’s argument might fit Jeffries to an extent. Normally a young player increases shots thru rookie contract to get bigger payday. Jeffries didnt, emphasizing defense, versatility and pretty good offensive rebounding. He got paid pretty well. Maye not as much as if he had risked trying to be a bigger scorer but probably more than if he had risked that and proven not to be able to be that. What Isiah bought- the other stuff or any hope of greater offensive potential – I dont know, what was in the press or really in his head.
Bank
March 7, 2007
You could argue that the breakeven point for shooting not be as low as in hollinger or as high as 50% but rather maybe the about 40% of an average contested midrange shot. Get anything better than that you have “created” a better shot on average to some degree. or if that feels too low and too generous and too similar to Hollinger spilt the difference again and maybe use 45%. Somebody close to that line isnt going to get a lot of bang for the buck chucking or saving shots.
dberri
March 7, 2007
Jesse (silverbird),
Have you ever spoken to anyone in the NBA to confirm your story that in the 1980s they used linear weights to evaluate talent? Don’t you have to present some empirical evidence supporting your story?
I see a number of players come into the league and just start shooting as much as their coaches will allow. I have quoted players who say that scoring is what gets you paid. And I have never seen a player say he is not going to shoot because he fears his pay will go down in the future.
At the end of the day, you need empirical evidence to support your position. And so far, you don’t have any.
anon
March 7, 2007
silverbird,
I think the story you’re trying to tell is what the world would look if people embraced Win Score. We might see an underinvestment in shots and salaries would eventually swing back to the current equilibrium. It’s possible this may happen.
But I think Berri’s story might be closer to why salaries are currently pegged to scoring.
Huey
March 7, 2007
Dave, I wasn’t saying that you constantly post about AI or the validity of Wins Produced, but it certainly comes up often in the discussion.
silverbird
March 8, 2007
Just to be clear: I’m not the one arguing that managers overpay scorers out of an ignorance of linear weights: you are. So if anyone should provide evidence on bygone GMs’ statistical know-how, it should be you. Instead, what little evidence you do offer – quotes of players saying scoring gets you paid; anecdotes about ball-hogs – merely confirms the existence of the scorer’s premium, not your explanation of it. By contrast, I offer direct empirical evidence of the uncertainty and risks of scoring production, together with a cogent economic theory of why such uncertainty would lead rational managers – of any period – to pay premium wages. In response, you suggest that managers are only “rational” if they evaluate using linear weights – a logic whose circularity is exceeded only by its narcissism.
anon
March 8, 2007
after giving it sustained thought, I think I’ve finally found a criticism of Wages that I’m willing to embrace. I think silverbird is right: before we can get this project off the ground, we have to explain why managers’ have failed to embrace regression analysis. This, of course, doesn’t apply just to Wages, but also to Hollinger, Oliver, and the entire APBR community.
dberri
March 8, 2007
I was thinking last night of another perspective on stats in sports. Hakes and Sauer presented evidence, consistent with Moneyball, that on-base-percentage was undervalued in baseball. Jesse has argued that people in basketball “know” who is valuable and who is not. I wonder, though, why he thinks baseball people historically did not. They had the data for over a century. The techniques to analyze the data, as Alan Schwarz has noted, have been around for decades. Yet baseball people still have been found making systematic mistakes.
I think the same issue in baseball exists in basketball. The people making decisions do not have training in statistical analysis. At least no one I have ever met in the NBA had much familiarity with any statistical methodology. Therefore, they do not rely on statistics to make decisions. Visual observation of players is the preferred method to arrive at conclusions. This approach, though, tends to be biased in basketball towards scoring.
By the way, I have never argued that people are only “rational” if they use linear weights. My argument concerning decision-making rests on the factors that drive salaries and awards.
Jason
March 8, 2007
That the Knicks, 76ers and Blazers can be #1, 3, and 5 in salaries paid suggests that not all management salary decisions are entirely rational.
silverbird
March 8, 2007
Again, my argument, which is derived from established economic theory, is that above-market wages may persist in equilibrium under conditions of uncertainty, and that these conditions are in manifest scoring production. Managerial knowledge of statistical theory is irrelevant, since for any particular scorer at any particular time, the quality of future production remains impossible to predict. This claim is supported by the example of Robert Horry. It is supported by my finding that scoring performance cannot be sufficiently predicted from season to season (R-sq .8). YOU YOURSELF acknowledge the importance of predictability in performance measures (Wages, pp. 182-192), and you reject your own quarterback rating system ON PRECISELY THESE SAME GROUNDS. So whether or not managers actually understand statistics is irrelevant to the persistence of the scorer’s premium. Like an efficiency wage, its payment is a rational response to the uncertainty of scoring production, and this uncertainty is unrelated to statistical theory, but is endemic to the production process itself.
Thus, the evolving wisdom of baseball talent scouts does not undermine my argument. Besides, the undervaluation of on-base percentage is not analogous to the over-valuation of scoring. Billy Beane improved efficiency by drafting cheap talent and teaching them to draw walks. You want to improve efficiency by changing the financial incentive structure itself. But what if these incentives exist for a reason? Isn’t it possible that penalizing below-average shooting would lead even above-average players to underinvest? And what happens after your system is instituted, and average FG% presumably increases? Wouldn’t WP need to be recalibrated once more, such that previously-efficient scorers would now fall below average? When would it stop?
silverbird
March 8, 2007
correction:
the above should have read “..scoring performance cannot be sufficiently predicted from season to season (R-sq
silverbird
March 8, 2007
(not sure why this keeps happening…)
that number is supposed to be .3. the .8 figure refers to non-scoring production, which IS consistent from season to season.
dberri
March 8, 2007
Jesse (silverbird),
You seem confused about whether what you argue has happened in the past or is going to happen in the future.
As for the past, I think the evidence fits the story we tell in The Wages of Wins. Scoring is the one factor that dominates player performance. Other statistics do not play as large a role in deciding salary or player awards. It is not the case that players are paid higher wages just to compensate them for the risk of taking shots. If that were the case, players entering in the league would not be so anxious to shoot as much as possible (and in your story, risk future wages). The story we tell explains the propensity young players like Carmelo Anthony have to take shots. Anthony took shots before signing his long-term contract because he knew the more he scored the more he would get paid. And he was right. The fact that he never showed he could shoot at an extremely high level of efficiency did not matter (which we would also predict).
And I would add that it is not the case that we argue that 1. Wins Produced is correct, 2. managers do not use Wins Produced, and 3. therefore managers are irrational. Again, are arguments depend upon the study of the salary determination process and assigning of awards. These studies show that scoring, by itself, is an extremely good predictor of these decisions. Other factors, such as shooting efficiency and turnovers, do not play much of a role.
silverbird
March 8, 2007
I am describing something that happened in the past, that is happening now, and that will happen in the future. Hence the phrase, “endemic to the production process itself”. Scoring has always been risky, since every shot carries the possibility of a miss. By contrast, there is no such thing as a missed rebound, or missed steal; hence, there is no financial incentive needed to elicit their production. This is not complicated.
Yes, Carmelo Anthony shoots a lot because scoring is gets you paid (an observation that is consistent with both of our stories). But this is also why Lebron shoots a lot, and Wade shoots a lot, and Bosh shoots a lot too. You seem to think that changing the incentive structure (eliminating the scorers premium) will only discourage inefficient scorers from shooting the ball, and will have no effect on efficient shooters. But this assumes that efficient shooters KNOW in advance that they are efficient, when in fact they face substantial uncertainty.
In my model, reducing the price of scoring to market level will discourage optimal investment therein, and it thus predicts that in equilibrium a premium should persist. When we look at salaries, this is exactly what we find.
In your model, Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson are ineffient gunners looking to get paid, and the only way to stop them is to cut off the funds. It has no theoretical basis, only a political one. These players are responding to the same incentive structure as everybody else, and in the same ways. Changing that structure won’t just discourage them from shooting, but efficient shooters as well.
Owen
March 9, 2007
Silverbird – I take your point to be the following. Using economic theory we can explain the presence of a scoring premium. And there must be a rational reason for a scoring premium, since if there weren’t, market forces would have eradicated it long ago. The implication therefore is that Wins Produced must not actually work. Or even if it works in theory, it must impracticable for some reason in the real world. Were it not, some enterprising owner or general manager would long since have adopted it. These statistical tools have been widely available for one hundred years, so if they havent been utilized its because it is impossible to do so effectively in basketball.
It that summary accurate? I hope so, because if not, I am about to flog a scarecrow.
First off, people and industries do stupid things for long periods of time until someone comes along and corrects them. i dont know what the perfect example of this is, but certainly, there are many times where the status quo persists and persists until suddenly it doesnt. A tipping point is reached.
I read Liars Poker yesterday to use something at hand, I have set myself to catching up on everything written by Michael Lewis. The story he tells, is that for a long time people thought the idea of monetizing mortgage obligations on a large scale was ridiculous. Then, over the course of seven years, this particular inefficiency was completely eradicated. They also thought loaning money to small companies or companies with uncertain prospects was stupid, and that borrowing huge sums of money to take over corporations, was impossible.
I submit merely that it is possible that you and other skeptics may be the guys saying in 1980, “we will never see multi-billion dollar mortgage bonds,” or “we will never see 20 billion dollar LBO’s.” Or maybe even “Global warming is a hoax” (lol, we shall see about that one)
You can probably pick holes in those examples, but my basic point is i think fairly incontravertible; conventional wisdom can be wrong, and for long periods of time, before suddenly being turned on its head. Berri is trying to turn the basketball labor market on its head, and also change they way that teams look at generating attendance and revenue. People forget about another major WOW finding. Home attendance is driven by winning percentage rather than the presence of an exciting “star” players like Allan Iverson.
Do we have any reason to doubt the efficiency of this market or the rationality of GM’s. As I have said before, I am inclined to believe Berri on both counts for many reasons not the least of which being that I am and always have been a huge Knicks fan. After seeing what Layden and Thomas have done, it doesnt seem like a major leap of faith that many NBA general managers are unfamiliar with regression analysis. I have seen them hire Allan Houston, Shandon Anderson, Jalen Rose, Eddy Curry, Stephon Marbury, etc.
Furthermore, one of my best friends just finished a five year stint working for a boutique investment bank that specializes in sports deals. The WOW conclusions regarding attendance were news to him, and he has advised on a number of NBA sales transactions.. He was the guy doing spreadsheet analysis of revenue projections and valuations. When I told him about this particular conclusion, he said, “that’s fascinating, I had never heard that before. ”
I dont think GM’s understand that scoring players aren’t necessarily winning players. Even if they did, they might overpay them anyway. They usually believe big personalities fill seats, and they are wrong about this also. Why did Thomas bring Starbury back to New York? What really was Michael Jordan thinking when he drafted Adam Morrison, who was so famous coming out of college that he was the cover boy for EA’s NBA Live? Most GM’s think that you need one of these exciting shoot first scoring types, if not to win games, than to fill seats. At least I think thats true, I dont have any empirical evidence on hand, but it doesnt seem implausible that they think kids want to see the guy on the cover of their video game on the court rather than Ben Wallace. What the WOW showed, and obviously the academic review process is ongoing, is that they are not right in the case of unproductive “Stars” like Iverson or Morrison. It’s in fact pretty simple, win games, fill your own house. Hire star players like Iverson, fill someone else’s house. Given my personal experience, this seems completely correct. Madison Square Garden was sold out for my entire childhood. Not anymore.
I ask you: Is it so hard or unpleasant to imagine a world in which players are compensated for Wins Produced over a statistically relevant period, rather than scoring? Is this so implausible? What would a basketball world look like if we paid David Lee much more than Adam Morrison, or Tyson Chandler more than Allan Iverson? Is this such an unpalatable prospect? Does that fill you with dread?
I sense in Mr. Berri, beyond an understandable ambition to make a name for himself in the academic world, a hope that if GM’s did adopt his approach, we eventually might see a NBA in which team players were rewarded over selfish individualists. Where complete players who really fill a stat sheet and do many things well were favored over one-dimensional players who score very spectacularly but do little else. A world where Manu Ginobili might get the credit he deserves, despite never having been in a Rucker Playground Legends film. Where Ben Wallace might be considered the man largely responsible for Detroit’s title run.
Not perhaps a better world, because it is just game no matter how passionately I care about my Knicks, but certainly a better basketball world. It’s such a mystery to me that people get so hostile about the Wages of Wins because fundamentally I think the WOW NBA, this hypothetical NBA where we pay for WP rather than points, would be much better than the current NBA. Perhaps not for the sneaker companies, but certainly for the fans and for the spirit of the game as Naismith, Wooden, and Auerbach envisioned it.
In this world, I disagree Silverbird, that
“Changing that structure won’t just discourage them from shooting, but efficient shooters as well.”
Why would it discourage efficient shooters? Manu Ginobili is not going to shoot less in this new world, That would lower his wins produced since he is an efficient shooter. Shooting less means fewer wins and less money. In the case of Carmelo Anthony, he probably would shoot much less. He might instead focus on collecting more rebounds, more steals, assists, and blocks, while committing fewer turnovers. Possibly, given the proper financial incentives, he might actually justify the tag of greatness that has been put on him so far. In this WOW world there would still be a place for the much maligned Allan Iverson. He is after all currently an above average guard. He just wouldnt be considered and paid like a superstar, not unless he too took less shots, committed fewer turnovers, and acted the part.
I think there are plenty of concerns you could possibly have raised about the WOW formula.Originally your post was billed on knickerblogger as reasons why GM’s cant actually use the WOW. That was what got me interested, someone challenging not the conclusions of the WOW, but its relevance. I have been pondering a number of issues. WOW doesn’t seem to account for interaction effects. Berri says they simply arent that important. And there have to be fruitful anomalies to fire back at him. I am not that clever but they have to be out there. I dont know. Why is Mikki Moore having such a good season? How can Biedrins really be that good? How can Bruce Bowen’s win production be so low given the fact he is widely considered the best perimeter defender in the NBA? What would the performance of team composed of five Mount Mutombo’s imply about the value of guard play? Can you accurately project the future WP of Gerald Wallace from his record so far?
Basically, what is the actual utility of WP to a GM? That is what I was what you were trying to do, but you seem to aiming for something much different.
Anyway, FWIW
Owen
March 9, 2007
edit: last line should say “what I thought you were trying to do, but you seem to aiming for something much different.”
Owen
March 9, 2007
Lol, typos after typos.
Sorry for such a long post, didnt realize how long it was until I submitted it.
final edit: last line should say “what I thought you were trying to do, but you seem to be aiming for something much different.”
anon
March 9, 2007
Owen,
The reason Silverbird thinks that WOW would discourage efficient shooters is because scoring is more risky than any other marginal skills. Players, realizing they will be evaluated on their entire game, will opt for safer stats.
It’s plausible this will be the post-WOW world. But as a descriptive matter, I think you and berri have the correct account for why GM’s pay scorers so much.
That said, I think Silverbird’s critique is the most interesting out there. The APBR guys and Hollinger are basically argues the merits of Berri’s claim. Silverbird’s is more foundational and a lot more interesting. He might be wrong. But I agree that there should be more economists exploring some of the behavioral economic issues that surround the game as opposed to just what they would do if they were GMs (even though I really enjoy the latter).
Ben
March 10, 2007
Folks — Breakeven FG% is not 50% in WS. On a 2pt shot in the paint it’s about 41% based on .46FTA/FGA (fouls on shot only) and an 80% FT% and it varies a lot by player depending on how many fouls they draw and how well they shoot from the line..
On a 3pointer, using similar logic it’s about 31%.
Tim
March 12, 2007
If so, then Iverson is above breakeven?
Tim
March 13, 2007
If WS a missed shot is -1, breakeven is 50% until adjusted by Ft/fg action and that varies by player.
I guess FG% compared to other players is important regardless of where the breakeven point is.
steve
March 23, 2007
hi guys
Bucks is my best team in the nba i wish i could go to watch all their games i found a good web site where you can compare your Milwaukee-Bucks tickets an found cheap tickets
http://www.ticketwood.com/nba/Milwaukee-Bucks-Tickets/index.php
really is a good site
go go Bucks