Zenon Zygmont – one of the co-authors of The Economics of Intercollegiate Sports – alerted me this morning to the following from Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution.
Very Difficult Questions: I have spoken at Jane St. Capital a few times and it is perhaps my favorite audience; everyone wants analytic content and everyone came prepared. All of the questions were tough, but two in particular I was not prepared for.
First, I was asked “Which is the most underrated statistic for judging the value of an NBA player?”
My attempted answer was the player’s presence on a very good, consistently winning team. There are many players with impressive statistics, including unselfish statistics such as assists and rebounds, who are only of value on bad teams. We overvalue such players. Overall, really good teams don’t keep bad players and really bad teams don’t keep good players. If a player has never been on a really good team, he might not be so good, with apologies to the earlier Kevin Garnett.
Tyler’s response is —-hmmm…. okay, rather than comment on the quality of this response, let me just offer some thoughts.
Player statistics are tracked to separate a player from his teammates. This is necessary because we can see which teams are successful. What decision-makers need to do is determine which players were responsible for the team outcomes observed.
When we look at player evaluations in the NBA (i.e. salaries paid to free agents, the allocation of minutes, where a player is selected in the NBA draft, and various NBA awards) we see that scoring totals dominate the decision. Factors like shooting efficiency, rebounds, and turnovers are not consistently found to matter.
Such a story has been told before (see The Wages of Wins, Stumbling on Wins, or just this post on Carmelo Anthony). And this story indicates that scoring totals are overvalued, and shooting efficiency and factors associated with gaining and keeping possession of the ball (rebounds, steals, and turnovers) are undervalued.
Once the statistics are valued in terms of wins, we do discover players on bad teams who are good. For example, here are the top 10 producers of wins on losing teams from the 2009-10 season (a similar list – with some of the same names – can be produced for other seasons):
- David Lee, New York Knicks: 15.5 Wins Produced
- Andre Iguodala, Philadelphia 76ers: 14.4 Wins Produced
- Troy Murphy, Indiana Pacers: 14.4 Wins Produced
- Zach Randolph, Memphis Grizzlies: 14.3 Wins Produced
- Kevin Love, Minnesota Timberwolves: 12.1 Wins Produced
- Chris Bosh, Toronto Raptors: 11.7 Wins Produced
- Chris Paul, New Orleans Hornets: 11.5 Wins Produced
- Samuel Dalembert, Philadelphia 76ers: 10.6 Wins Produced
- Ben Wallace, Detroit Pistons: 9.9 Wins Produced
- Marc Gasol, Memphis Grizzlies: 9.1 Wins Produced
And to be balanced, here are the top ten least productive players (minimum 2,000 minutes played) on winning teams in 2009-10:
- Derek Fisher, LA Lakers: -0.2 Wins Produced
- Rashard Lewis, Orlando Magic: 0.1 Wins Produced
- Jeff Green, Oklahoma City Thunder: 1.o Wins Produced
- Boris Diaw, Charlotte Bobcats: 1.1 Wins Produced
- Channing Frye, Phoenix Suns: 1.3 Wins Produced
- Mehmet Okur, Utah Jazz: 2.0 Wins Produced
- Michael Beasley, Miami Heat: 2.2 Wins Produced
- Aaron Brooks, Houston Rockets: 2.5 Wins Produced
- Martell Webster, Portland Trail Blazers: 2.7 Wins Produced
- J.R. Smith, Denver Nuggets: 2.8 Wins Produced
One should note, the Minnesota Timberwolves have acquired two of the players on this latter list. And with players who “know” about winning, we can expect Minnesota to get much better.
Okay, that probably isn’t going to happen. Yes, the T-Wolves have Kevin Love. But beyond Love, the cupboard in Minnesota is essentially bare. After all, this is a team that seems committed to giving Darko Milicic significant playing time.
Now let’s imagine that Love keeps producing but the T-wolves keep acquiring unproductive players and unnecessary point guards. What should we conclude about Love if this continues for five or six more years? One might be tempted to argue that if Love keeps playing for losers that he is a bad player. But I think the stats – just as they did with Kevin Garnett when he was employed by Minnesota – would tell a very different story. Again, stats are supposed to separate a player from his teammates. And when we make this separation, we do discover that good players can be found on persistent losers. In other words, team outcomes are really not an underrated stat.
– DJ
P.S. Not sure anyone noticed, but I was gone for much of this week (as in, away from the Internet). Hence there were no posts after my comment on Carmelo Anthony on Monday. While I was away there was some stuff happening in the NBA. Hopefully I can post some comments on this stuff this weekend (or at least link to the brilliant stuff written by other people).
Wages of Wins Journal 
arturogalletti
August 13, 2010
Prof,
Glad to have you back.
The problem as I see is that Lee, Love and Murphy are all big white PF (and the media really doesn’t like that). They should all change their names to Chan Lee, Kevin Amour and Troz Morphvizovic and then they would be guaranteed success in the eyes of the Media :-)
Selection bias is silly.
Tim Allen
August 13, 2010
@arturogalletti: Are you serious? The media fawns after Kevin Love and people overrated David Lee like crazy. If anything, being a white PF helps them.
Alvy
August 13, 2010
The impression I got was several people like Kevin Love, and no one really cares about David Lee.
Chicago Tim
August 13, 2010
Arturo, as we’ve discussed elsewhere, I think you are barking up the wrong tree when you speculate that it’s about race. It’s about overrating scoring, and underrating everything else.
arturogalletti
August 13, 2010
Tim,
I do think there is a bias there. Lee is a scorer and a rebounder but still underrated. I’m not making it about race just perception. We look at the big white player and we place him into the can’t play mold not because of race but because we’ve been conditioned to do so. We just spent a few days arguing about Nick Fazekas, a white productive PF not getting a shot in the NBA when he was more productive in college and briefly in the pro’s than Big Baby and others. Kevin Love stated that he feels more appreciated by team USA than by his own team . Murphy ( a 15-10 guy) gets traded and every major outlet name drops Ariza only. Even Gasol gets a little of this because everyone forgets him when talking about the great players in the league. The normal nba fan and pundit is conditioned to underrate white bigs (to the point where it’s an actual market inefficiency).
Chicago Tim
August 13, 2010
Arturo — Correlation does not imply causation. All of the underrated white bigs you mention are rebounders. There are black rebounding bigs (Camby, Noah, Wallace, Rodman) who are also underrated. There are white scoring bigs (Nowitzki) who are overrated. I’m going to need to see some hard evidence examining all players before I believe that race is the issue.
nerdnumbers
August 13, 2010
Arturo,
So I did a post a while back comparing the top big men (http://nerdnumbers.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/2010_big_free_agents/). Of course I argued Lee was a top option by WP standards. Here’s the thing. By EFF and PER, Lee was as good or better than Stoudemire and Boozer. Yet, when we look at contracts we see Lee’s at 11 mill next year which is less than Boozer, Bosh and Stoudemire. In fact, Stoudemire was “needed” in New York, because the fans had to perceive signing a big name. So given pay and perception in the largest market, I can’t help but agree there is some bias against Lee and it isn’t stats (20-10, All Star Player) or playing on a bad team (Bosh)
arturogalletti
August 13, 2010
Agreed. What I really don’t know is how to do the study. Pay by race and to a high correlation statistic (i.e scoring). Are white american bigs actually underpaid based on the typical high correlation values for pay? I smell a future project.
Chicago Tim
August 13, 2010
Nerd and Arturo
I think critics argue that Lee is slightly undersized, is not a very good defender, and gets his points off garbage buckets and fast breaks. They don’t trust his stats because they came in Mike D’Antoni’s run and gun system. I’m not saying any of that is valid, but it has nothing to do with race.
That being said, many people have questioned whether Stoudemire is a significant upgrade over Lee. It’s not as if everyone is sure New York did the right thing.
jbrett
August 13, 2010
I think athleticism, or perceived athleticism, is a factor here. If David Lee and Amare put up identical numbers, Amare will look more impressive in the process to many observers. Many of them may favor Amare on the basis of the dreaded ‘potential’ for better performance his physical attributes suggest he might achieve. I’m sure Zod will be along momentarily to explain that with the right coach, who employs him correctly, with the right mix on the floor, blah, blah, blah, that it even makes sense to take the potential performer with less production over the guy who actually plays better; pundits who reject Lee would seem to be afflicted to some lesser extent with the same delusion.
There also appears to be a ‘can’t play defense’ motif in play, which I suspect is a thinly-veiled way to say white PF are too slow; maybe no one is willing to actually talk about ‘fast-twitch muscle fibers,’ but the implication is there. I have noticed in many of these types of discussions here, on this blog, that even when defensive statistics, meager as they may be, are offered as refutation, they are invariably rejected in favor of ‘eyeball evidence.’ This line of reasoning seems to boil down to ‘of course the white guy got beat by his man.’
I haven’t heard anything reported about Lee’s basketball IQ, which is the other side of the coin in this particular prejudice, and which seems to be the main counterargument allowed; of course, he’s not from Europe, and for whatever reason, he doesn’t seem to qualify for the Larry Bird exemption. And the Knicks have been awful–Pacers, too, Troy Murphy haters–so the other permitted ‘white guys can play’ argument, ‘he makes his teammates better,’ has also been off-limits.
Chicago Tim
August 14, 2010
jbrett — Athleticism can be a discriminating factor unrelated to race. I do think player who can jump out of the building get the benefit of the doubt even when they have other visible flaws. I frankly haven’t see Lee play enough to compare his athleticism to that of Bosh, Boozer, or Stoudemire. But if he really doesn’t jump as high, then maybe that’s why he gets paid less — which would have nothing to do with race. Of course, if he does jump as high and just isn’t given credit because of the color of his skin, that’s another matter.
some dude
August 14, 2010
Lee, Murphy, and Love all played for crappy teams. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with exposure. How many times were those players on national TV combined?
How many times was Amar’e on national TV?
Winning matters, not race. Dirk is a white big who gets lots of attention because he’s on a team that wins a lot.
Hello. Look at Pau Gasol. In Memphis he was on of the best big men and completely ignored by the media and fans. He comes to LA and now people say he’s the best big man in the game (or at least in the discussion).
It isn’t about race, stats, or anything else besides winning + exposure. this is why Horry, Fisher, Kerr, Bowen are all well-remembered while a guy like Jamal Crawford wasn’t even known to anyone until this year. Winning and exposure.
Chicago Tim
August 14, 2010
some dude — Yes, playing on a losing team may hurt your reputation. But that doesn’t explain why people included Bosh among the “Big Three,” since the Raptors were a losing team. I think we have named many factors that could lead to a big being underrated, and right now we are just speculating about which is most important, and which we can rule out.
Alvy
August 14, 2010
Strangely, only Bill Walton is among my favorite basketball players to be a white U.S. citizen. Then again, I’ve never seen basketball from the 1950’s or much of Jerry West.
Chicago Tim,
Bosh is included in the “Big Three” because he was part of a winning team–that is, Team USA, a team that resonates with fans across the world, I’m sure.
I feel that the neglect or relative obscurity of some white American bigs is just a coincidence (they mostly all happen to play for shit organizations), but there might be some prejudice beyond just being labeled losers. I remember prior to Gasol playing for the Lakers, Bill Walton said that while Gasol is a good player with speed and intelligence, one shouldn’t be certain about Gasol because he’s never played in any meaningful games. In other words, because people have a hard time distinguishing a player from his teammates, if that team is terrible, most would believe the players to be terrible also, or at least not as good as those playing on winning teams. Again, while there might be some particular biases concerning the evaluation of a player if he happens to be white, it’s largely the perception of winning.
arturogalletti
August 14, 2010
Alvy,
Except for the FIBA World Championship in 2006.:-)
I think there’s noise to look at. This is the same discussion somewhat that we were having in the previous thread. Athleticism and potential that don’t translate to production on the court are meaningless. I’ve read stories that Iverson is one of the best athletes to ever step on a court and he’s incredibly impressive to watch live but we know that his production does not match his perceived ability. So we have a clear case of basketball “wisdom” & scouting overriding the actual basketball facts (the boxscore).
Leroy Smith
August 14, 2010
You know this is the only blog that I can go to have and read about a sensitive subject and still have everyone act civilized. Most other blogs would devolve into a name calling mess. Or at least people would find a way to make it about Kobe Bryant.
Anyhow, I think white bigs that are not known for scoring or super athelitcism are undervaued. They just don’t seem to past the “eye test” for many “experts”. It’s the white men can’t jump syndrome. Dirk gets a lot of credit, but he is also a scorer and is slightly overrarted for that. Gasol is a stud, but like Dirk he is from europe and is known for scoring. Lee and Murphy fits more into th emold of the underated big. Lee doesn’t get the credit because of his sysmtem as well.
some dude
August 14, 2010
“some dude — Yes, playing on a losing team may hurt your reputation. But that doesn’t explain why people included Bosh among the “Big Three,” since the Raptors were a losing team. I think we have named many factors that could lead to a big being underrated, and right now we are just speculating about which is most important, and which we can rule out.”
-Bosh is an exception because of Canada. He was on Canada’s only team. Throw in his youtube, twitter, and other media stuff, he put himself out there. (Amar’e does as well). What have the other guys done?
Raptor fans are honesstly the most rabid fans in the NBA and made sure everyone knew about Bosh for the last 5 years, especially online. If Bosh was on Indiana, he’s be far less know, but still know cuz of his social media stuff.
Nash would also be known because of his humor and online stuff, even if he was a loser. Nash’s vitamin water commercials are hilarious as are his personal youtube vids.
As i said. It’s about winning AND exposure.
some dude
August 14, 2010
Aarturo, I don’t agree with your Iverson comment. I think you’re confusing devout fandom following with wisdom. I believe many basketball people and analysis have long known him to be less productive than his fans claim.
Overrated chucker vs top player has always been an Iverson debate. Iverson has a following few players have ever had, though, because of his background and underdog appearance.
amir
August 14, 2010
this is very depressing from a POV of a minnesota fan. guess it’s another year of chasing the 9-win race
Tom Mandel
August 14, 2010
Arturo — it’s not *altogether* irrational to underrate big white players. :)
More seriously, perhaps some *kinds* of athleticism do figure into this. After all, Joe Alexander was wildly overrated because he could head butt the rim, as I saw noted over and over in the media. And, to support your case, Louis Amundsen gets teased by his teammates who yank his chain by comparing him to slow white bigs, when of course Amundsen is extremely athletic!
But the factors here are enormously complex and emergent. In American history, it is common for ethnicities that are discriminated against to move into those professional sports where there aren’t restrictive covenants and to move in large numbers when the covenants go away (and to move into crime industries as well, for that matter). The case of racism — i.e. a far more institutionalized form of ethnic prejudice — makes this all incredibly complex.
betweentheeyes
August 14, 2010
I think an undervalued statistic, maybe more appropriately named a characteristic, is durability. You can’t produce if you aren’t playing. Any thoughts?
nerdnumbers
August 14, 2010
Betweentheeyes,
You bring up an excellent point that makes its way into the Kobe Argument’s frequently. I would say in general the durability statistic tends to be liked by the main stream. After all the “Top X all time in Y” tends to be used for many athletes.
That said, I think if there is a way to know a player is durable then certainly it gives them value. Durant vs. Oden for instance is huge. Oden has arguably been the “better player when he’s on the floor” but of course he calls in sick a lot. The problem is knowing who is durable before the fact. Jordan and Johnson went down with injuries their second year and then played hard. Yao played his first four seasons and then slowly fell apart.
So yes very valuable and I think is included in all time lists. For individual seasons it’s a hard thing to measure.
Tom Mandel
August 15, 2010
This is an interesting discussion.
Sometimes I wonder if foul rate is an under-studied statistic. A high rate of picking up fouls limits a player’s effectiveness by limiting his minutes and impacting his team’s defensive effectiveness.
Two players with the same WP48 can, in fact, be very different in their effect on the game because 1) picking up fouls limits your team’s ability to *use* your skills, and 2) picking up fouls puts your team in the penalty — i.e. it contributes directly to the other team’s efficiency (given that ending a possession at the line must be the most efficient use of that possession).
I imagine that WP48 reflects awareness of these issues (esp. the 2d of them), but it’d be interesting to hear from Dave how they are addressed.
some dude
August 15, 2010
Tom,
The difference between the Pistons Ben Wallace’s final year with the Pistons before he went to the Bulls and the year after that with guys like Webber and Mohommad was simply Ben’s foul rate. The team rebounded and held opponents to basically the same shooting %, but they fouled a lot more.
That’s always been Ben’s biggest strength (not his rebounding). DPOY defense without fouling.
Ebomb
August 17, 2010
Bizarre takes regarding Minnesota. Taking a look at their roster last year, replacing negative producers like Brewer, Hollins, Wilikins, etc. for players like Webster and Beasely who at least produced wins would seem like a good thing, yet you rip them apart.
Love, Beasely, and Webster alone produced 17 wins last season, which is 2 more wins than the Wolves actually had, so I would think replacing bad players with player who at least produce wins would be a good thing. Yes they didn’t sign LeBron and Bosh, but neither did 29 other teams.
pongsak
August 19, 2010
Observable data.
ohreally
August 19, 2010
David Lee and Troy Murphy were just traded to teams that had virtually nothing at the PF spot before.
This will be an excellent test of WP. Does WP assign the wins correctly? Hard to know unless we can isolate the circumstances of particular players. These trades will provide a couple of nice examples.
Warriors and Nets should both see a big jump in wins if WP has any predictive power.