Over the past few weeks I have reported the Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of every player in each division. Although I am sure it’s fun to look through six different columns searching for this or that player, I thought I would save everyone such effort and report every player in the league in one table.
A Comment on Statheads in Baseball
Before I get to that, though, I have to talk about something that has been bothering me for some time. My first love growing up in Detroit was baseball. A good part of my youth was spent collecting baseball cards and I spent many hours looking at the numbers on the back of each card. Such numbers are – by Sabermetric standards – quite simple. Hits, runs, RBIs, and of course batting average are the primary stats you tended to see back in the 1970s. At that time there was no mention of OPS or any other “advanced” metric.
And of course we didn’t need such stuff. Baseball fans knew who the best players were. Although we looked at the numbers, all we had to do was watch the players and we could tell who was “good” and who was “bad.”
Now, thanks to Bill James and others of his ilk, we have all these new numbers. And of course people look at these numbers as if they “prove” something. But anyone who knows baseball knows that these numbers don’t prove anything.
For example, consider a number like Runs Created. Runs Created supposedly considers everything a player does offensively and tells us how many runs a player “creates.” And since creating runs is the purpose of offense in baseball, Runs Created should tell us who is “better” or “worse.”
But all you have to do is look at the numbers and you can see that these Sabermetric numbers don’t tell us anything. Consider the rankings posted by ESPN of each hitter in terms of Runs Created per 27 outs. Fourth on the list is Carlos Pena. As a Tigers fan I am quite familiar with Mr. Pena. Pena played more than three seasons in Detroit and never saw his batting average go above 0.250. He was so talented he couldn’t even make the Tigers roster in 2006 and consequently spent most of that season in the minors.
Meanwhile, Albert Pujols spent 2005 “proving” that he was the Most Valuable Player in the National League. In 2006 Pujols finished second in voting for the MVP award. And then this past season Pujols hit 0.327 while Pena only hit 0.282. For those non-math majors out there, that’s a 45 point difference.
But the Runs Created stat ranks Pujols as only the 13th best player in baseball. Yes, Pujols – the 2005 MVP – is ranked nine spots below a player who spent 2006 in the minors with a batting average in 2007 that was 45 points lower.
When you see stuff like that you have to say, “these Sabermetric stat-heads need to get their head out of their computers and go watch a game. Pena better than Pujols? Yea, I think the Devil Rays would make that trade in a second.”
A Note for the Non-Satirical
Of course, no Sabermetrician would look at Runs Created in 2007 and declare that Pena is “better” than Pujols for all time. One would look at these numbers, though, and say that Pena was pretty good this past season.
Well, we would say that if we looked past batting average. In terms of this archaic 19th century stat, Pena was only the 83rd best hitter in baseball last year. There were only 162 hitters who qualified for the rankings last year, so batting average lists Pena in the bottom half of all hitters. The more advanced stats, though, place him in the top five. Given the flaws in batting average, we tend to believe the more advanced stats.
But even though we believe the advanced stats, we don’t look at results for one year and declare that this trumps the entire history we have on two players. Again, numbers help us think. Numbers do not do our thinking for us.
The December Rankings
With that said, we now turn to the rankings of every player in the NBA . These rankings are not based on every game these players have played since the dawn of time, but just the games played this season. And it’s not every game this season. Included in the table are the dates when I downloaded the data from NBA.com. For players in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Central, the data was taken after games played on December 23. For the Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest, though, the data was taken a few days earlier. Still, although I am not analyzing every game, I think I am analyzing enough to give us a good picture of where each player is at so far this season.
So without any further introduction, here are the rankings.
Table One: All NBA Players in December of 2007
Table Two: All NBA Teams in December of 2007
Table One reports where each player ranks in Projected Wins Produced (and please note the simplicity of my projection technique). Table Two reports the same data, but the data is organized by team. This should help you if you are interested in a specific player.
And for those who are just looking for the top players at each position, I give you Table Three.
Table Three: Top 10 at Each Position in December of 2007
One result that stands out for me is the ranking of Caron Butler ahead of LeBron James. If you look at WP48, James is well ahead of Butler. James is a bit behind Butler in Projected Wins Produced because 1) LeBron has missed a few games and 2) LeBron has spent a fair amount of time at power forward. With LeBron healthy and Anderson Varejao back in the line-up, we can expect LeBron to play most of his future minutes at small forward. Hence he will pass Butler soon (if he hasn’t already) and remain on top of the small forward rankings.
Or, maybe this won’t happen. Maybe Butler is to basketball what Pena is to baseball. Certainly this is something we will have to think about.
Other Stories
Moving beyond the LeBron-Butler comparison, here is the story of the M2P, Most Productive Rookie (MPR), and the Most Improved Player:
M2P
The M2P – Most Productive Player – thus far is Dwight Howard. As of December 16, Howard was on pace to produce 30.1 wins. The Orlando Magic, though, were only on pace to produce 54 wins. So if Howard reverted to last year’s form where he produced 20.5 wins – which was quite good – the Magic would revert to what we saw last year. In sum, the Magic’s ability to contend with teams like the Celtics and Pistons depends on Howard posting truly amazing numbers.
Most Productive Rookie
The most productive rookie thus far is Al Horford. He currently ranks 5oth in the league with 9.6 projected Wins Produced. In contrast, Kevin Durant ranks in the bottom 50 in the league (#384) while Yi Jianlian ranks 168th.
Most Improved Player
And although I have not looked at every player relative to last year, I have to believe that Chris Kaman is on pace to be the Most Improved Player. Last year he only produced 2.8 wins. This year he is on pace to produce 18.7. I can’t imagine anyone else making this big of a leap from last year.
Before closing, here’s one last comment. My plan is to repeat this analysis after every team plays 41 games. Until then I am going back to telling stories focusing on just one team or one player.
– 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.
mrparker
December 26, 2007
I know you don’t like to pick fights with people. But, when is that rondo vs. D. Williams article coming?
And if you could also write a Ginobili vs. Kobe Bryant article or even a D. Wade vs Kobe article I think that could point out the “flaws in Kobe’s game.”
I think many commentors would have to grasp at straws to make an argument that Kobe is more productive than D. Wade. They both shoot a ton and are stuck guarding the other team’s best player and shooting at the end of shot clocks. Of course you wouldn’t be able to use this year’s stats to do so.
Man, I love this stuff. Thanks again DJ
mrparker
December 26, 2007
On this note, I am watching First Take with Skip Bayless, and he’s is waxing poetic about Kobe making his teammates better.
Apparently he is jedi mind tricking all those rebounds into Andrew Bynum’s hands.
Matt Dalton
December 26, 2007
according to your analysis, the best Knicks starting lineup is David Lee, Zach Randolph, Fred Jones, Renaldo Balkman and either Q Rich or Steph. Sounds good to me!
The enduring mystery of basketball is why Isiah doesn’t play David Lee more….
Ben Guest
December 26, 2007
Great post and info. Thanks DB.
Owen
December 26, 2007
Matt – Lee is supposed to start tonight, brightened Knicks fans christmas considerably….
Owen
December 26, 2007
And their Hannukah, Kwanzaa, etc…
Excellent post….
TG Randini
December 26, 2007
Does anybody seriously think Marcus Camby, if traded, would improve another team by 27 wins?
If so, then Mr. Camby is another Larry Bird… another Tim Duncan… another Michael Jordan.
Maybe better than any of them.
Mr. Marcus Camby… would turn the Chicago Bulls from a 30 win team to a 57 win team.
Would turn your low rated playoff team from 48 wins into a 75 win team…
Would turn a 48 win team into the GREATEST team of all time!
Mr. Marcus Camby is state’s exhibit #1 as to why you overrate rebounds in your formula.
I could just see Red Auerbach 25 years ago thinking… “hmmm… let’s see… maybe I could trade Larry Bird for one of those Marcus Camby’s!!”
Or Jerry Krause 15 years ago, going up to Reinsdorf’s office, and saying… “Hey Mr. Jerry… we could save a lot of money by trading Michael for that Marcus Camby! And get just as many championships!”
I love Marcus Camby because he is a form of proof – but in human body – that the dangle of the correlation coefficient in the regression doesn’t meet the function of the junction.
But, hey… Happy Holidays and a Great New Year to all!
dberri
December 26, 2007
TG,
Odd that your bring up Red Auerbach. Red had a player like Marcus Camby named Bill Russell. Go read my post on Red Auerbach from last year. Auerbach thought that scoring was over valued (sound familiar?) and liked the fact Russell could dominate a game without scoring a bunch of points.
TG Randini
December 26, 2007
This just in:
A news service has it that the Denver Nuggets just turned down a multi-player, multi-team trade where they would obtain Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade and Shaquille O’Neal and give up Marcus Camby in return.
Nuggets ownership insisted that Camby produces more wins (27) than the three of those layabouts put together (25).
But, Nuggest ownership also said, “Substitute Andrew Bynum for Bryant and you got a DEAL!!!!!”
Stay tuned for further developments…
TG Randini
December 26, 2007
dberri,
Excellent point… but I would have to go back to something Lloyd Bentson (was that his name?) said to Dan Quayle… and say the same thing re: Camby v. Russell.
By the way, it would be great if you started doing a ‘throwback threads’ column every now and then.
I’d love to see one on the early 60’s Wilt (with the Philly Warriors) vs. the early 60’s Celtics. The Wilt scoring 50 points/game with Gola, etc. against the Celtics and do the breakdowns per player. Wilt shot a LOT… but he hit 50% when the league was only doing 40% so he was much more efficient. And… he out-rebounded Russ almost every year.
It would be interesting to see where those Warriors went wrong and how the famous Celts accounted for all their wins.
And then… show Wilt with the Philly 76’ers… with Greer, Jackson, Walker, Jones (and Billy C. coming off the bench) and do a comparison with the Celtics of THAT year.
Then we’d see the lower scoring Wilt (24ppg) but leading the league in assists and see the player distributions on each team.
For blocked shots… you could just estimate both Wilt and Russ as being a very high number. Wilt blocked as many shots as Russ… it’s just that everyone saw the Celts more often on national tv in the playoffs.
I remember Wilt playing against the Chicago Packers and Zephyrs and he scored 55 to 65 points a game playing against a pretty good center named Walt Bellamy.
Jason
December 26, 2007
How much a player will improve a team depends on several things, including how productive the player he replaces is. The strictly additive wins that Randini is satirizing assumes that the player being replaced currently produces nothing at all. There are teams with centers this bad (New Jersey, I’m looking in your direction), but this isn’t always the case.
Randini, your critique seems to be largely (entirely?) the argument from personal incredulity. We have limited data to test what the addition or subtraction of Camby from a lineup would be and there are always other mitigating variables, but the data suggest that he is quite valuable. The difference between the 00-01 Knicks, where he was available for 63 games and the 01-02 Knicks, where he played about half as many minutes, was rather pronounced, on the same scale as the improvement his present wins produced would indicate. And the improvement between the 02-03 and 03-04 Nuggets was of a similar magnitude. I realize it’s popular to attribute the latter to ‘Melo (and suspect the Knicks have other reasons people cite) but the evidence suggests that his teams have very often been much, much better with him than without him.
mrparker
December 26, 2007
TG,
How many “great scorers” of all time never sniffed a championship?
Now how many great rebounders never sniffed a championship?
Huey
December 26, 2007
Berri also covers the notion of strictly additive win production in the Kobe vs. Shaq chapter.
TG Randini
December 26, 2007
1. Russ led the league 4 times in rebounding (only two, however, after Wilt entered the league) but won 11 championships.
Wilt led the league in rebounding 10 times but won only two championships.
So, it appears the better rebounder of the two won fewer championships. Maybe Wilt should have shot some more.
2. The Bulls didn’t win their first three championships until they got rid of the two-time leading rebounder in the league, Charles Oakley.
For the life of me, I just can’t figure out how they ever won those first three championships without Dennis Rodman.
TG Randini
December 26, 2007
As far as the Camby comments, all I have to say is that if I were a GM… I’d trade Camby for Shaq, Wade and Bryant, even if everyone here thinks Camby is a more productive player than the three of them.
I just disagree.
TG Randini
December 26, 2007
And I’d rather have Kobe on my team than Bynum.
Of course, that just goes to show you I don’t know much about basketball!
TG Randini
December 26, 2007
If the 1996 Bulls could time travel and bring the 2008 Camby back to their team in place of MJ… they would have gone 74 – 8 instead of 72 -10 and saved a lot of money in salary.
I just don’t know who would have shot the ball after Dennis and Camby got all the rebounds.
But, no matter… 74 – 8 it is!
Kent
December 26, 2007
The point TG Randini obsessively makes about a “team of Rodmans” not being able to shoot reminds me of the objection some have to the Moneyball preference for high OBP home run hitters even if they are slow baserunners and strike out a lot. The objection seems to be that you can’t fill up a roster with all of these people as the runs created isn’t as additive as Bill James’ formulas suggest. (And there could be some merit to the objections as there are non-linearities like how a batter’s avg goes up if a good base stealer is on first, etc.)
TG, I’d look at Dberri’s formula in the context of what a player marginally adds/subtracts to a roster of otherwise average quality. Maybe the formula would be more predictive with a different (i.e. less emphasis on rebounding) weighting scheme, but I’m not sure the “would 5 Rodmans beat 5 Kobes” thought experiment says much either way.
Kent
December 26, 2007
I should have qualified something I just wrote, “I’d look at Dberri’s formula in the context of what a player marginally adds/subtracts to a roster of otherwise average quality.”
The formula isn’t constructed in such a way that an individual player’s numbers adjust for the surrounding player’s numbers, i.e. if you’re surrounded by bad rebounders your rebounding numbers are inflated. Since that adjustment isn’t made what I wrote is only an approximation.
Eliot
December 27, 2007
I have been wondering how high the correlation between win score and fantasy basketball rankings are. There will be some difference due to fantasy basketball rewarding players who play more, but there would seem to be some connection as the rankings take into account Fg%, Ft%, and turnovers, as well as points, 3 pointers made, ect. I believe the top ranked fantasy player right now is Chris Paul, followed by Shawn Marion. The major divider between the two is being way below average in several categories can be offset in fantasy but not in win score.
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
Kent, the high OBP team would score a lot of runs and be a great team (assuming they could field) merely by walking a lot. A string of baseball players getting walks will score a bunch of runs if they do nothing ELSE but walk.
The difference, in basketball, is that a team that only rebounds will never score a point.
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
And Kent, you bring up an interesting point. I think there could be very valuable work done on… what is the maximum effective synergy between the allocation of skill components among players in a continuous (basketball) game (as opposed to a discrete game like baseball where diminishing returns are not nearly as much an issue)?
e.g.: Five Rodmans or five Iverson’s on a team is surely not the optimum either way. One team can’t shoot after gaining rebounds and the other team chooses not to rebound their missed shots.
I think that after synergy guidelines are established (through data-mining history), then synergy with teammates could be a +/- multiplier to each individuals productivity score.
(After all, it is a TEAM game…)
i.e.: Iverson doesn’t rebound. But he shouldn’t be penalized as much when he is on a team with a Rodman or Camby.
Rodman keeps his rebounding ‘score’ when on a team with scorers like MJ, but would be penalized on a team like the present-day Bulls whose ‘scorers’ don’t know where the basket is.
The point being… a rebound is worth more if you have teammates who know what to do with it once you get the rebound… but worth less if you don’t have teammates that know how to score.
You are penalized because you should be doing more scoring yourself to gain greater team synergy… points… and wins.
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
Thus, you would have an ‘effective’ productivity score instead of merely a productivity score… the ‘effective’ part modifying an individual’s productivity within a team construct, and given the synergy between teammates’ skill components.
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
I guess what I am saying is that the team that best optimizes the MIX (avoiding the dreaded MBA synergy word) of productive resources is the team that will win most often.
Quick example: Denver. Has Camby. So… Iverson, don’t worry about rebounding. Get Allen off the ball… less turnovers. Specialize on getting open, and then going to the basket.
Denver begins winning more than usual because they are optimizing the mix of individual skill sets.
My complaint within the WOW system is that the allocation of individual credit should be spread more than it is in the Denver situation… Camby is gaining more personal reward at the ‘expense’ of teammates.
I wonder what Wilt’s win score was in the early 60’s when he led the league in rebounding and scoring, was scoring efficiently, and blocked a lot of shots. It must have been off the charts.
But the ‘mix modifier’ or ‘synergy modifier’ must have been low somewhere.
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
Thought experiment (in honor of A. Einstein):
If Dennis Rodman’s rebounds were so utterly important… why didn’t the opposing teams in the late 90’s double team Dennis to prevent him from getting rebounds… instead of stupidly double-teaming MJ to prevent him from scoring?
Footnotes:
1. I love Dennis Rodman as an entertainer. He was a great defender, also.
2. He gained a lot of offensive rebounds because was almost inept as an offensive scoring threat. The offense wasn’t run through him, and everyone on the defense was chasing MJ and Pippen around the court. Tthe defense ignored Rodman because the Bulls’ offence mainly ignored him… so when there was a missed shot, Dennis, standing alone on the court, could concentrate on the one thing he could do on that end of the court… jump in the air, put his hands up, and catch a ball bouncing off the glass or rim.
Then hope he didn’t get fouled.
mrparker
December 27, 2007
tg,
Maybe you should bring up the per minute stats if you want to bring up Chamberlain’s rebounding.
Russell for his career avg’d 21.2 reb per 40 minutes. Chamberlain avg’d 20.
If Chamberlain was leading the lead it seems thats because he played 3.7 more minutes per game.
The Bulls with Oakley did not have a productive scottie pippen so that comparison is invalid. Its when scottie pulled his production up that they became that good.
However once, they obtaine Rodman who took a team already playing great and made them historically great.
Hey man, sometimes you just have to accept things. Its true that you can’t field a team of all rebounders, but great rebounders are a rare commodity and thus valuable. Guys who are “strong” enough to hoist the ball 20+ times a game are not a rare commodity. They are plentiful.
mrparker
December 27, 2007
tg,
You bring up a good point. What if teams doubled the best rebounders?
Oren
December 27, 2007
“And I’d rather have Kobe on my team than Bynum.”
Suppose that you had Wade, Nash, Kidd and Iverson on your team already. And your starting center was Jason Collins or Mark Blount. And your starting PF was Antoine Walker. Would you still rather have Kobe then Bynum?
Jason
December 27, 2007
Ludicrous thought experiments do not mean something. Once again, models function best inside of the realm of observation upon which they were based. Since the model was not based on either the 5 Rodmans or 5 Jordans/Kobes/scoring guard of your choice, any thought-conclusions you draw from your ‘experiment’ are meaningless *as the model relates to the real game of basketball.*
If a team doubled the best rebounder, I suspect his rebounds would decline dramatically. But this is a result as much in the decline of the available rebounds as anything else. Doubling a rebounder to prevent rebounds means that there will be more made baskets. The overall productivity of forwards and centers would go down, resulting in a lower position correction. It may have the effect of changing some distribution of “Wins” but this isn’t clear. But again, what does this actually show with regards to the model and the value of a rebound? Since it’s yet another “though-observation” outside of the realm of the real game, it doesn’t really have much if any bearing on a model created based on observations of the real game.
Animal
December 27, 2007
Happy holidays everyone!
magicmerl
December 27, 2007
TG, your real posts would be better if you didn’t troll so much.
I think that comparing Win Score with Game Score (or whatever PER translates to in the box score), I think that WS is a much better way of valuing statistical contribution. It’s not perfect, and there are things that I don’t like about it. For example, I do think that a ‘star’ player draws attention from the defense and thus gets his teammates more open shots. However, dberri does a very good job of arguing that this benefit is very small, and certainly less than the weighting that other models give.
I think that the next step for WoW is to look a some sort of ‘how did the opponent’s WS change’ factor, which could give more insight into why Bruce Bowen still has a starting job on the best team in basketball (I love BB, by the way).
magicmerl
December 27, 2007
Also, dberri,
in looking at the component parts of WS from here:
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/05/21/simple-models-of-player-performance/
I see how some of the figures are derived, but not others.
WS = Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½Assists + ½Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers – ½Free Throw Attempts – ½Personal Fouls
If you think that there is a 50% change of turning a posession into a bucket, I can totally see why you use Points – FGA, as a made 2pt basket gives you +1, a made 3pt shot gives +2 and a missed shot gives -1. That makes perfect sense to me. So 1 point of Winscore is equivalent to turning a posession into points. But doesn’t that mean the following things?
You have the following ‘levels’
a. Opponent makes basket
b. Opponent has posession
c. Noone has posession
d. You have posession
e. You make a basket
I can see how going from d-e (making a 2 pt shot) is good for +1WS. And I can also see that a rebound takes you from c-d, and is also good for +1WS. That implies to me that the gap between each of the above states is 1WS, correct?
So under that scale, shouldn’t this be the WS formula?
WS
= (made basket, d-e) Points from Baskets – FGA
+ (rebound, c-d) Rebounds
+ (Free Throws) Points from Free Throws – 0.5 * FTA
+ (Change of posession, b-d and d-b) 2 * Steals – 2 * TO
+ (stopping made baskets, a-c) 2 * Blocks
+ (assists, d-d or e-e) 0 * Assists
So if you are strictly measuring how posession changes, then I think that you are correctly evaluating points, rebounds and shot attempts. But fitting steals, turnovers, assists and personal fouls into this model seems to show quite a different weighting from that applied by WinScore.
Can you please help me to understand the reasoning behind the weightings for the non-shooting non-rebounding statistics in WinScore?
It also seems like you are weighting assists too highly. Here’s an extreme example to illustrate my point. Take four players, a, b, c and d. A and B play for the ‘friends’, while C and D play for the ‘greedies’. A and B always assist each other (and have an equal number of shot attempts), while C and D are much more selfish, and always create their own shot.
None of these players ever miss, and they always take 2 pt shots. If the ‘friends’ and the ‘greedies’ use the same number of posessions, they will have achieved the same basketball outcome, but you will be giving A and B higher WinScores than C and D, even though their ‘contribution to winning’ is the same. How can this be?
I know this is an extreme example, and this isn’t the first extreme example in this thread :~) but if the example had more ‘noise’ in it, I don’t think that my point would be made as well.
This seems like the same sort of arguement as your criticism of PER for rewarding volume shooters who shoot over 30%. I agreed with your arguement then, and this seems like the same sort of reasoning, applied to assists.
Jason
December 27, 2007
A steal is equivalent to a defensive rebound in terms of what it does for a possession. It means exactly the same thing: the opposition had a possession and they ended the possession without scoring. A turnover similarly is the same as a missed FG w/out an offensive rebound. It means you had a possession, but surrendered it to the opposition without scoring. This is the logic of the weighting.
However, as I understand it, the weighting for these were not assembled due to the logic, but were observed based on regression as it related to probability of victory. The weights observed were very similar.
Win Score is a simplification of wins produced. for steals, fouls, and assists, the values do not round quite as well as the other stats, but it’s ‘close enough’. The issue of the “greedies” vs. the “friends” teams are addressed in Wins Produced with the teammate adjustment (as is the issue that not all blocks result in turnovers, that not all fouls result in FT attempts, etc). As it is, the variance in the percentage of baskets that are assisted on teams isn’t great enough to skew it significantly as is the variance in fouls:FTs resulting in fouls from team to team. In the simplified version, it takes for granted that this variance isn’t great. In Wins Produced, this variance is accounted for.
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
Jason,
Time’s “Man of the Century” became famous and became the man of the century entirely due to ludicrous thought experiments.
At the time, people mistakenly believed the Newtonian universe was reality, or as you put it, “the real game”. ‘
Kent
December 27, 2007
Jason writes as I understand it, the weighting for these were not assembled due to the logic, but were observed based on regression as it related to probability of victory. The weights observed were very similar. “
Does dberri just run a univariate regression of probability of winning (aka average points scored minus average points allowed per possession) against each each component of win score? For example, does he regress “probability of winning” (dependent variable) against blocks (independent variable)? And then “probabiligy of winning” against offensive rebounds? etc. And then use those weightings as the coefficients for win score?
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
One last comment on rebounding:
I’m sure gaining a higher % of rebounds is strongly correlated with gaining a higher % of wins.
But I’m also sure that reducing the opponent’s FG% is also strongly correlated with gaining a higher % of wins.
I think, however, that people are confusing second order effects with first order causes.
Playing good defense reduces the opponent’s FG%. The increase in missed shots allows your team to increase its rebounds per possession.
Thus, the first order cause (playing good defense) allows your team to grab more rebounds (the second order effect).
Certain people have figured this out already… like the Spurs’ Popovich… ergo:
Bruce Bowen.
Tim Duncan grabs more rebounds (a second order effect) because Bruce Bowen plays great defense (the first order cause).
(Of course, Tim Duncan also grabs more rebounds as a second order effect because Tim Duncan plays great defense himself!… another first order cause.)
The rebounding is weighted too highly in WoW because it is misattributing the second order effects to a few tall people instead of allocating the first order causes (defense) to the proper personnel.
Folks, I just can’t make it any plainer than that.
Pete23
December 27, 2007
TG Randini, excellent points.
mrparker
December 27, 2007
makes sense when you explain it that way…gotta sleep on it….nice way of expressing your thoughts
dberri
December 27, 2007
TG,
I realize you think at this point you are saying something original. But your observation about defense has already been made many, many times before. And the response has not changed.
Eddy Curry does not get rebounds. And he has not throughout his career. His teammates changes, his coaches change, and he can’t rebound. Marcus Camby does get rebounds. And he has done this year after year. His teammates change, his coaches change, and he still gets rebounds.
If rebounds are simply a product of a teams defense, then we would see a player’s rebounds fluctuate wildly over the course of their career. But we just don’t see this. When I see the consistency in rebounds, I conclude that rebounding is a skill that the numbers capture. Rebounds are not something that happen just by chance, as you are proposing (over and over and over again).
Pete23
December 27, 2007
Kent, you’re right. I believe that is how the weightings are derived.
Pete23
December 27, 2007
TG Randini, you’re saying that a good defensive player could increase the rebound totals of his teammates even if his rebounds don’t change much? Maybe that’s where plus/minus comes in.
dberri
December 27, 2007
Kent and Pete23,
No, that is not how the weightings are derived. Look at the technical notes at wagesofwins.com for details.
Pete23
December 27, 2007
Kent, here is an explanation …
http://www.wagesofwins.com/CalculatingWinsProduced.html
Pete23
December 27, 2007
Kent, basically, they determine how much point is worth in terms of win probability. And then they assign a weight to field goal made, rebounds, etc. based on how many points per possession is creates. (Or in the case of a rebound it stops the other team from getting a possession.) It’s elegant all right but I’m not sure if it’s all true.
Animal
December 27, 2007
Pete, that link doesn’t explain it all. I still don’t understand the construction.
“Determine the value, in terms of wins, of points and possessions. This is done by differentiating the above wins model with respect to Points, Points Surrendered, PE, and PA.”
I don’t even know differential calculus!
Jason
December 27, 2007
Interestingly enough, Bowen’s contribution to defense, as assessed by the Spurs’ defensive FG% with and without him is virtually identical. It doesn’t really appear that he’s generating more missed shots when he is in the game.
Jason
December 27, 2007
some real data:
I looked at rebounds/min of all players in the Association in 05-06 and 06-07. Rebound rate from season to season was highly correlated, R^2=0.7954 for players who appeared in games in both seasons.
If we confine the measurement to players who have at least 500 minutes in both seasons, it goes up to 0.8989, indicating that regular players are very, very, very consistent in their rebound rates.
If we confine observations to players who played at least 500 minutes for both teams, the correlation remains strong. In fact, it’s a bit better (N=65; R^2=.9033). If teammates’ defense is what is driving rebounds, then the 65 players who changed teams and played reasonably regular minutes in both seasons were very, very lucky to find themselves on remarkably comparable teams in both seasons, teams that were more similar than the season-to-season variance of players who remained in the same city.
Jason
December 27, 2007
Sorry, that last paragraph should have started:
“If we confine observations to players who played at least 500 minutes in both years but changed teams in that time,…”
Pete23
December 27, 2007
Jason, great analysis. TG Randini’s hypothesis was well thought out but turned out to not be true.
But what if you have 2 players and one is told by the coach to only rebound and the other is told by the coach to only shoot. Win score rewards the former more heavily. TG Randini has made that point as well. It would be difficult to prove or disprove that except maybe checking for how team performance changes when rosters shift. According to UNC economist Ro#e#ba#m, win score struggles in that test.
Clipfan
December 27, 2007
Mr. Berri, can you please show a table with last year’s wins produced/48 (for each player that is not a rookie) so we can get a sense of how stable these are? Thank you.
Animal
December 27, 2007
Clipfan, the correlations are very high, in excess of .9 according to the book.
Animal
December 27, 2007
Jason Chandler’s web site has wins produced for last season.
Animal
December 27, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Chandler
magicmerl
December 27, 2007
“A steal is equivalent to a defensive rebound in terms of what it does for a possession. It means exactly the same thing: the opposition had a possession and they ended the possession without scoring.”
I don’t agree with this, because it’s giving the rebounder credit for the missed shot.
Jason
December 27, 2007
Well, for starters, nothing Randini said was new. That defensive rebounds are an end point of a missed shot is something that I’ve voiced here over and over again. That it’s the end point is a separate issue from whether or not credit gets unfairly assigned. Randini simply said that it’s the endpoint and then asserted that because of this, the weighting is wrong. He did nothing to demonstrate that the weighting is wrong, that someone is systematically being under- or over-rewarded. That is a separate issue from noting that it takes a missed shot to have a rebound.
Coaches may well tell players not to shoot–and it’s sometimes good advice–, but if a coach ever told a player not to rebound, I’d think him a moron. Yes, it *would* be detrimental to the player ordered not to rebound. Again, this is a thought exercise that doesn’t resemble the reality upon which the model was created. I cannot think of a situation where a player would be told to avoid rebounding, especially on defense, though they could be positioned in such a place where they aren’t as likely to get rebounds.
But while I’ll grant that there may be players who are set in positions on offense that do not favor rebounding (e.g., they’re told to spot up for the long-ball and are not in position to grab many boards), this is generally an issue on offense more than defense. Standing pat far from the rim is detrimental to offensive rebounding (and defensive rebounding if you’re stupid enough to do this on defense, but in such a case, you really *are* hurting your team, so I don’t see the penalty as being unfair), but the degree to which this is detrimental is mitigated in the model by two factors.
One is internal to the model, namely, the position correction. Guards are the ones more likely to be in this position. This would dramatically penalize big men who didn’t rebound, as the position average predicts more rebounds, but does not have as pronounced an effect on guards. But it doesn’t *unfairly* penalize the big men (unless of course a smaller player can swap places and be an equally adept rebounder, something I suspect is rarely true). It penalizes them because their lack of rebounding does in fact hurt the team. Sure, it may be what the coach wanted, but that doesn’t detract from the negative effect that following the coach’s orders had.
The other factor that mitigates this is that in general, offensive rebounds are less common (~27% of all rebounds last season) and far, far less common for guards. The average for point guards is less than 1 OR per 48 minutes and account for ~18% of all their rebounds. We are not talking about a situation where a guard can fall far under average by missing out on his regular share of offensive rebounds because there isn’t much of an expectation of them anyhow.
So yes, if a big man is put in a position where he won’t rebound, it will be a detriment, and yes, he’d get blamed in WP for following the moron coach’s orders. (And the team will likely suffer unless his ability to “draw out the defense” radically improved everyone else’s FG%, something that doesn’t seem to happen often enough to offset the negatives of a big man taking lower percentage shots and rebounding less regularly actually bring.)
But the guard who finds himself in this position where he cannot get the offensive rebound isn’t suffering much relative to the average and, if he’s a slightly above average efficiency shooter, he’ll get back by taking even slightly more shots.
Jason
December 27, 2007
Yes, ‘magicmerl’ equating a steal and a rebound in value does mean that you’re giving the full credit of the missed shot by the opposition to the guy who got the rebound *in the simple model*. However, this is mitigated by the position correction somewhat and, at least in terms of player predictability and team performance, seems to function reasonably well. If it didn’t, if the rebound were more a product of other players generating misses, we wouldn’t expect the rather alarming consistency in rebounding by players, independent of teammates.
Animal
December 27, 2007
Animal likes the discussion on this thread.
Westy
December 27, 2007
Jason,
You state, “Rebound rate from season to season was highly correlated.”
Was this adjusted for pace? I would doubt a player moving from a slow paced team to a fast paced team would still get the same number of rebounds/minute.
In regard to an individual such as Camby being consistently a good rebounder, this only shows that he is consistently good and better than most of his teammates at it. We would need to check to see the impact on his teammates’ rebounds to determine whether he’s actually increasing his teams’ possessions. Alternatively what could have happened is that he stepped into the role of ‘rebounder’ on his teams and others stepped out. Maybe he’s marginally better, but that may just mean he’s thus slotted into that role freeing up other players to do other things. The marginal increase in possessions is really all he should get credit for.
Looking at the correlation between rebound rates between years may not mean anything if the correlation between FG% is higher. If the number of possible rebounds is basically exactly the same, one wouldn’t expect players’ rebound rates to differ much. As well, if the defensive FG% differences between two teams players switch between is similar it is likely they are slotted into very similar roles. I don’t see players such as Kapono, Shaq, B. Wallace, etc. changing their roles much no matter which team they’re on. Again, position (and height) overrides.
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
Bravo Westy! An independent thinker!
1. Correlation is not cause. (Yes, Jason/dberri, this has been said many, many, many, many times before and me saying it now is not new, new, new.)
2. Linear programming makes no sense in a curved universe. (This may not be new now, but it was when I first said it thirty years ago.)
I’m off to finalize a quantum theory of gravity that will finally unite the twin pillars of 20th century physics: relativity and quantum mechanics.
Westy, maybe you an find a cure for cancer.
Camby, you keep rebounding, which on this site is as important as knowing exactly what makes the wave function collapse.
dberri, you are a particle man (the rebounding of the roundball) and I am a wave man (the synergistic optimization of individual skill sets), but as everyone knows… the quantum world is full of wave/particle duality.
And let’s face it quantum mechanics is just plain fun. It’s dadaistic!
TG Randini
December 27, 2007
Hey, in the pre-game shootarounds when the water boys fetch the errant balls, do they end up with big win scores too for grabbing all those rebounds?
Jason
December 27, 2007
The rate was *not* adjusted for pace or available rebounds. It was raw rebounds per minute. I expected it to be more variable as I expected changing teams would mean enough difference in pace to produce a noticeable difference. But apparently, this was not the case.
The year to year correlation in team FG% (offense or defense) has an R^2 of about 0.3, so the correlation is far, far, less pronounced than it is in individual rebound rate.
Again, with regards to the WP model, rebounds DO NOT create possessions. The possession happens regardless of the rebound. What the rebound indicates is *how* the possession occurred.
Rebound rates for teams do vary from year to year. The correlation is not as good as it is for individuals (the 2 year R^sq was less than 0.5). Since the correlation from year to year for players is more consistent, this suggests that it’s the players doing the rebounding who are most responsible for this and the team rate varied because of players and the playing time allotted to these players.
Yes, it’s true that other players have some influence on rebounds but that’s true for shooting (even beyond assists) and virtually every other aspect of the game. The problem people seem to have is that it’s against the conventional wisdom that a player’s individual rebounds have as much to do with wins as the data suggest seem to they do. The problem seems to be rather unique to rebounds where people insist that someone should not get full credit for their own rebounds, though the data suggests that the factors sited as potentially influencing a player’s rebounding returns vary far more than the actual returns.
Animal
December 27, 2007
Dear TG Randni,
In homage to the theme song from the delightful SWAMP FOX series, I now sing to you —
Swamp Fox, Swamp Fox
Tail on his hat
Nobody knows
Where the other five shows are at
Swamp Fox, Swamp Fox
Disney makes me blue
All I can say is
Disney, what the heck is wrong with you?
Sincerely,
animal
Harold Almonte
December 28, 2007
If Bowen were smart, he better would try to go quickly to put himself in a better spot to grab rebounds rather than losing the “money” defending outhere (reducing opp. FG%), he anyway probably is not fairly rewarded by all the points allowed, or assists he avoids. Probably the additional new rebounds will be as valuable as the additional points allowed, wich anyway some of them will be distributed among teammates.
Probably he won’t have additional points allowed, given that by this metric, his opponents will keep having the same FGmissed, because they aren’t produced by him.
TG Randini
December 28, 2007
Animal, thanks for pasting in that old Amazon review. Didn’t know anyone would be looking into the archives over there!
So you know TG is 60% facetious, 10% pain in neck, and 30% kernels of wisdom… all mixed together like Hungarian goulash.
Animal
December 28, 2007
TG, if you get a chance, please post a poem about the overemphasis on rebouding in win score. Thanks!
Jason
December 28, 2007
Harold, at least this year, Bowen *hasn’t* substantially reduced the opponent’s FG%, nor has his floor-time presence increased San Antonio’s rebounding percentages. Last year, the Spurs had a signficantly better defensive FG% with him in the game and surrendered fewer points per possession, but the year before, the effect was again minimal (and, in the case of FG%, marginally worse when he played).
Westy
December 28, 2007
Jason notes, “Bowen…the effect was again minimal.”
Could this have to do with the fact that he’s most likely to sit when the player he’s guarding (such as Kobe) goes out of the game too?
Jason
December 28, 2007
Could it be because he’s always matched with top performers? It’s possible, but that starts looking more and more like special pleading than anything else. It would mean that his presence neutralizes the opposition top performer to almost exactly the same level as said top performer’s replacement. Is that possible? Sure. Is it *probable?* That’s a different issue, and with the data I’ve seen, it’s like trying to prove that Elvis is dead. (He probably is, but it’s difficult to demonstrate conclusively to satisfy all doubters.)
Bowen may be a fantastic defender who significantly helps his team, but the numbers don’t generally show that, regardless of what numbers you use. Adjusted +/- for the last two seasons show him to have a negligible impact as well, as most of his positive impact comes from times on the floor with Duncan, a player who is significantly positive in impact with or without Bowen. Bowen’s limited time without Duncan doesn’t show as significant an impact. It’s difficult to tease it all out, but what we’re left with usually boils down to “but Popovich continues to use him, they’ve won, ergo it’s the right decision, ergo Bowen must be a significantly positive impact on the team.”
Harold Almonte
December 28, 2007
Yeah. But that’s what I’m trying to say, that his defense is so “virtual” that even numbers can’t find it. He won’t receive any help by numbers and ratings defending shots (probably a lot of fouls), he better should stay near the ring and grab rebounds to make him a “better” player. The perimeter is not a good place to be in basketball.
Harold Almonte
December 28, 2007
If somebody says to you, you will get more credits jumping after a FGmissed than jumping on a FGA, which would you save your energy for?
Westy
December 28, 2007
“but Popovich continues to use him, they’ve won, ergo it’s the right decision, ergo Bowen must be a significantly positive impact on the team.”
It does make me wonder… Good thoughts.
TG Randini
December 28, 2007
Harold, good point. I’ve been saying here before that the rewards (win score, etc) aren’t correlated with productive efforts (team D, individual D, picks, the first great pass that becomes a second pass and no assist, and many, many, more.) Plus, there’s just something knawing at my gut that says they keep track of points on the big scoreboard, not rebounds, in determining which team wins the game.
I don’t deny the hard work, the dedicated effort, and all that by dberri and his acolytes… it starts the discussion… but a completely logical argument can be wrong when based on a faulty premise.
People thought Einstein was nuts in 1905 when he said that light was composed of quanta (discrete packets of energy).
It’s great
to correlate
but the regress
can be a mess
if a model you erect
and the effect you select
has a cause
you failed to check
(for animal…)
Animal
December 28, 2007
TG Randini, beautiful and trenchant poem. Thanks!
Jason
December 28, 2007
Randini, I’m left time and time again with the notion that you haven’t the slightest clue what the purpose of Dave (or really any) model is.
Jason
December 28, 2007
should read: “Dave’s (or really any) model is.”
mrparker
December 29, 2007
A good test will of win score will come when the olympics hit this summer.
The win score of the team has significantly increased and if the gold comes home then me thinks that most detractors would have to give DJ some credit for his model.
Pete23
December 29, 2007
Somtimes I think TG Randini is a handle for CEA economist Rosenbaum. Other times I think TG Randini is a real person but insane.