Who is the most “underrated” player in the NBA? As I noted a few days ago, the answer to this question requires two metrics. The first metric should capture popular perception. The second should approximate reality. Of course, to make such an argument you have to argue that your reality differs from popular perception (so the underrated story requires a bit of an attitude).
Measuring Popular Perception
The discussion of the “overrated” focused on three measures that appear to capture popular perception: NBA Efficiency, Game Score (John Hollinger’s simple measure), and the Player Efficiency Rating (PER or John Hollinger’s more complicated measure).
When we consider how each of these measures is calculated it appears that we would get a different answer from each. For example, compare the formulas for NBA Efficiency and Game Score.
NBA Efficiency = Points + Rebounds + Steals + Assists + Blocked Shots – All Missed Shots – Turnovers
Game Score = Points + 0.4*Made Field Goals – 0.7*Field Goal Attempts – 0.4*Free Throws Missed + 0.7*Offensive Rebounds + 0.3*Defensive Rebounds + Steals + 0.7*Assists + 0.7*Blocked Shots – 0.4* Personal Fouls – Turnovers
These metrics look to be different. But when we look at the population of players from the 2007-08 regular season, we see a 0.99 correlation between a player’s NBA Efficiency and Game Score value.
PER – as the description at Basketball-Reference indicates – is more complicated than both NBA Efficiency and Game Score. But when we compare Game Score per-minute and PER (a per-minute metric), again we see a 0.99 correlation.
In sum, each of these measures is capturing something very similar.
And that something is scoring. As the following posts on each measure indicates, players who score -whether efficiently or not – tend to look good according to each measure.
NBA Efficiency: Do We Overvalue Rebounds? (November 9, 2006).
PER: A Comment on the Player Efficiency Rating (November 17, 2006)
Game Score: Marvin Williams Makes a Hypothetical Deal (December 16, 2007)
Scoring, as The Wages of Wins argues, is the one factor that drives popular perception. Consequently, metrics that are driven by scoring are also going to be good measures of how players are generally perceived.
The Preferred Measure
With the measures of popular perception once again explained, let me take a slight detour before I get to the underrated. Let’s imagine that you wanted a measure of popular perception. Which of these three should you choose?
The answer depends upon how you view complexity. If you wish people to think you are clever, then complexity is considered a benefit. In other words, the simple tends not to impress.
But in empirical research, complexity is a cost (in time and effort). In other words, if all else is equal, a simple approach should always be preferred to a complex approach. Or to put it another way, complexity is only good if the complexity actually gives you something.
Given this argument, NBA Efficiency should be preferred over either Game Score or PER. As outlined above, NBA Efficiency tells essentially the same story and it is the easiest to calculate. My sense, though, is that PER tends to be preferred to Game Score. And Game Score is preferred to NBA Efficiency. In sum, it looks like people like complexity, even if that complexity isn’t giving them anything.
The Underrated
Okay, enough detours. Let’s get to the question this post is supposed to be addressing. Who is the most underrated player in the 2007-08?
The answer to this question will follow the same approach taken in examining the overrated. Again, we need two reference points. Given that this is The Wages of Wins Journal, our measure of reality (or what passes for reality in this forum) will be Wins Produced. The ranking from this metric will be compared to three measures of popular perception: points score per game, NBA Efficiency, and PER.
Let’s start with points scored per game.
Table One: The Underrated Scorers
Table One reports – via a comparison of points and Wins Produced – the fifteen most underrated players. Topping the list is Marcus Camby. He is followed by Jason Kidd, Andris Biedrins, Jose Calderon, and Tyson Chandler. Each of these players produced a significant quantity of wins, but generally not via scoring.
Next we turn to the Wins Produced-NBA Efficiency story.
Table Two: The Underrated in NBA Efficiency
Points-per-game has a 0.89 correlation with NBA Efficiency (0.93 correlation with Game Score). Although this is fairly high, we see some differences in the names reported in Table One and Two. Specifically, Camby, Kidd, and Chandler – who were at the top of Table One – do not appear on Table Two. Although these names disappear, Rajon Rondo, Antonio Daniels, Ben Wallace, Jamario Moon, Antonio McDyess, Biedrins, Calderon, and David Lee appear on each list.
The final table looks at PER. Because this is a per-minute measure, we have to compare the PER ranking to the ranking we see from WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes].
Table Three: The Underrated in PER
Leading this list is Kidd. He is followed by Wallace, Rondo, Camby, and Moon.
Again, we see familiar names. But the name at the top is again different.
So who is the most underrated? If we add together the difference reported in each table the most underrated player in the NBA for 2007-08 is….. Rajon Rondo. And here are the 15 most underrated players if we consider all three perspectives.
1. Rajon Rondo
2. Ben Wallace
3. Jason Kidd
4. Marcus Camby
5. Jamario Moon
6. Antonio Daniels
7. Antonio McDyess
8. Andris Biedrins
9. Samuel Dalembert
10. Tyson Chandler
11. David Lee
12. Jose Calderon
13. Nick Collison
14. Al Horford
15. Josh Childress
A last note on Rondo… when we think of the Celtics we tend to focus on Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen. But in the regular season Rondo produced more wins than Allen. And in the post-season he has offered more than wins than every Celtic not named KG.
This post completes the columns on the overrated, overpaid, and underpaid. For those who missed the previous columns, here are the links to each:
Who is the Most Overrated in 2007-08?
The Most Overpaid in the NBA in 2007-08
What Do Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, LeBron James, and Tim Duncan have in Common?
– 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.
Wages of Wins Journal 
me
May 24, 2008
Jason Kidd and Ben Wallace? Seriously? A team built around these two (at this point in their careers) would go NOWHERE!
Anon
May 25, 2008
I think it would be interesting to see how a team composed of these underrated players would do against a typical team. For instance if you look at the top 5, you could turn that into your starting lineup (camby at center, wallace at pf, moon at sf, kidd and rondo as guards). Judging from what I know of these players, this team would be absolutely abysmal on offense, but quite good defensively.
It would seem to me that a team of these 5 players and an average bench would be a playoff team, but hardly an elite team in the league, although if you ignore diminishing returns (and the fact that positions are mixed a bit) and simply add up their WP, it’s pretty high, especially if you assume they’re getting something from their bench. So is there an argument to be made that if you took these 5 players and started a team with them, it would be a very good team, even though they have pretty much no scoring? Conventional wisdom says no way, which I suppose is the point (that they’re underrated), but I’m having trouble convincing myself of it.
JB
May 25, 2008
Ben Wallace is one of the most overpaid / underperformers this season.
Kidd is unique but didn’t lead Dallas well against good teams regular season or playoffs this 1st time.
Camby is a very good role player.
The rest of the list are reasonable names.
PJ
May 25, 2008
How much Wallace is paid is neither here nor there, it seems.
And Rondo and Kidd are both prototypical point guards, so putting both in the backcourt of a team would make little sense (of course a team like that would struggle to score! it needs a two!).
It’s interesting that Rondo, Wallace, and Camby are players that, one imagines, derive a lot of value from their defense. I know blocks and steals factor into Win Score, but does Wages of Wins capture defensive performance in any other fashion?
JB
May 25, 2008
Wallace being overpaid wasn’t on the exact point of the article but it is somewhat related and would be one factor among several keeping me from including him on my underrated list.
JB
May 25, 2008
WP rewards defensive rebounders with full value of possession gain / defensive stop.
None to the shot defender directly.
Shot defense in team adjust based on team defense, not at individual 1 on 1 level. There are data quality and shared defense credit/blame issues.
But at least shot defense is included ultimately in full WP. Not the case with NBA efficiency or PER. Win Shares does include shot defense though (again at team level, same rating for that part of defense for all).
JB
May 25, 2008
None to the shot defender directly…
except if it is blocked.
JB
May 25, 2008
Roland rating captures a rough estimate of 1 0n 1 defense and includes team defense in a manner with the team +/- on/off though that raw information is affected by quality of teammates, opponents and a player’s sub.
Net counterpart production and adjusted +/- can be part together.
How good that and other new or hybrid metrics are compared to the most commonly used would make for an interesting test.
JB
May 25, 2008
make that “put” together
JB
May 25, 2008
The complexity of individual contribution to defensive performance at counterpart level and at team level thru shared and help defense gives us something that most current metric lack or deliver imprecisely.
JB
May 25, 2008
At a minimum low usage players like Ben Wallace “challenge” the rest of the players to carry the offensive load at a good efficiency. It can hurt some teams or more precisely some lineups. The impact needs more study. The flipside of impact of high usage players which has been studied to my knowledge at the discrete case level but should be reviewed for entire class of players with some elevated level of usage.
JB
May 25, 2008
Others that might be considered somewhat underrated using just these metrics:
Jamison
Josh Howard
These two rate well but referring to other metrics I think they deserve to rate even higher.
Maybe Najera and Noah.
porteno
May 25, 2008
JB — I really want to hear what you think about this post.
Maybe you could leave a comment? ;)
NickP
May 25, 2008
or 12
JB
May 26, 2008
Either you get something from reading it or you don’t.
I think I made worthwhile points.
I’d read your posts if you got anything to bring to the table.
How about it?
Anon
May 26, 2008
I thought your comments were worth reading for what it’s worth
JB
May 26, 2008
Thanks anon. I agreed with your original post.
JB
May 26, 2008
These underrateds performed well in specific roles mostly as dominant passer or rebounder. It is about performance in a context.
Camby (at his current age & abilities) does well when offset with high usage scorers, preferably at strong FG% of course. Calderon performs well with Bosh and 3 pt shooters. Putting them in a different context may change their results. Or their game. Some can do well in different circumstances, some need a specific context.
Teams are more than the sum of individuals and all phases of the game need to be provided for including especially scoring. All stats matter but it is the only one that decides who wins.
JB
May 26, 2008
Ben Wallace worked in Detroit with one of the very best scoring other 4 starters. And it was important that he was in rotation with both R Wallace and MCDyess so they could keep some post scoring in the game and keep the offense a dual threat.
In Chicago they had scorers but they did not have the same post scoring to balance Ben Wallace low usage – low threat to the defense. Cleveland with Big Z is better in that regard.
JCCW Jerry
May 26, 2008
Apparently, there’s no such thing as an underrated two-guard or an overrated center. Berri’s perfect team would be one that never turned the ball over and never took a shot, getting a 24-second violation on every possession, but racked up the steals, blocks, and by God defensive rebounds on the other end. They would lose every game 75-0, but their Wins Produced would be through the roof.
JB
May 26, 2008
Moon was a good pickup by B Colangelo because he needed a modest usage SF in the mix with his shooting PGs, the other wings with their 3 pt shooting and Bosh. He needed defense and rebounding from the guy given that job more than scoring. Others could be better on individual stats but Moon fit the real role well.
Player value should be evaluated by position / role.
JB
May 26, 2008
Childress is the sole underrated wing.
Seeing his name I tended to agree with his inclusion. His low usage makes him invisible to many but his high shooting %s, low turnovers, and pretty good rebounding offer value.
But looking at team and 1 on 1 defense and adjusted +/- he is lower this season than I expected.
His performance may be underrated. But at this point in his career he has disappointed many who thought he should be able to handle a bigger role. But he can be a good role player in the right context.
He’d be great in Udoka’s role for the Spurs.
NickP
May 26, 2008
I think the problem with Ben Wallace had very little to do with his supporting cast and everything to do with his declining skills.
He looked like a shell of his former self in his last playoff run with the Pistons, so for the Bulls to give him the big contract that they did was a disaster.
JCCW Jerry
May 26, 2008
“Player value should be evaluated by position / role.”
I agree, but that’s not what Berri–as far as I can tell–is trying to do. This isn’t a list of “Overrated shooting guards” or “Underrated centers,” it’s a list of underrated players, period. And what Berri’s system is trying to tell us is that there is no such thing as an underrated two-guard or an overrated center. That’s just silly–clearly Wins Produced is programmed in such a way that by simply playing a given position, a player can benefit or be hurt by the system. It’s not capable of comparing apples to oranges.
PER isn’t perfect–as Hollinger himself admits, defensive specialists like Bowen and Battier suffer–but seems to do a much better job of allowing us to compare say, Yao to Dirk to Lebron to Paul to Howard than WP does.
Unless, of course, you actually think Ben Wallace is underrated and David West is underrated.
porteno
May 26, 2008
PER isn’t perfect–as Hollinger himself admits, defensive specialists like Bowen and Battier suffer–but seems to do a much better job of allowing us to compare say, Yao to Dirk to Lebron to Paul to Howard than WP does.
And by this you mean that PER does a better job of confirming for you what you already think.
Also: Berri’s perfect team would be one that never turned the ball over and never took a shot, getting a 24-second violation on every possession, but racked up the steals, blocks, and by God defensive rebounds on the other end. They would lose every game 75-0, but their Wins Produced would be through the roof.
I realize that you intended this to be hyperbole, but it’s so hyperbolic as to not make any point at all. Almost all good win producers score, but they do so efficiently. This is because — despite claims to the contrary — the numbers don’t show that high volume shooters’ extra shots bear a significant burden of shooting for their team in low percentage situations (see Iverson, Allen).
A shot clock violation is a TO. So quite clearly — even under your hyperbole — someone would put up a shot (no matter how low percentage) because having any chance of making a shot is better than having a guaranteed turnover.
As to no “underrated centers,” Berri posits that centers are the most important position. which isn’t terribly surprising. as to 2 guards…obviously ginobli is massively important to his team. but right now in the NBA, we probably have the best point guard crop ever. (and Professor Berri, I wouldn’t mind seeing research on whether this is in fact true).
JB
May 26, 2008
I agree Nick P that declining skills is a big part of the B Wallace story, probably bigger than context.
PAWS is good for evaluating many players, fairly traditional ones.
There are surely some weak centers on WP or Win Score. Probably the weak rebounding ones. Like Mark Blount. He isn’t much of a player but he could contribute some shooting. He is a niche fit at best these days.
porteno
May 26, 2008
JB — your comments do have value. but when i see 10 posts in a row that are all from you, i think of the sound of one hand clapping.
JB
May 26, 2008
PER and NBA efficiency are heavily about scoring. They “work” for comparing players whose biggest contribution is scoring.
If you want to capture full team value of rebounding (a reasonable desire) WP does this.
Constructing a team I would pay a lot of attention togetting enough rebounding, because ball control is important.
But I’d prefer to use PAWS and compare the guys to fill the front-line / main rebounding positions against each other and guys at other positions vs their peers. Rebounding matters at every position but the standards are different and diminishing returns apply to some degree on the defensive side.
Porteno said: “we probably have the best point guard crop ever. (and Professor Berri, I wouldn’t mind seeing research on whether this is in fact true).”
That is an interesting topic worthy of research. I know I can find some data by PER and Win Shares but I would also be interested in seeing findings according to WP or other approaches.
One quick cut: looking at guards 6-4 and under (a proxy for PG for search at basketball reference) I see a pretty steady quantity of 10-15 such players a season at PER 17 and above for last 2o years.
Quantity above a modest threshold is only one measure.
Looking at a higher level of performance 20 PER it does appear that this past season had the most guards 6-4 and under achieving it in last 2o years at 8.
This cut is in agreement with Porteno.
JB
May 26, 2008
By Winshares over 20 this past season was one of the highest but it was exceeded a time or two in the past 20 years and the number was pretty close to 10 most years.
I didn’t look beyond 20 years.
Talent and the rules have converged to elevate PGs a bit.
But I wouldn’t want to overdo the hype.
JB
May 26, 2008
Porteno I understand the reaction.
But a lot of posts can be about a lot of responses to the article and other commentators and the opening of many lines for possible dialogue.
I prefer dialogue when I can get it.
Harold Almonte
May 26, 2008
The relative value among positions assumed by this metric, agrees with the common knowledge, although exaggerated of course, because the not properly rebounding rating. Among no unidimensional players, Centers should be the most important position, while Scoring Guards should be the lesser one, although all of that can change in the clutch. Of course there are underrated wings, and overrated point positions players, but not well balanced metrics can’t show it, all of them has its own stat polarization.
JB
May 26, 2008
Yeah Harold there are many approaches that say bigs and PGs are more important than wings.
Part of it is because of opportunities. Bigs have best opportunity to rebound and PGs the best opportunity to get assists and first look to take the ball to the rack and lots of opportunity of action to take the 3.
But you are right, in the clutch teams often turn to the wing who can create their own shot. Bigs are easier to double and PG size may be more of a liability with the game on the line than in routine action.
Need a set of different kinds of guys to cover the various roles & responsibilities.
When metrics agree there is something to learn, as also when they disagree.
JB
May 26, 2008
in above should be …
opportunity “off” action
JB
May 27, 2008
To each their own choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulama_%28game%29
Sounds very unappealing to me.
dberri
May 27, 2008
Sorry JB. I didn’t know what Ulama was (my Google search didn’t say much) so I deleted the comment on that. I guess I did a bit too much policing.
JB
May 27, 2008
The original post I saw certainly was vague and had an edge to it.
I didn’t know what it was initially but was curious and eventually found some info and then responded at about same time as the deletion to try to help others make sense of it.
Maybe the author would have appreciated the bad boy era Pistons.
michael mcloughlin
May 28, 2008
Some of these players are unnderrated, but the top 5 (Kidd and Rondo as guards, Moon and Wallace as forwards, and Camby as center) on the list would not make a very good team. There’s not a single go-to offensive option on that team. These players are efficient offensively because they are never put into the position where they have to create their own shot. When a play breaks down and there’s only a few seconds left on the shot clock, who’s going one on one with their defender to beat the shot clock? Good on defense, incompetent on offense.
budselig
May 29, 2008
Honestly, Ben Wallace is one of the worst players in the NBA who gets significant minutes at this point. This article would be better if it named players who got a large proportion of their value out of scoring rather then the most ‘underrated’, because Wallace, by virtue of being known as anything but a scrub rebounding specialist, is not remotely underrated
Westy
May 29, 2008
NBA Efficiency has a 0.99 correlation with Game Score and Game Score has a 0.99 correlation with PER, but what is the correlation between NBA Efficiency and PER? Just curious if it’s still as strong a relationship.
Relatedly, Eli at Count The Basket had an interesting post that compared the most referred to various player metrics out there and presented their correlations with each other.
Brian Shannon
June 3, 2008
Personally a guy like Kidd who is a 9 time all-star isn’t underrated to me. Nor is Ben Wallace being a 4 time all-star.
Other than those guys I like the list. Being UK fan I like that Rondo in on the list but not sure if he should be #1. Tyson Chandler certainly is on that list and might should be a bit higher than 10.
Al Horford is another one I wonder a little about, but only because he was a rookie this year and you never know how a guy will pan out at this level.
Yet I think the most underrated player has to be (and the fact that he didn’t make the list sukpports that ) Tayshaun Prince. Guy as been a staple for Detroit and has never made an All-star game. Yet all he does is go out and do his job and play terremdous defense. Hitting big shot when needed. Maybe he is a great fit for his system and would struggle somewhere else, I don’t know but all I do know is he is a solid fit where he is at.