The Nets and Knicks May Be Better Off Without ‘Melo. Such is the argument made by Jared Diamond in today’s Wall Street Journal. According to the article…
Mr. Anthony is on pace to finish this season worth the equivalent of 6.8 wins, using the metric “Wins Produced” that predicts how statistics correlate to winning. Developed by Southern Utah University economics professor David Berri, Wins Produced devalues scoring totals in favor of other stats, particularly shooting efficiency.
Essentially, Mr. Anthony scores like an elite player, but he requires more shots to put up his numbers than a true superstar. This season, Mr. Anthony holds an effective field goal percentage—a weighted statistic that takes 3-pointers into account—of 45.1%. By comparison, LeBron James’s effective field goal percentage is 52%. A franchise player, Mr. Berri says, will produce between 25-30 wins a season. Chris Paul is on pace to have 25.8 Wins Produced this season. Last year, Mr. James had 27.2, and Dwight Howard had 22.3.
Across the past few days, Jared and I had numerous conversations on the relative merits of Carmelo Anthony. Given the length of his article (less than 300 words), much of this conversation had to be left out of the published story. But all is not lost. As I told Jared, whatever he couldn’t use in his article I would offer at the Wages of Wins Journal and/or at Huffington Post.
It is my plan to offer something at Huffington this weekend. For tonight, let me focus on one comparison that I thought was especially interesting.
The article in the Wall Street Journal makes two observations:
- Carmelo Anthony is not an elite player
- Carmelo Anthony will not dramatically impact the fortunes of the Nets or Knicks.
In constructing this argument, a comparison between Carmelo and other elite players was offered. For here, I wish to expand upon one of these comparisons. Specifically, I would like to discuss the difference between LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony.
Both LeBron and Melo entered the NBA in 2003. And since that time, LeBron has scored 16,266 points while Carmelo has only scored 13,429. So clearly, King James is better.
But wait… LeBron has also appeared in 44 more games and played nearly 4,000 additional minutes. If we look at performance per 48 minutes, we see that LeBron has scored 32.5 points while Melo has scored 33.1. So Carmelo is just as potent as a scorer as LeBron. Given the primacy of scoring in the evaluation of players, it is not surprising that when people see Carmelo they see an elite player.
Of course, there is much more to the evaluation of players than scoring totals. And when we consider everything these players do – via Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] – we see the following:
- LeBron James’ Wins Produced in 2010-11: 10.4 [0.328 WP48
- Carmelo Anthony’s Wins Produced in 201o-11: 3.1 [0.140 WP48]
- LeBron James’ Wins Produced in 2009-10: 27.2 [0.441 WP48]
- Carmelo Anthony’s Wins Produced in 2009-10: 6.8 [0.108 WP48]
- LeBron James’ Career Wins Produced: 150.5 [0.310 WP48]
- Carmelo Anthony’s Career Wins Produced: 33.5 [0.083 WP48]
These numbers suggest that Carmelo is capable of being above average (average WP48 is 0.100) but for his career he is slightly below average (partially because – like LeBron – he has apparently spent time at power forward). In contrast, LeBron is at least three times better than average. And last year, LeBron posted a WP48 that was four times mark of an average player.
Okay, James is much more productive than Anthony. Now let’s explore why. What follows are the per 48 minute box score numbers for each player.
When we look at free throw attempts, points scored, rebounds, turnovers, net possessions, and blocked shots, neither player is consistently better when we consider performance this year, last year, and across each player’s respective careers. Given that LeBron is consistently more productive, we must look beyond these factors for an explanation.
And what do we have left? Shooting efficiency from the field, steals, and assists. The difference with respect to steals is actually quite small. So the real difference between LeBron and Carmelo is that
- LeBron is much more likely to hit the shots from the field he takes.
- As a consequence, LeBron requires fewer shots to score essentially the same number of points Carmelo scores per 48 minutes.
- And perhaps because LeBron is taking fewer shots, he can spend more time looking for his teammates.
So it is essentially differences in shooting efficiency (and assists) that have resulted in LeBron producing about five times the wins produced by Melo.
The difference between LeBron and Melo led me to note the following in my conversation with Jared (not in the article, since again, he was limited to 300 words):
Basketball is a simple game where the objective is to take the ball away from the opponent (before they score), keep the ball away from the opponent, and put the ball in the basket. If you can do this, you will win.
Player evaluation in the NBA, though, focuses primarily on scoring totals. Scoring totals, though, are a function of shooting efficiency and shot attempts. When we compare LeBron and Carmelo, we see two players with very similar scoring totals. But LeBron is a more efficient scorer. In other words, Carmelo can only match LeBron’s scoring totals because he is more willing to take shots away from his teammates. LeBron can score as much as Carmelo with fewer shots, and since LeBron is a more willing passer, he is able to set up efficient shots for his teammates as well. As a consequence – although LeBron and Carmelo are not much different with respect to possession factors (i.e. rebounds, steals, and turnovers) – LeBron produces far more wins than Carmelo.
Let me close with three observations.
- NBA fans probably accept the idea that Carmelo Anthony is not as productive as LeBron James.
- However, I think many NBA fans don’t think the difference is quite as great as it appears to be when we consider Wins Produced.
- And those who consider Wins Produced may not have known that these players were quite similar with respect to possession factors but very different with respect to shooting efficiency from the field.
Then again, maybe you already knew all of this. And if that is the case, you just read more than 1,000 words that did nothing to further your knowledge of Carmelo, LeBron, or the NBA (and hopefully I will do better with my next post).
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
arturogalletti
January 13, 2011
DJ,
Great post. Story never gets old. Playing unselfishly and shooting efficiently wins ball games. Who knew? :-)
EntityAbyss
January 13, 2011
I knew all of this. You should do better in your next post. :-)
Italian Stallion
January 13, 2011
Please forward this to Donnie Walsh. Thank you. :-)
Clayboi
January 13, 2011
Did you throw in the disparity between conferences and consistence of the level of competition? It’s in my opinion that the west has far better level of competion and 2/3’s of the nuggets games are of course in that conference. Just z thought.
Michael
January 14, 2011
By player evaluation do you mean salary or minute allocation? If you mean minute allocation the logic is circular. If you mean salary again how is that not confounded by minutes played? What is the relationship between salary and points per 48?
dberri
January 14, 2011
Michael,
People who comment frequently in this forum are required to read Stumbling on Wins :) Yes, the answer is there (and the argument is not circular). Points dominates the evaluation of players (whether you look at minutes, salary, awards, or draft position).
One last note… and of course, we did not just look at how total minutes were related to total points. Points were measured on a per-minute basis.
entityabyss
January 14, 2011
Clayboi, there is this common misconception that the west being better than the east makes a big difference. It doesn’t. If this were true, I doubt that every team would have a strength of schedule so close to .500. Lebron james wouldn’t be dramatically worse if he played in the west. It’s two different conferences, not two different levels of basketball..
Italian Stallion
January 14, 2011
The distribution of talent is less even in the east, but I would argue that the top of the east is better than the top of the west. The overall gap is not as large as it used to be.
Adam C. Morrison
January 14, 2011
Don’t NBA teams play like 56 of their 82 games vs the same teams, regardless of conference?
Power Overwhelming
January 14, 2011
Anthony was nearing .200 wp48 this season until his sister died. He missed a week or so of games and has played very poorly since returning. The main reason for his improvement is his improved rebounding. He is actually shooting far less efficiently than he normally does, so if he can lift his efficiency to normal levels while keeping this elevated level of rebounding, he could be a borderline superstar by WoW standards. Probably unlikely to happen, but the rebounding makes it possible.
Power Overwhelming
January 14, 2011
Of course, if you subscribe to the theory that WoW is innacurate because of how it distributes credit for a rebound (this post, for example, does an excellent job of explaining this position: http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-players-steal-rebounding.html and this post further elaborates: http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2011/01/2010-11-nba-rebounding-correlations.html), you are likely to believe that Melo has regressed — not improved — this season.
But whatever you believe, you won’t think Melo > James. There are certain universal truths, I guess.
Owen
January 14, 2011
Good piece. I am surprised how well Melo is performing on the possession front.
Italian Stallion
January 14, 2011
Power,
He was actually scoring quite efficiently early in the season also (shooting 3 pointers better) and then he had a very rough patch. I’m not sure of the timing, but he missed a few games with injury also.
He’s distracted and had some short term physical and personal issues this year etc… I’d expect a mean reversion at a minimum but I think there is some upside possible if he can sustain the better rebounding.
nerdnumbers
January 14, 2011
Power,
Question though, does this same logic apply to scoring? For instance given the 24 second shot clock, someone has to take a shot. Most players can shoot at least 33% from the field (the mark NBA EFF and PER need for you to improve your mark) If a player doesn’t take the shot then another will. Certainly we shouldn’t credit a player with a full 2 points as in reality their team mates would get at least 70% of the points were they to shoot instead.
IS,
Melo has shown he can be a good player but I doubt he’ll ever hit that great mark. His judgement is still too poor. I wish him luck in his future endeavors but the Nuggs need to move on.
Aten
January 14, 2011
Is there a discrepancy in Chandler’s WP? Alvarez has him at 2.4 to date, Diamond says he’s on pace for 10.3.
Italian Stallion
January 14, 2011
Nerd,
I think you absolutely correct that all else being equal teams don’t lose possessions when a high usage scorer is out of the lineup or doesn’t shoot. In most cases “someone” shoots and they WILL hit some of those shots.
IMHO, there is very little doubt that PER, NBA efficiency, most fans and commentators, and most current and former players overrate scoring.
IMO the thing that needs further debate is whether these high usage scorers tend to take “more” of the difficult shots that inevitably present themselves.
If they do, then at the margin they hurt their own efficiency stats even though they are doing the correct thing. If some of their less skilled teammates took those shots instead, they would hit even fewer and the results would be even worse for the team.
The other issue is how some of these ultra skilled offensive players help their teammates. If an opponent of the Knicks game plans to stop Amare (or Melo) and that tends to get better looks for Chandler, Felton or Fields than they would get if Amare wasn’t in the lineup, then some of Amare’s or Melo’s value is accruing to his teammates in term of higher scoring efficiency than they would otherwise have.
The same thing would be true of very low skilled and low usage players in reverse.
Visually and logically this all seems to be true to me. The impact may not be huge and it may be hard to measure (definitely for someone like me without the math skills), but I think it’s probably there.
Not that it matters to anyone, but I tend to start to with the ratings here and tweak them up or down at the extremes of usage when I try to estimate the impact of player being injured, traded etc… when I gamble on games.
Adam C. Morrison
January 14, 2011
“The other issue is how some of these ultra skilled offensive players help their teammates. If an opponent of the Knicks game plans to stop Amare (or Melo) and that tends to get better looks for Chandler, Felton or Fields than they would get if Amare wasn’t in the lineup…”
But isn’t the comparison between Amare and league-average, not Amare and the Knicks’ (presumably) replacement-level replacement?
Italian Stallion
January 14, 2011
Adam,
I’m not sure I understand the question.
I see Amare as an elite offensive player but only average or slightly above average at everything else. There are many other PFs/Cs that are rated similarly or better with an entirely different distribution of skills.
I am wondering if his offense is being captured in full. That would be less of an issue for a PF/C whose value comes more from rebounds and other skills than from scoring . (hope that made sense)
welbilt bread machine
January 14, 2011
I don’t understand the people that watch basketball and play basketball can say Carmelo is an elite player. We don’t even need statistics to figure that out, just some common sense. Anyone that’s played pick up basketball knows you can’t win playing with a ball hog, simple as that.
mr obvious
January 14, 2011
IS, shouldn’t those “ultra skilled” offensive players pass out of those ultra difficult shots so the team can get a high% shot? You see, this is where your logic breaks down. Only a selfish ball hog would keep chucking bad shots when a wide open teammate is ready to shoot. No, don’t bring up end of shot clock since the “high skilled” offensive player should’ve” created” a high% shot for himself or the open teammate when the double comes.
Italian Stallion
January 14, 2011
mr obvious,
>IS, shouldn’t those “ultra skilled” offensive players pass out of those ultra difficult shots so the team can get a high% shot? No, don’t bring up end of shot clock since the “high skilled” offensive player should’ve” created” a high% shot for himself or the open teammate when the double comes.<<
You are making sound easier than it actually is.
Top players usually do pass out of double teams. That tends to lead to assists which they get credit for. However, sometimes it leads to a series of passes which leads to an open shot that the double team helped enable but they don't get credit for.
Also, there are times when players are open from the less efficient spots on the floor and it makes sense for one player to take the shot but not another.
If Melo is open from 19 feet, he's going to shoot unless it's early in the clock. It usually makes sense for him to do so. However, if Nene has it out there, he's going to pass unless the shot clock is about to expire.
That means Melo is taking more of those low efficiency shots.
Sometimes a defense is simple doing a good job of taking away the high efficiency shots and as the clock starts ticking down a player has to make some marginal decisions.
CanFadeAway
January 15, 2011
Really liked the article. And yeah, it’s obvious that LeBron is better than Carmelo. I think, though, that the disparity between assists might have more to do than just being a “willing passer” (though it may be true that Melo is less willing generally to pass up a shot). LeBron is usually the ball handler/playmaker in most situations, a point-foward if you will. He knows how to get his teammates involved and is often in control of the ball (bringing it up the court, driving etc.) On the Nuggets, Carmelo doesn’t seem to be as in charge of playmaking as Billups handles point duties. Just something I was thinking about.
Just tired...
January 15, 2011
Okay. So the conclusion that Carmelo “is more willing to take shots away from his teammates” and is a less “willing passer” is problematic. Perhaps, it speaks more to Lebron’s superiority as a (inside) scorer than dispositive deficiencies in Carmelo’s game. Additionally, that Anthony performs below average with respect to certain indicators does not mean that his superiority with respect to scoring does not, when factored, weight enough to place him squarely in the elite. You give no indication.
Most of all, this is another irrelevant article that actively seeks out black athlete du jour for the purpose of undermining their contributions. Before Carmelo, it was Amar’e and before that Lebron. Hacks like you and Mr. Jared, having not played one meaningful game in your life, but seeking relevance to a world that does not need you continue your ceaseless antagonizing. It is all ill-wished, inobjective heap of crap(negative, by necessity)!
I wish you guys would for once lend your considerable talents to more existential questions like why Nash and Nowitzki have three MVPs and zero rings. Go ahead and delete this note. Pfft.
Just tired...
January 15, 2011
Italian Stallion, credit to you for indulging nuance for making determinations about clearly nuanced basketball situations. Of course, this makes too much sense. Works much better to just declare Carmelo a selfish, overated bum.
Michael
January 15, 2011
” wish you guys would for once lend your considerable talents to more existential questions like why Nash and Nowitzki have three MVPs and zero rings. ”
Whereas Lebron, Amare and Carmelo have only two MVPs and zero rings? What is the point of your comment, other than to cry racism because you disagree with the professors assessment?
BTW, Lebron has been consistently praised in this forum. Because he is actually amazing. Carmelo Anthony, not so much. Both of those players are black though, so what does that tell you?
mr obvious
January 15, 2011
IS, your argument still breaks down because some “highly skilled” scorers are very efficient. Look up James, Durant, Wade, Dirk…. Are these players not forced in the same bad situations as Melo and Kobe? Somehow, some players score a lot without shooting 11 for 30. Maybe Melo is just a role player that takes a lot of shots so observers are sucked into thinking he must be elite. Truly elite players face the tougher defense and still manage to be effective.
Dhruv Ohri
January 15, 2011
skill is not measured by effieciency take russell westbrook for example
http://nbanalysis.com/2011/01/14/the-new-fresh-look-of-westbrook/
mr obvious
January 15, 2011
Just tired,
is it ever possible to criticize a black athelete objectively? Will it ever be the case that an honest person criticizes a black athelete objectively? I think what you’re saying may have merit sometimes, but how do you that this is the case with Berri? How can you accuse him of racism without knowing wether or not he is just expressing his honnest opinion. Is it possible that the numbers still would not favor a white player with the same stats as Melo? If you read some of the old posts you will find much more scathing indictments of Robin Lopez, Dirk, and Bargnani. You will only find glowing reviews of Magic, CP3, Rondo, Lebron, and many others. Racism is real in sports journalism, but you should equipt yourself with all the facts before accusing a specific person.
mr obvious
January 15, 2011
Ohri, no one is saying Melo is not skillful. I jus doont think he’s been very productive. He was very productive in college, so the potential is there. Can you argue against the fact that some players that considered elite are in fact efficient and productive?
Michael
January 15, 2011
“Racism is real in sports journalism”
On the topic of inadvertent sports racism here’s a screenshot from N.B.A dot com I saved a few weeks back:
Check the headline :rolleyes:
Italian Stallion
January 15, 2011
mr obvious,
I never said that Melo is as good at Wade, James or Durant.
I said he’s better than some people think. In fact, I think those players are better than some people think. Just look at how the Cavs are doing without James and how the TS% of all his former teammates plummeted without his help.
I don’t agree with many of the specifics of the following article, but I agree with the premise.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/why-carmelo-anthony-is-the-ultimate-team-player-and-what-advanced-stats-miss-about-him/?src=tptw
ilikeflowers
January 15, 2011
mr obvious,
Until there are no more trolls and loons there will always be absurdity. Just tired… is just tossing around a strawman here.
dberri
January 15, 2011
Come on IS. Like Lou Holtz, I believe in you :)
I know you can identify at least some of the specific problems with the analysis you linked to (I gave it about 10 minutes of thought and came up with several).
Tommy_Grand
January 15, 2011
“Such is the argument made by Jared Diamond in today’s Wall Street Journal…”
Wait, is that the same Jared Diamond who wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel? Quite a Renaissance man.
Mike G
January 15, 2011
What do you think of Nate Silver’s direct challenge of your analysis in today’s New York Times?
Michael
January 15, 2011
Silver’s clearly no Birnbaum that’s for sure.
Just tired...
January 15, 2011
@ Mr. Obvious,
I did not accuse Berri of “racism”. I’m guessing he’s not. I read Berri a bit – sometimes I agree with him, other times he spins wheels over the incaculable. In otherwords, he’s generally ok with me. My issue here is a seeming rush to indict the play of certain players – Carmelo “is more willing to take shots away from his teammates” – in a way that seeks mostly to bang old tropes. Admittedly, my critique is not specific to him alone, rather most of the media/blogging types.
It is completely possible to criticize a black athlete, of course. Moving on, Italian Stallion and others provided alternate considerations to Berri. Now they may be wrong, but the considerations are certainly reasonable. Prof Berri is certainly smart. Did he not consider these at first instance and summarily dismiss them because it would alter the narrative? In the NBA, there is a constant rush to impugn the merits of certain players and its tiresome – and results in conclusion like yours that he is “a selfish ball hog.” Dirk has an equally limited passing game and is never called selfish – he is instead given every benefit of doubt (or alas his game just goes undiscussed).
I watch the NFL. It is largely without the incessant chipping away at people’s motives, personality and apparently diabolical intentions you get with the NBA. I kinda just want to enjoy the game. Very few are “selfish” or “lazy”, they may just be limited. I don’t think Dirk is selfish, but neither is ‘Melo. or Amare. or Bosh. The obsessive microscoping is amazing – and almost never on white players (fyi, Lopez is not white). I will go back to the archives to see how many times Nash’s game has been deconstructed. Anyways, I simply have this observation and have no intention of highjacking Berri’s post. Here’s hoping future posts don’t incite this concern and I can comment strictly on the analysis.
On a side note, Michael I clicked your link looking for the irony (…talk about a strawman). Here’s food for thought, I had to look at it three times – only your mind would go there. Gladly, it was very lost on me.
Michael
January 15, 2011
Hey don’t blame me if you’re slow. BTW the ‘more willing to take shots from his teammates’ referred very,very obviously to the fact that Anthony is much less efficient than Lebron, and therefore has to take more shots than him to score as much. If you weren’t so quick to bemoan the fact that it wasn’t a white player being referred to less than favourably maybe you would have caught that.
As for ‘strawman’, I refer you to your original post.
ilikeflowers
January 15, 2011
So there are no guarantees – one would need to consider more carefully exactly how Anthony would integrate into Mike D’Antoni’s offense and exactly which type of shots he’d take. One would also need to think about Anthony’s defense and rebounding, where he is no standout.
This part sounds great. I doubt that there’s much dispute here.
But upon a more careful examination, the argument that Anthony is a merely average offensive player turns out to be superficial.
Don’t you need to look at a bigger population of scorers who might make their teammates better before coming to this conclusion? If you examine n guys who fit the Melo profile and the results in general argue against this teammate effect then isn’t this effect likely to be happenstance (or unpredictable)? And then what about the same effect from lesser (presumably more numerous and cheaper) versions of Melo, so that we can determine the marginal value? What about the effects of Melo’s backups with Denver over all these years? This analysis has all the drawbacks of plus-minus. Of course if the results from a statistically significant sample size then confirm this effect then it’s certainly a valid statement.
Then again, is it merely a tautology? Silver’s use of the word superficial is the key here. One can reasonably argue that all statistics are superficial when applying them to a single instance and that this sentence really has no useful information since it’s always true. When making the actual decision one does indeed need to consider all relevant factors (typically fewer than we think) that may not be adequately captured in a model. When applying the aggregate data down the individual level we’re really talking about uncertainty and risk. So, is giving the required max contract to Melo worth the risk here, given what we do know?
Michael
January 15, 2011
The ‘more willing to take shots from his teammates’ comment referred very,very obviously to the fact that Anthony is much less efficient than Lebron, and therefore has to take more shots than him to score as much. If you weren’t so quick to bemoan the fact that it wasn’t a white player being referred to less than favourably maybe you would have caught that.
As for ‘strawman’, I refer you to your original post.
Michael
January 15, 2011
The ‘more willing to take shots from his teammates’ referred very,very obviously to the fact that Anthony is much less efficient than Lebron, and therefore has to take more shots than him to score as much. If you weren’t so quick to bemoan the fact that it wasn’t a white player being referred to less than favourably maybe you would have caught that.
As for ‘strawman’, I refer you to your original post.
Ben
January 15, 2011
Dave,
Care to respond to Nate Silver’s argument?
John Giagnorio
January 15, 2011
Nate Silver’s article is incredibly lazy. Let’s see:
– Why does Anthony get credit for improving his teammates even when he is not on the court? Was it that difficult to break down the data further?
– Why use TS% instead of eFG%? Does Anthony deserve credit for his teammates becoming better free throw shooters? Look at Iverson’s age 22 and age 32 seasons. The eFG% is identical, but he’d become a much better foul shooter.
– Anthony has been in the league a long time. Why not pull up his +/-?
As is, I don’t think the article is very persuasive.
John Giagnorio
January 15, 2011
The point about Anthony improving Nene’s shooting is also hilarious. Take a look at Nene’s career on basketball-reference. He’s played all of 1 year without Anthony, yet his TS% didn’t really improve until 08-09.
dberri
January 15, 2011
ilikeflowers and John Giagnorio have gotten the ball rolling. But there are even more problems with Nate Silver’s analysis. I have complete confidence that the people who comment in this forum can see most (if not all) of the problems. Before I respond (and I am not even sure I will), I want people here to have a chance.
ilikeflowers
January 15, 2011
I’m stunned at this particular statement,
In taking all of those shots, however, Anthony has also done something else: he’s made his teammates much more efficient offensive players.
How can he make a statement on causality based upon the evidence that he presents? He’s going to get ripped to shreds here, at plus-minus sites, and at any other competent stats forum regardless of the ultimate validity of the claim.
It would have been so much better for him to just say: ‘When Anthony is on the floor his teammates are much more efficient offensive players’ and then let his audience make of that what they will.
I frequent his site occasionally during election seasons, but this sort of thing really makes me question his ability to interpret anything statistical.
Kent
January 15, 2011
NY Times picks up on this, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/why-carmelo-anthony-is-the-ultimate-team-player-and-what-advanced-stats-miss-about-him/?ref=sports
Italian Stallion
January 16, 2011
David,
I was hoping to avoid a detailed discussion of all the problems with that article because I’m going to be busy all weekend. I figured there were enough talented people here that could pick it part better than I could anyway. :-)
Here are a couple off the top of my head.
1. High usage scorers that often get doubled should be in a position to get a lot of assists, but Melo doesn’t.
2. The article gives all the credit for the improvement in the TS% of his teammates to Melo when it could easily be partially be Billups (an underrated PG), better coaching, a combination of players, or random.
3. IMO he should not have compared a players lifetime TS% to his TS% with Melo because the one thing most good players do over time is improve their shot selection and shot. So most good players improve their TS% also as they develop. He is probably giving Melo credit for the natural improvement of the players.
I do think in general though the premise of what he’s suggesting has some merit or is at least worthy of discussion.
Evan
January 16, 2011
Prof — I know it’s annoying to answer the same old questions and arguments, but controversy sells. I think you should respond, because it is a big opportunity to convince smart people who pay attention.
The funny thing is that Nate Silver’s political analysis is often similarly facile, but no one realizes it because they see numbers and their eyes glaze over.
Cheech Cohen
January 16, 2011
I think Prof. Berri has to respond. Silver’s article is equivalent to an academic punch to the face. While Prof. Berri, as he has suggested, could let others fire back with their own logic and numbers for him, I don’t see why Prof. Berri would not enjoy responding himself. I believe he will and look forward to the next round.
dberri
January 16, 2011
IS,
I knew you could do it.
Cohen,
I don’t agree that I have to respond. But I am going to (and part of my response is going to draw upon the stuff already said here).
Cheech Cohen
January 16, 2011
Dr. Berri,
I look forward to your response. To clarify my comment, I simply believe since Silver is a serious dude with a serious blog, that you would naturally want to respond, not that you have to. I see Silver’s argument as flawed in a number of respects but look forward to your response, in your own language and tone.
Regards,
CC
dberri
January 16, 2011
CC,
So far I have about 800 words written. Hope to finish tomorrow morning. There are a number of flaws (as people have noted). My hope is to clearly note these (in as nice a way as possible).
Philip
January 17, 2011
dberri,
Hope this gets to you in time before you post your response.
From Silver’s article:
“Minutes reflect those played Anthony played with the Nuggets when Anthony was on the team, whether or not he was on the floor.”
What a nonsensical way of looking at it. Why didn’t he at least do an on/off analysis? This way, even if Silver did show a causative link that “Playing for the Nuggets at the same time as Melo improves your TS%”, the same could be said of anyone affiliated the Nuggets for Anthony’s entire tenure. Perhaps George Karl’s presence causes players TS% to improve. Or Nene’s. Maybe living in Denver or playing in the Pepsi Center somehow helps players. Or the Nuggets have an excellent training staff. Or excellent hot-dog vendors. No matter what you list, there’s just as much evidence presented in the article that any number of factors have the exact same impact as Melo.
Another issue with the analysis is that Silver only analyzes TS%; TS% is only a part of what determines wins, acquiring the ball and preventing your opponent from doing so also are important, or so I’ve read in one of the basketball blogs that I frequent. So even if had demonstrated that Anthony improves his teammates’ scoring efficiency, it’s a narrow view; what if Melo’s teammates are rebounding less and turning the ball over more?
While I agree that it’s pretty laughable that Melo could impact his teammates’ FT% (what, does he give better high-fives between shots?), he could conceivably improve their FT rate by passing them in a situation where they are more likely to be fouled while shooting. This would improve their TS%, though not their EFG%. However, Silver has failed to show any correlation between playing with Anthony and an increase in FT rate, much less a causative link.
To build on IS’s point # 3, Denver has been in “win now” mode since Anthony’s arrival. They don’t play rookies much – Lawson is the only one I can think of who has gotten significant minutes. A lot of rookies get off to very rocky starts before becoming efficient scorers (then again, a lot don’t). Consider Aaron Afflalo. Has he been better because he’s playing with Melo (or the Nuggets’ incomparable hot-dog vendors)? Or has his improvement in TS% over the last couple of years simply been because players tend to improve over their freshman and sophomore seasons?
There may be some validity to Silver’s claim, but he sure hasn’t presented any convincing evidence to prove it.
mitch
January 18, 2011
This garbage, just because melo takes more shots doesnt mean he isnt an elite player, and we are also comparing him to by far the best player in the world and could have the potential to be the best of all time no one ecpected melos numbers to be as good james’. And melo produced 3 less wins so far this year than james thats good enough for me
Jay
January 18, 2011
Grow up over analyzing a GAME, STATS, Theres a reason every defender (including james) is affraid of melos dominance do we recall last year in cleveland jumper over LeBron Game Winner pleeease, lets look at career game winners actuall Game Winners Melos got him, the only reason everyone thinks lebron is better is because everyone thinks melo is a thug and lebron before this summer was the nba golden boy until he sold his soul for south beach melos a better player lebron is a better marketing tool theirs your stats nerdball get on the court and then write about Stats. Pathetic.
Julius
January 19, 2011
Way to go Jay!
I totally agree! The times I have seen LeBron face Carmelo, Carmelo ATE his lunch. It also seems that Productivity weighs assists heavier than other categories. Of course, if assists is weighted, LeBron will be a better player. Ultimately, we are comparing apples and oranges. Who is the better overall player and athlete? LeBron. Who is the better scorer? I would have to go with Melo. His shot is far more developed than LeBron’s. Also, do these metrics take into account how many dunks are part of shooting percentage? I think if you extrapolate dunks and actually count shooting then we would see Melo’s dominance. Otherwise dont call it shooting percentage but scoring percentage. And there are too many other factors: the inferiority of the east to the west, different style of play that is favorable to the WP metric, All in all, there numbers are not that far off from one another. I still think Melo is an elite scorer in the mold of a Paul Pierce type.