Yesterday morning Brendan Nyhan asked me if I knew Sports Illustrated had once again cited The Wages of Wins. Since my copy of Sports Illustrated doesn’t arrive until Friday afternoon, I had to tell Brendan that I did not know this.
But by yesterday afternoon I learned that Brendan was indeed correct. In the afternoon I pedaled home (I live in California so I ride my bike to work every day) to take my daughters to gymnastics. And as I watched my girls do things that looked like they would hurt me, I got to read my copy of Sports Illustrated (which had arrived after lunch).
Before I got to where The Wages of Wins was mentioned, I first had to read Tom Verducci’s description of the Detroit Tigers trade for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. After reading the details on a deal that might allow the Tigers to contend for a title next year (baseball is hard to predict so that is a big “might”), I then turned to an article by Jack McCallum on Chris Paul and Deron Williams (which I later learned was posted on-line on Tuesday). Towards the end of this article is the following two paragraphs:
Indeed, one can collect several not-for-attribution votes for Williams, based on his superior shooting ability and size (the latter giving him an advantage on defense) and the 17-game playoff experience he got last season. A coach who observed both of them during the U.S. national team trials in Las Vegas over the last two summers — Paul participated in ’06, Williams in ’07 — says that Williams seems closer to stardom. “Chris was kind of like everybody’s little brother in camp,” says the coach. “Deron was willing to learn, particularly from Jason, but he never acted like he didn’t belong.”
On the other hand The Wages of Wins, a stats-based website, devoted a long recent post to comparing the two, concluding that Paul is the superior player. Paul’s assist-to-turnover ratio was 3.28 through Sunday, better than Williams’s (2.37), Kidd’s (2.60) and Nash’s (3.27); that doesn’t sound very loose-cannonish.
Thus far, Paul and Williams have been the subject of three columns at the WoW Journal, with the latest posted about a week ago.
Chris Paul vs. Deron Williams, Again
None of these noted assist-to-turnover ratio, but one cannot expect McCallum to explain Win Score or Wins Produced in a magazine article. I made an effort in VIBE magazine (in an article that appeared in November), and I can tell you it’s very difficult to explain these metrics in a few words.
Of course, in this forum we can offer more words (and I have offered many). Consequently, we can tell stories with the Wages of Wins measures.
The strict comparison between Paul and Williams, though, has been made. In an effort to say something new, I wish to build upon a table in the McCallum article which compares Williams and Paul to every point guard taken with one of the top four picks in the draft since the lottery was instituted in 1985. McCallum’s table – which you can see here – looks at each guard’s per game production of points and assists per game in their third NBA season.
I thought this was an interesting comparison, but wished to see more. Table One reports what each of these guards did their second and third season with respect to all the box score statistics. And of course, the summary Win Score measure.
Table One: Top Lottery Point Guards in Year 2 and 3
When we look at performance in year two, we see that Chris Paul’s Win Score per 48 minutes was 10.2. Of the thirteen point guards listed, only Steve Francis bested this mark (BTW, this was the best year of Stevie Franchise’s career). Deron Williams was above average with a mark of 6.8, but eight other point guards in this sample were more productive in their second season.
This season Paul has appeared in 21 games while Williams has played in 24 contests. When we look at what each of these players have offered thus far in 2007-08, we see that both guards have improved upon 2006-07. Paul has posted a Win Score per 48 minutes of 13.0, which clearly leads the field. Williams does not come close to Paul, but his per 48 minute mark of 8.6 places third on this list.
The key difference between Paul and Williams is what each player does with respect to the possession stats – rebounds, steals, and turnovers. If we calculate net possession [rebounds +steals – turnovers] (BTW, did I just make this stat up?), we see that Paul has a mark of 4.7 per 48 minutes. Kidd, Payton, and Francis actually did better with respect to net possessions, but Paul’s superior shooting efficiency and accumulation of assists trumps the small advantage these three have in net possessions.
Turning to Williams we see a net possession mark of 0.8. None of the point guards listed did worse than this in their third season. Despite such poor numbers with respect to rebounds, steals, and turnovers, Williams is able to post a relatively high Win Score because of a very high level of shooting efficiency and solid assist numbers.
Let me try and summarize what we have learned. Williams is a very good point guard. Relative to other high lottery picks, he has looked very good in his third season. Still, Paul appears to be from another planet. The only place where Paul is consistently below average is with respect to blocked shots. The average point guard blocks 0.3 shots per 48 minutes, or one shot every 184 minutes. So far this season Paul has only blocked one shot in 784 minutes.
So if your defense is predicated on your point guard blocking shots, Paul is not going to work for you. But if you want a point guard who can hit his shots, get assists, rebounds, and steals; then Paul is the choice. And if Paul continues to produce, before his career is over he will most definitely rank among the all-time greats at this position.
– DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Pete23
December 15, 2007
Good column. I like the idea of net possessions as a new stat.
dberri
December 15, 2007
I wonder if it is new. Didn’t I say something like this before? I guess with the writers strike, the WoW Journal is now going into re-runs.
Ben Guest
December 15, 2007
“Net possessions.” Great stat. I’ve wondered, an many others have, what other stats could/should be kept and/or presented in the box score. The assist that leads to the assist; charges taken; assists for shots on which a player is fouled in the act of shooting.
And I’ve got some crazy ones: dribbles taken; poor passes thrown (i.e., passes at someone’s ankle, almost over their head, etc.); shots in rhythm (attempted and made); desperation shots (attempted and made).
DJ, are there any stats that are not currently kept that would help better assess a player’s efficiency?
Finally, it’s great to see the mainstream basketball journalism community recognizing WoW.
Patrick
December 15, 2007
“And I’ve got some crazy ones: dribbles taken; poor passes thrown (i.e., passes at someone’s ankle, almost over their head, etc.); shots in rhythm (attempted and made); desperation shots (attempted and made).”
Ben, these are captured indirectly.
A player who regularly makes bad passes will have high TOs.
A player who takes lots of bad shots will have a low FG% (or if he doesn’t, he’s so good that you don’t care — this is that “shot-creator” type that the anti-statheads always insist are somehow not captured in the box score numbers).
Owen
December 15, 2007
I think they are going to start tracking deflections on NBA.com.
DB – Not going to say I pioneered the use of net possessions, but I am pretty sure I used it extensivly in a number of posts on Knickerblogger, along with my other favorite stat, rbd/to. Unsurprisingly it was in reference ot Eddy Curry, against whom the tide swiftly seems to be turning…
Pete23
December 15, 2007
If I may be so bold as to propose a column idea, how about one on whether Celtics are the best team ever. Yes, it might be melodramatic to start extrapolating from 1/4 of the season already, but I wonder how their points differential compares with the 70+ win Bulls team. Or less melodramatically are the Celtics now the best NBA team this year, which would mean the East fields a better team than the West? Quite a switch from last year when best 3 or 4 teams were in West.
Pete23
December 15, 2007
I only bring up best team because they’ve won 19 of 21 games. That projects to 74 for the season. The Mavs lost 3 games quickly (I think first 3 last year) so the best record ever talk never gained much traction until briefly well past midseason.
Kent
December 15, 2007
Houston coach doesn’t agree with intuition of win score? —
… “Houston coach Rick Adelman vowed to take scoring pressure of Yao and McGrady when he took the job in May. So far, he hasn’t figured out how to do that.
“We just have to find a way to get more people involved,” he said. “I don’t know how we’re going to be successful if we can’t do that.” …
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2007121510
Ben Guest
December 15, 2007
The 1996 Bulls went 41-3 on their way to 72-10. Although I’m a Celtics fan, I think they have to match 41-3 to have a shot at the Bulls. And IF they do that, the schedule is brutal in March…
Pete23
December 15, 2007
Wow, 41 of 44 games.
Celtics 19-2. Patriots 13-0. Red Sox won the World Series.
This might be the greatest season in history for one city.
Pete23
December 15, 2007
BTW, thanks for your reply to my comment. I hadn’t known the Bulls started off by winning 41 of 44. Incredible.
Kent
December 15, 2007
“Rookie of the Year: Kevin Durant, Seattle. Everyone knew he was an extraordinary talent, but lately Durant has shown flashes that simply leave you breathless. The next Jordan? Only LeBron was so good, so fast. He’s starting to learn the difference between good and bad shots”
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Ak3pzlLBpfQLTQ4EKHCr8LQ5nYcB?slug=aw-lastshot121407&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
dberri
December 16, 2007
Pete23,
I did write a post on the Atlantic division and noted (I think) that the Celtics have a better efficiency differential than the 95-96 Bulls. I am skeptical that this will continue, but it might.
Kent,
I think people are evaluating Durant in terms of what they think he will be, while I keep looking at what he is. Hence the conflict. This often happens when people ask different questions. The answer to what Durant will be in the future may not be the same answer we get when we ask what Durant is today.
dberri
December 16, 2007
Owen,
Forgot to note your comment. Yes we should credit you with net possessions. At least, I see no reason why we shouldn’t.
stephanieclear
December 16, 2007
Pete23: If you’re going to say the Celtics are the best team in the NBA then aren’t you predicting them to win the whole thing? Because an Eastern conference version of the Mavs would not be pretty.
I’m still skeptical about the Celts. I want them to be good because I love KG so much. I would love nothing more than for them to battle the Spurs in the finals but…I dunno. I just have a feeling they’re going to crumple when things heat up and they have to start playing teams above .500.
And maybe this is just nostalgic arrogance, but it seems to me if that Bulls team played in today’s league it would be embarrassing, like men playing against children. What made that run seem all the more impressive was the strength of the league in which they did it. Who could compete with the Bulls in recent years? Spurs, championship Pistons, and Lakers with Kobe and Shaq (Phil could coach against himself), maybe?
Is there a way to calculate how “good” the league is overall in one season compared to a couple years later? I think it’d be an interesting article.
door hinges
December 16, 2007
Pete23: If you’re going to say the Celtics are the best team in the NBA then aren’t you predicting them to win the whole thing? Because an Eastern conference version of the Mavs would not be pretty.
I agreed with it.
Ben Guest
December 16, 2007
Another stat idea: rebound percentage.
Instead of looking at offensive and defensive rebounds collected, what about looking at the number of rebounds available (missed FGA’s and missed FTA’s), and then calculating what percentage of those rebounds (offensive and defensive) a player collects. This would give a clearer picture of who is doing an outstanding job rebounding.
dberri
December 16, 2007
Ben,
That stat definitely exists already.
Ben Guest
December 16, 2007
My bad…
The Franchise
December 16, 2007
IIRC, Dennis Rodman is show to be the greatest rebounder ever if one is using reb%, rather than the easier, but less accurate rpg or reb/48.
Tim
December 16, 2007
stephanieclear – Regarding your question: “Is there a way to calculate how ‘good’ the league is overall in one season compared to a couple years later, ” in an article comparing Magic to Michael, DB concluded as follows:
“Whether you like Magic or Michael, we do see in the data that each player, in their prime, is better than any player playing today. The two best players over the last decade are Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett, and neither of these players comes close to Magic or Michael.
“Of course that might be because the average player in the past ten years has improved, and hence the very best cannot move so far from the average anymore. Okay, that’s something that needs to be talked about another day.”
I agree with you that another day has come. How about it, Dave?
dberri
December 16, 2007
Tim,
I just put up three new posts. None on this topic, though. Maybe I will look into this.
Tim
December 17, 2007
dberri — Fair enough. I hope you know I’m kidding a bit. I know you are doing this on your spare time. But I certainly would be interested in such an analysis.
I would also be interested in more posts comparing NBA players from different eras, or commenting on all-time top ten lists compiled by ESPN or other sports writers. This came up before when Gary Payton made noises about retiring, which he hasn’t officially done yet.
There’s no rush, though. I enjoy all your columns. Well, except perhaps when you reminds me how badly the Bulls are playing. But even then you shed new light on the subject. Except for Hinrich. I don’t think anyone has figured him out this season. :-(