Last year 458 players took the floor in the NBA. Given all the people playing college basketball and basketball in other nations, the percentage that reach the Association is truly quite small. So it’s not surprising when very, very good players don’t quite make the cut. Still, if a player is significantly more productive than the average NBA player at his position you would expect a home in the NBA to found someplace. At least, that’s what Jamal Sampson should expect if the NBA didn’t systematically “undervalue the denominator.” What does it mean to “undervalue the denominator”? And who the hell is Jamal Sampson?
Let me answer the second question first.
The Jamal Sampson Story
Here is part of Sampson’s bio from NBA.com:
Height: 6’11
Weight: 235
Position: Forward-Center
Is the cousin of former NBA All-Star Ralph Sampson.
As a senior at Mater Dei High School, averaged 15.5 points, 10.0 rebounds and 2.4 blocks.
Led team to the California state championship with a 57-54 victory over Modesto Christian.
Mater Dei finished the 2000-01 season with a 33-2 record and a No. 4 national ranking from USA Today.
Rated the nation’s No. 15 recruit by Foxsports.com and the No. 1 center on the West Coast by Rivals.com.
Also ranked No. 26 overall by The Sporting News and No. 21 by CBSSportsline.com.
Missed several games his senior season with bone spurs, but had corrective surgery during summer of 2001.
As a freshman at California, appeared in 32 games, averaging 6.4 points, 6.5 rebounds and 1.7 blocks.
Played one season at California.
Named to the Pac-10 All Freshman Team.
An early entry candidate for the 2002 NBA Draft.
So the cousin of Ralph Sampson was highly regarded coming out of high school. He played one season at California, where he posted a Win Score per minute of 0.188, which is well below average. Still he was taken with the 46th pick in the 2002 NBA draft. And then the journey began. Here are the stops in his career and the minutes logged in each location.
2002-03: Milwaukee (8 minutes)
2003-04: LA Lakers (130 minutes)
2004-05: Charlotte (329 minutes)
2005-06: Sacramento (39 minutes)
2006-07: Denver (124 minutes)
In the 2007 pre-season Sampson was employed by the Dallas Mavericks. But the dream ended on October 22nd.
So six teams have had a chance to employ Sampson, and six teams have passed on his services. Clearly he’s not a very productive player.
Well, at least that is what we might think if we didn’t look at the numbers. When we look at what Sampson has done in the NBA, it appears he has something to offer. Here is his Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] for each of the teams that have employed him in the regular season:
Milwaukee: 0.036
LA Lakers: 0.309
Charlotte: 0.190
Sacramento: 0.678
Denver: 0.247
An average player posts a WP48 of 0.100. With the exception of the 8 minutes he played in Milwaukee, Sampson has clearly been above average at each stop in his career.
When we look at Sampson’s career stats – which are reported in Table One — we can see why he is so productive.
Table One: Jamal Sampson’s Career
Sampson is virtually average with respect to shooting efficiency, blocked shots, and assists. He is below average with respect to scoring, steals, and personal fouls. But he is above average with respect to turnovers and rebounds. In fact, his rebounding numbers are way above average.
Per 48 minutes Sampson grabs 18.4 rebounds. In 2006-07, only Reggie Evans and James Augustine bested this rate, and Augustine only played 7 minutes. If we go back to 1991-92, this rebounding rate compares to players named Dennis Rodman, Danny Fortson, Ben Wallace, and Dikembe Mutombo. Yes, in the 630 minutes Sampson has played in his career he has demonstrated that he is an elite rebounder.
Undervaluing the Denominator
He is also unemployed. Soon after Sampson left the Mavericks, Dallas signed Juwan Howard. As Table Two indicates, Howard is the anti-Sampson.
Table Two: Juwan Howard’s Career
Howard has demonstrated in his career that he can score and get assists at an above average rate. But Howard is below average with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, blocked shots, and turnovers. And not surprisingly, well below average with respect to Win Score (a point I have made before about Howard). Despite this inefficiency, Howard has been paid $130 million in his career and he had no trouble finding a job on a title contender when the T-Wolves decided to focus on youth this year.
Now it’s not the case that the Mavericks cut Sampson to sign Howard. Sampson was long gone before Howard was added to the roster. Still, one wonders what the Mavericks would look like with Sampson playing a few minutes each night. Certainly he could help this team weather the current injury to Erick Dampier.
Of course it’s possible there is something wrong with Sampson that the data doesn’t reveal. Maybe he’s a lousy defender. Maybe he routinely abuses his coaches. Maybe he wears the wrong shoes. But his story does seem to highlight a basic bias in the evaluation of talent.
Wins in the NBA are determined by a team’s offensive and defensive efficiency. Each efficiency metric is a ratio of scoring to possessions. Those who excel at the numerator – like Juwan Howard – have long careers and collect obscene sums of money. And this is true, even if Howard’s inability to hit shots and rebound means he has actually diminished the chance of his team being successful.
Players who excel at factors listed in the denominator – like Jamal Sampson (and Anderson Varejao) – have trouble getting a job and/or consistently finding time on the court. The evidence seems quite clear that the denominator is undervalued in the NBA. Although both getting (and keeping) the ball help a team win, those who excel at this activity are often shown the door.
So what is the lesson for young basketball players: Being a scorer – even if you aren’t really that efficient – gets you a job and gets you paid. Live in the denominator, though, and you will drift from job to job. And that’s true, even if the numbers say you are well above average.
By the way, before we all feel too sorry for Jamal Sampson, we should note that Basketball-Reference indicates he has been paid $3 million during his NBA career. Yes, that ain’t $130 million. But that’s pretty good money for 630 minutes.
– DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides 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
Wages of Wins Journal 
MattB
November 6, 2007
Your using per 48 stats with a guy who’s played 630 minutes, which roughly equates to 13 games.
I’m not sure that this is a substantial enough sample to really determine his NBA readiness.
I say this not as definitive criticism, but as genuine curiosity.
I was interested to see Howards breakdown, I’ve never been a fan of his and I am a bit shocked he found a contending team willing to bring him in.
Houston
November 6, 2007
This post highlights to me the problems with the win score system, in which Tyson Chandler is a better player than Tim Duncan. Could it be that it is easier to be a non-scoring defender/rebounder than to be a player that also carries the offense, such as Juwan Howard? No doubt that Jamal Sampson was cut for a reason – there are plenty of players who can contribute the same rebounding and also offer some ability to score points.
Brett
November 6, 2007
If there are plenty of players who can be an elite rebounder, why does Dave have to go back to the 90’s to find enough comparables? Being mentioned in the same breath as Rodman should make a team stop and pause, curious if they are missing something.
With that said, I wonder what kind of competition Sampson put those numbers up against? It would be nice to know if he was only playing in blowouts against the end of the bench.
dberri
November 6, 2007
I agree that 630 minutes is a low sample and it is possible he did this against poor competition.
Still, as Brett notes, rebounding is not that common of a skill. 18.4 per 48 minutes is not a stat that we see very often in the data.
I think the data suggests that Sampson might deserve a second look. Certainly if he posted unusually high scoring numbers in 630 minutes he would draw a bit of attention.
Owen
November 6, 2007
My way of saying it, if Jerome James can get 6 million, Sampson has to deserve a look…
dbg
November 6, 2007
This reminds me of the story of Esteban Batista. Apparently after his performance in the Fiba tournement he was sought after by a few teams including Phoenix and Boston. But the question everyone was asking was if he’s so good why didn’t he get off the bench in Atlanta? Boston got him then quickly cut him. Couldn’t play defence. He now plays in Tel Aviv. Still, there are other forward/centers that can’t play defence (Curry). Is he a worse choice?
MattB
November 6, 2007
Maybe he got the boot in denver since he was behind a guy getting 19.5 reb per 48, Reggie Evans.
per48 stats worry me for players who average under 10 minutes per game for their career.
Without having seen him play, I am not all that broken up about it.
vanveen
November 6, 2007
i) turnovers per 48 minutes doesn’t tell us anything about Sampson’s ball handling proficiency or passing ability. using field goal attempts per 48 minutes as a proxy for the number of opportunities he has to turn the ball over, it’s no surprise his turnover rate is so low: he simply isn’t getting the ball as often as other power forwards. without a way to track how many ‘turnover opportunities’ players have, i.e. % of team possession time player has ball and # of passes thrown (and ideally some way to measure the likelihood of a turnover given their positioning on the court), turnover statistics are very misleading, especially when it comes to PFs and Centers. if a PF or C sucks at handling the ball or scoring in the post his coaches and teammates will reduce his possession time, thereby reducing his turnover opportunities. assigning credit for being so bad with the ball that your teammate’s don’t give it to you makes little sense.
re: likelihood of a turnover given court position, think of how much more likely it is that Iverson will turn the ball over when he penetrates than when he stands at the perimeter distributing the ball. one can criticize the frequency with which iverson penetrates and gets himself into highTO% situations, but that’s a critique of basketball strategy and is only indirectly related to Iverson’s basketball talent or value.
ii) i’m very tired of hearing the implicit accusation that NBA coaches and players are so dim that they can’t figure out they should let the guy with the 52 eFG% shoot the ball more often than the guy with the 43 eFG%. if it were that obvious it would be done. why isn’t it? does everyone defer to the Allen Iverson the Alpha Male? “golly gee, i wouldn’t mind winning, but allen just looks so good hoisting up all those shots!”
offensive strategies are designed to maximize output or ‘point expectation’. that is the primary selection criterion being used when sampling the available ‘strategy space’ of basketball. if an offensive strategy produces more points than another offensive strategy it is kept; if it produces less, it’s discarded. players are evaluated within that framework of production: if Howard-centric strategies tend to produce more points than Sampson-centric strategies than we value Howard more (offensively) and select the Howard-centric strategies. the degree of Howard(or Iverson, or whoever)-centricity is selected for, too, but likely less accurately than simply who should be ranked above who. by the time a player has reached the NBA it is very likely he has ‘settled in’ relative to his peers – sample space just isn’t that big and the resources required to sample it are easily (and routinely) expended.
if the above is true (and it is an almost trivially true application of situational logic), then if Sampson took as many shots as Howard does we should expect his eFG% to drop, likely because the defense will change it’s strategy (in order to minimize offensive output or ‘point expectation’) and reduce Sampson’s effectiveness precipitously. not finding statistical evidence of points per shot attempt decreasing as shot attempts increase doesn’t rule out the likelihood that that’s what would occur: NBA coaches and players don’t make a habit of selecting long-term losing strategies (that’s why they’re in the NBA – that was one of the primary selection criterion for their admittance), so it isn’t very likely it would show up in NBA data.
more on rebounds later.
vanveen
November 6, 2007
re: rebounds, quick
“Still, as Brett notes, rebounding is not that common of a skill. 18.4 per 48 minutes is not a stat that we see very often in the data.”
that’s nice. what % of his team’s rebounds did he grab while he was on the court? more importantly, what % of defensive rebounding opportunities did his team convert into a possession while he was on the court? offensive opportunties? how much higher are those #s than when his 11reb/48min ‘inferior’ is on the court? (not much – 3-5% at the most).
i’ll expand on that later. i’m truly shocked that no one is mentioning this (over and over again): there are a limited number of defensive rebounding opportunities in a basketball game. if you replace the minutes of a 11reb/48min rebounder with an 18reb/48min rebounder you don’t get 7 more possessions per 48 minutes. why is he receiving credit for all of those possessions? the more likely and reasonable explanation is that his teammate’s are ceding rebounding opportunities to him because he’s better at it. in the end, his rebounding superiority nets the team about 3-5% more when he’s on the court, or 1.5-2 possessions per 48 minutes.
what matters is the -team’s- rebounding efficiency when he’s on the court versus when he isn’t.
Alien Human Hybrid
November 6, 2007
Vanveen raises some interesting points, many of which dovetail with the Mutombo case. Now, please don’t misunderstand, I love Mutombo’s game (and as a Knick fan he is exactly what we need in the middle right now) but certain styles of play do not fit his abilities. For example, the Net’s thought Mutombo was exactly what they needed- but the problem was they could not find a way to efficiently run their offense while he was in the game. He was so bad at ball handling that it would have required a completely different scheme while he was on the court, something they refused to do.
Is it possible that Sampson’s lack of ball handling abilities (an especially interesting possibility given that his cousin was perhaps the best ball handling 7-footer to ever play the game) artificially positively inflates his turnover numbers, as may be the case with Mutombo over the past few seasons? Does Win-score have any method for identifying turnover opportunity? Moreover, as the sample size decreases, it seems more likely that modes of use become far more specialized. For example I can easily imagine a coach saying “you- big guy- go box out and get a rebound. Do not shoot the ball. Do not dribble the ball. Hand the ball off to your point guard”, etc. These types of directives are far less likely to be the case with increased playing time, as there is a tacit expectation that a player must have multifold abilities in order to stay on the court.
jon
November 6, 2007
It appears that WoW is attempting to describe “what is” rather than “why” in terms of basketball. Let me elaborate with an example.
Damon Jones entered the league in the 1998-99 season, and for the next 6 years, he played for 8 teams. The following is his per year TS%, which is a measure that accounts for 3pointers and free throws.
Year 1: .494
Year 2: .508
Year 3: .525
Year 4: .548
Year 5: .505
Year 6: .516
We can see a pretty consistent trend emerging, with a few minor spikes. What happened in year 7, when he joined the Miami Heat? According to Mr. Berri’s model, his numbers should be roughly similar.
Year 7 (MIA): .625
Well, this is certainly a HUGE jump over his previous efficiency. In Mr. Berri’s model, this increase in productivity is assigned solely to Damon Jones. He is, in fact, the player that took the shots. We award ZERO credit to Shaquille O’Neal or Dwayne Wade for creating more opportunities.
So that raises the question: What is the cause that drives Damon Jones to shoot a much higher percentage during his year in Miami? Well, the only reasonable explanation (if we assign credit solely to Jones, and none to his teammates) is that he worked hard in the offseason and became a better shooter. Plausible? Let’s see.
After playing in Miami for one year, he signed a free agent contract with Cleveland. Let’s see how effective he was.
Year 8 (CLE): .538
Year 9 (CLE): .525
Well, he quickly regressed to numbers that were approaching his previous career averages. Mr. Berri’s explanation would say that he became a better shooter for one year, then lost all of the skill he gained when he switched teams.
Does this sound plausible? Of course not. We can look through historical data, freely available at basketball-reference.com, and see the same trend emerge: Play with superstars, and your shooting percentage will go up. 82games.com attempts to track a teams eFG% when a player is on court and when a player is off-court. Again, we see the same trend emerge: Superstars make their team shoot a higher %. Unfortunately, WoW refuses to capture this. In actuality, Shaq and Wade were responsible for Damon Jones’ increased production, but none of this is captured in Win Score. This is the problem that occurs when you attempt to describe “what is” rather than try to explain “why”.
I have to run now, but I will return later with some more thoughts on rebounding (vanveen covered this very well) as well as ‘systematic’ strategies and the effect a coach has on boxscore statistics.
I’d just like to add that I am NOT attempting to flame or discredit Mr. Berri. I appreciate his work and hope he continues to expand on it. However I see clear problems with the approach, and hopefully my comment and others like it will help him revise his model to better capture what is really happening on the basketball court, and more importantly, WHY it is happening.
dberri
November 6, 2007
Jon,
I have no problem with what you are saying. Wins Produced is a measure, as I have said repeatedly, of how productive a player has been. It does not tell you why.
Research I have done into the “why” question though, reveals that much of “why” is about the player in question. It is not coaches, teammates, etc… I am not saying that coaches and teammates don’t matter. I am saying that their influence tends to be exaggerated.
S. Graham
November 6, 2007
Shane Battier is a very good player and a great lockerroom influnce and a total team player. He’s a guy who will do anything his coach asks and that is why Houston was so improved last year. The guy is a total winner and a hell of a nice person.
Alien Human Hybrid
November 6, 2007
Dave-
Perhaps an article on this issue is in order. Can you put together a list of players that have played significant minutes with and without a superstar? I think that would be very useful.
To that end, what do you think are the limitations of your current method, and what improvements would you like to make going forward?
As an aside, Gilbert Arenas speaks forcefully on the idea that he makes the players around him better:
“”This is what a lot of people don’t realize about me,” Arenas said. “They call me a shoot-first point guard. And honestly, OK.” Which means he can’t argue with that. “But no one’s ever [been] a point guard that averages points like me and he had two other guys that average [19].”
He was referring to former All-Star Antawn Jamison, who averaged 19.8 points last year, and Caron Butler, who added 19.1 and made his first All-Star team. They did this while Arenas was going for 28.4 to finish third in league scoring behind Bryant and Carmelo Anthony.” http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/ian_thomsen/11/02/arenas/index.html
This is the kind of statement that begs an empirical analysis from the WoW journal.
Owen
November 6, 2007
Jon – The Cavs are paying Jones six times what he made previously. Should they be suprised that Jones has reverted to the form he showed nearly his entire career? I would say no.
Also, it would be interesting to know how what his Wins Produced was that year in Miami. Often, even when players have a banner shooting year, there WP number is not amazing. (See Kapono, Jason) Despite shooting a career high ts%, he still managed to be below average.
So looking at WP, you would still know not to expect too much from Kapono. Yet the Raptors decided to pay him 6 million. I think the data suggests they will be disappointed with that decision.
Jason
November 6, 2007
vanveen’s comment does look important. My understanding of WP is that the team defensive adjustment is in part a control for the pace of the game. It takes into consideration the number of fg misses by the opposition, which are of course necessary for a defensive rebound. And given enough playing time, I suspect that the pace a team normally plays at will allow this to work reasonably well.
However, whether this is going to be true of a limited “garbage time” player may not be true. If a player is only put into games when things are essentially over, when whatever happens on the court is highly unlikely to change the outcome of the game, it may be that this pace factor changes radically. Is he playing only during stretches where the opposition is chucking up garbage early in the shot clock, missing many shots and consequently providing a number of defensive rebounding opportunities? If so, and I don’t think this is a stretch for much of J. Sampson’s career, the change of late-season pace could skew his performance dramatically.
Is this what’s happening with Sampson? I’m not sure. I suspect it is, but there’s a caveat that suggests that he may still be a very good rebounder. When we look season by season, there does appear to be an inverse correlation between his rebound rate and his playing time. The longer he’s on the court (presumably indicating less ‘garbage time’ play) the lower his per minute average.
For the last two seasons, there’s data on *when* Sampson got each of his rebounds. About 60% of them came in the 4th quarter of games. He only once appeared in a game decided by less than 10 points (a 7 point contest against Indy where he did not grab a rebound in his 4 minute stretch in the 2nd quarter). It’s pretty clear that his usage largely consisted of 4th quarter stints in games that were not close at the end.
BUT in his 5 starts where we know he played at least a second of non-garbage time, his rebound rate was still ridiculously good (57 rebounds in 115 minutes). Even here, some of the data is suspect. One of these games was a 13 rebound performance (in 27 minutes) in game 82 against the Spurs who played without 4 regular starters and limited the 5th (Bowen) to 4 minutes total, so that was 27 minutes of garbage time more than half of the rebounds coming in the 4th quarter with a lead larger than 19. (In the game he took (and missed) one shot , which seems somewhat surprising for a garbage time game. Go figure.) Yet if we eliminate those minutes from consideration, in four *other* starts, he’s grabbed 44 rebounds in 88 minutes and that *is* superb.
Short winded: his usage doesn’t lead me to believe the sample is reliable to extrapolate more out of it than that he’s probably a pretty good, maybe even quite good rebounder, but the confidence in this is limited, substantially, by the quality of opponents he’s matched up against and the context of his usage when, frankly, what anyone does is likely to have little bearing on the outcome. My gut, based in large part from watching his unspectacular year at Cal from a seat a few rows below the rafters, is that he’s got the defensive abilities of a drunk salamander.
Varejao’s case seems very different from While he’s probably underutilized (similar to David Lee) and his skill at rebounding definitely underappreciated, he was used regularly even if he was primarily a rebounder. Coaches have been known to use such guys and keep them around (though for less money than their scoring aces) rather than show them the door. Varejao is in a contract dispute with the Cavs, not exactly shown the door, but holding out for more money than the qualifying offer he was extended.
Westy
November 6, 2007
Good stuff, vanveen and Jon. And I appreciate the tone shown by the statement you made, Jon.
“I’d just like to add that I am NOT attempting to flame or discredit Mr. Berri. I appreciate his work and hope he continues to expand on it. ”
It helps the dialogue. I think that’s what we all want, and I look forward to seeing an examination by Mr. Berri of the impact a good rebounder has on his team’s overall rebounds.
An example of what vanveen notes; when Ben Wallace departed the Pistons, their total rebounds actually stayed exactly the same. 2005-06= 40.51 rpg, 2006-07= 40.51 rpg. Ben Wallace had average 11.3 rpg in 05-06. Obviously, losing him did not cost the Pistons any rebounds on a per game basis.
As well, as was noted, it is important to keep in mind the # of touches a player has when evaluating their turnovers. If Player X touches the ball 4 times per quarter but turns it over once each quarter, that’s pretty poor. But if Steve Nash, touching the ball 25 times each quarter turns it over five times a game, it looks worse in TO/game. Player X has 4, Nash has 5. But which player is more prone to turnovers? Player X has turned it over 25% of the time he touches it, but Nash only 5%.
Now what if Player X also gets 10 defensive rebounds/ game. And in those 4 times he touches it, shoots twice, scoring once. His Win Score is going to look pretty good. That said, nobody is going to want to get him involved in their offense because he turns it over 25% of the time.
MattB
November 6, 2007
WP% is seeming more and more like every other statistic…lacking and insufficient.
But I like what’s going on here.
Pete
November 7, 2007
vanveen wrote:
“there are a limited number of defensive rebounding opportunities in a basketball game. if you replace the minutes of a 11reb/48min rebounder with an 18reb/48min rebounder you don’t get 7 more possessions per 48 minutes.”
While this is indeed true, it’s not just true for rebounding. Scoring has a similar property: there are a limited number of scoring opportunities in a basketball game. If you replace the minutes of a 11pt/48min scorer with an 18pt/48min scorer you don’t get 7 more points per 48 minutes. As with rebounding, the more likely explanation is that his teammate’s are ceding scoring opportunities to him because he’s better at it.
Mike H
November 7, 2007
With regards to the limited number of scoring/rebounding/… opportunities, does it even matter since this affects all players? As long as the metric used for all players is subject to the same limitations can’t we then make a reasonable comparison between two players based upon said metric – particularly when they play the same position?
The strategic shortcomings of W48 are probably valid, but I don’t think that it is even intended to address strategy. As far as Sampson is concerned couldn’t strategy be used to maximize his apparent strengths and minimize his supposed weaknesses? If in non-garbage time he has shown himself to be an elite rebounder then certainly there is a team out there who would find him useful, assuming of course that he can play defense at a sufficient level.
Owen
November 7, 2007
Pete – Very good point.
Vanveen – Small differences in offensive rebounding make a big difference. If you allow 3-5% more offensive rebounds per 48 than another player at the center position, this can create a very large impact on your teams differential, maybe 1-2 points per game.
I understand your comment about turnover rates. To me, it’s built in to the stats. Players with high turnover rates also generally score more, have more assists, and more fts. It’s a cost benefit. Yes, a low usage center benefits statistically from not turning the ball over and handing the shooting burden off to his teammates. But that means he doesn’t reap the rewards for those activities either, which hurts him.
I think what WP suggests to me is that its much more important to have a great rebounding center, than a center who can score the ball. Anyone on the basketball can score. But rebounding is done mostly at the PF and C position. It’s a very acceptable tradeoff basically, to have a frontcourt player who doesn’t score much, given how much he can contribute through his impact on rebounding. It’s much easier to find someone who can take shots for you than to find someone who is an outstanding rebounder.
Living in New York, and seeing Eddy Curry play (who had a monster fourth quarter last night, thank god), has been instrumental in helping me understand this concept. The extra points Curry scores at a high efficiency, given his many turnovers, don’t help the team nearly as much as the offensive rebounds he allows hurts his team.
vanveen
November 7, 2007
Pete: good point, and it was one i was trying to make, albeit circuitously, in the paragraph on ‘scoring centricity’. teams divvy up field goal attempts according to scoring efficiency against dynamic and adaptive defenses. to reiterate, it is cheap and easy to experiment with different shot distributions and the sample space isn’t that large to begin with. by the time a player has reached the NBA there’s a good chance everyone already has a pretty good idea of how much an individual player’s scoring effectiveness decreases as his shot attempts increase and so coaches and teammates avoid overburdening him lest they induce a compensatory defensive adjustment that hurts their overall offensive production.
it simply cannot be true that giving Kwame Brown more shots would result in more points per possession long-term for the Lakers. it may work if used sporadically because teams wouldn’t adjust their defense accordingly. but if used routinely they would definitely adjust and we could expect a serious decline in his points per field goal attempt. if that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be having this conversation because he’d already be shooting more: someone would have discovered Kwame’s unstoppable offensive talents years ago.
i have no problem with Wins Produced. it is a clever descriptive model and i enjoy the blog. with that said, you cannot conclude that Allen Iverson is a ‘bad shooter’ and systemically overvalued from his Wins Produced #s. those statements do not logically follow yet they are made continually.
Owen: giving up 3-5% more offensive rebounds per 48 minutes does indeed translate into 1-2 more points per game and that is no small matter. however, in WP the statistically superior rebounder is given credit for 7 additional rebounds per 48 minutes when he’s really only ‘producing’ an additional 1-2reb/48min for his team. that’s a comparatively minor gain (but absolutely significant).
vanveen
November 7, 2007
that should read: “..does indeed translate into 1-2 more points per 48 minutes”
which is less than 1-2 points per game played.
Tom Mandel
November 13, 2007
Hmmm, this is all interesting.
To me, the most compelling evidence in favor of the Win Score methodology is its correlation, year after year, with the total wins of a given team. It seems to exceed the correlation of any other method.
Is it possible that this correlation is *not* evidence that the methodology is accurate for individual players on the team? Well, of course it’s “possible.” But, I can’t begin to argue how or why it might produce accurate results for the team total while being relatively inaccurate for the individual player.
Tom Mandel
November 13, 2007
An issue in resistance to the WS methodology is its lack of correlation with one’s experience of how great certain players are. The best example might be AI.
Anyone who has ever watched Iverson play knows he is a great player; he’s 6’1″ and weighs as much as Shaq’s right arm, but he can dominate the court and do extraordinary things. Yet, according to WS methodology, he is vastly overrated. And, the fact that he has never won a championship somewhat confirms this fact.
In other words, how can he be a great player if his results aren’t great?
A basketball game is two things: it is competition (like a battle) and it is art/entertainment (like a ballet). If it was purely competition, we wouldn’t need to watch it; all we’d need is to know who won. Hence, in large part, we watch it because it’s incredibly entertaining.
It is in that sense that Allen Iverson is a great basketball player — great in the way a ballet dancer might be great or a great singer or pianist. He does *extraordinary things,* esp. for someone his size, and it’s great to watch him do them.
But WS methodology has no approach to this aspect of the game. Indirectly, of course, but its direct address is exclusively to the competition, to what affects the outcome of the battle.