Most overpaid and underpaid in the NBA last year - Gomes

[Wolves2011]

This is again from Berri. It shows the value of a win.

Most underpaid directly below.

http://www.wagesofwins.com/UnderPaid0809.html

Players of interest here - Sessions, Miller,

Its also fun to look at the most overpaid.

http://www.wagesofwins.com/OverPaid0809.html

Among the most overpaid -- Telfair and Gomes

To better understand the methodology see the full article.

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/ ... n-2008-09/

[mnWI]

Meh. Adjusted plus minus>wages of wins. Every stat has its limitations though.
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=108

[jade_hippo]

considering how bad the team was last year and not looking too successful this year, i think logic dictates the opposite of those stats. Mike Miller being paid 10mill for what he did is in no way as valuable or money producing as what Telfair and Gomes did for 2.5 and 4 million respectively. Stats do not tell the tale of what happened last year. Stats FAIL here

[shrink]

It depends on whether you think rebounds are over-valued. I used to think so, but now I side with the WoW people.

First, their predictions are incredibly accurate adding up team wins, and that is very important.

Second, a rebound is a possession, and a possession generally gets you 1 point (50% chance of a 2-pt FG, 33% chance of a 3PT). The Win Score formula (similar to win's produced) demonstates this, in terms of true efficiency:

Wins Score = Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½*Assists + ½*Blocked Shots - Field Goal Attempts – ½*Free Throw Attempts – Turnovers – ½*Personal Fouls

Notice that when we look at the positive values, point gets you 100% points (2 or 3). A rebound and a steal is worth a possession (100%). A block gets maybe gets you a 50/50 chance at a possession, and an assist is accounted for with points .. not a seperate possession.

Mike Miller was the #1 guard in the league in rebounding, giving the wolves over 6 extra possessions a game. That's a valuable commodity, despite the fact that we often didn't know what to do with the possessions.

Here's an interesting article that might cause you to re-think the stat:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/11/09/ ... -rebounds/

[Devilzsidewalk]

Meh. Adjusted plus minus>wages of wins. Every stat has its limitations though.
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=108

You had me sold at "Wayne Winston". Probably the Winston/Pulp Fiction part, but I imagine a guy in his 50s sitting in a dark room in a tuxedo with just a reading lamp on, hammering home statistical computations while chain-smoking Reds.

[jade_hippo]

I agree that rebounds are great and all. The problem with Mike Miller rebounds is that a good chunk of those need to be going to bigmen and role players. I argue Mike Miller hurt our offense more than he helped it.

Rebounds are possessions are worth a possession, fact. That rebound is a possession if Mike Miller gets it, Fact. That rebound is also worth the same possession if J. Collins gets it instead, fact. Mike Miller can score transitions buckets, fact. Collins can score in transition, FICTION.

My point is our offense is better served by having Miller bust out or streak down the court on most rebound situations. Love and Jefferson are 2 of the best rebounders there are. Cardinal, Collins and Madsen are hard nosed rebounders who box out. Cookie and Gomes are very adequite rebounders in their own right. There is no reason he can't be half way down the court ready for an outlet pass and a chance at a transition bucket, which should be a higher % chance than setting up our "offense."

Yes he is a very good rebounder, the problem is he doesn't recognize when its in his best interest to chase a rebound as opposed to do something else. On the 07 Memphis Grizzlies, he needs to rebound the ball. On the 08 Timberwolves, its bad spacing, he needs to leave that rebound to Love and recognize where he would be better serving the team. If I am the coach of that team, I only want him going after rebounds that are long, or are an obvious offensive rebound chance for the other team, if not, I want him getting ready to play offense.

[colincb]

I ran across this topic and have done some stat analysis of this stuff in the past and found rebounds to be a poor predictive stat for a team's success. I did do a quick and dirty analysis for this post and noted that the Pacers' (2nd), Thunder (6th), and Knicks (8th) were all top 10 rebounding teams last year and all were in the lottery. IIRC, that's pretty consistent with what I've seen in the past. Perhaps bad shooting teams shoot poorly and have access to more defensive rebounds? It's pretty tough to reconcile this lack of predictive value on the team side and then say it's very important on the player side.

I don't want to get too deep into this, but these type of analyses of individual players don't hold up very well to scrutiny. I've come to the conclusion that the raw NBA efficiency ratio is about as good as it gets and it''s far from perfect.

[Wolves2011]

I ran across this topic and have done some stat analysis of this stuff in the past and found rebounds to be a poor predictive stat for a team's success. I did do a quick and dirty analysis for this post and noted that the Pacers' (2nd), Thunder (6th), and Knicks (8th) were all top 10 rebounding teams last year and all were in the lottery. IIRC, that's pretty consistent with what I've seen in the past. Perhaps bad shooting teams shoot poorly and have access to more defensive rebounds? It's pretty tough to reconcile this lack of predictive value on the team side and then say it's very important on the player side.

I don't want to get too deep into this, but these type of analyses of individual players don't hold up very well to scrutiny. I've come to the conclusion that the raw NBA efficiency ratio is about as good as it gets and it''s far from perfect.

all major statistical analysts....

Berri, wages of wins - Wins Produced

Hollinger = PER, NBA Efficiency Rating..

etc......show a high correlation between rebounds and winning.

Guys like Berri show the highest correlation between between additional possessions and winning ...

so that would include rebounding, steals, and not getting turn overs etc.

Each additional possession is another point
[NBA teams average one point per possession.]

[mnWI]

And what are rebounds a result of? Does the stat accurately reflect this?

[Wolves2011]

And what are rebounds a result of? Does the stat accurately reflect this?

Dont know how much statistics you know...

But stats guys look at things like the correlation between rebounds and wins. ...

[This measures all things being equal, whether more rebounds makes it more likely you will win or not.]

The higher the correlation, the greater the effect of rebounds on wins.

Rebounds and steals, gaining more possessions always has a huge effect on wins.

More possessions for one team means more shots and more points.

all basketball statisticians know this.....

Read the book, "the wages of wins", by Berri, to learn more....

[mnWI]

And what are rebounds a result of? Does the stat accurately reflect this?

Dont know how much statistics you know...

But stats guys look at things like the correlation between rebounds and wins. ...

[This measures all things being equal, whether more rebounds makes it more likely you will win or not.]

The higher the correlation, the greater the effect of rebounds on wins.

Rebounds and steals, gaining more possessions always has a huge effect on wins.

More possessions for one team means more shots and more points.

all basketball statisticians know this.....

Read the book, "the wages of wins", by Berri, to learn more....

Congrats on the Dave Berri commercial. You didn't answer my question. I'm not asking you about the correlation between rebounds and wins.

What do rebounds generally result from? Does the stat accurately represent it on an individual level?

[john2jer]

Offensive rebounds is the only stat that leads to more possessions than your opponent.

[revprodeji]

Defensive rebounds end your opponents possession. Just as important if not more. But I agree with MnWi. Where are they coming from? if a team is uptempo there are more shots. If they shoot bad there are more rebounds, etc.

[john2jer]

Defensive rebounds end your opponents possession. Just as important if not more. But I agree with MnWi. Where are they coming from? if a team is uptempo there are more shots. If they shoot bad there are more rebounds, etc.

Yes, but they don't end up giving you more possessions than your opponent. Offensive rebounds are the only stat that give you an extra possession compared to your opponent because it's the only stat that doesn't require your opponent to gain possession before you achieve it. Steals, defensive rebounds, and other turn-overs are the result of taking possession away, thus a net zero stat. But they do result in ending your opponents possession with a non-negative result.

[mnWI]

The majority of rebounds in a game are defensive rebounds. Defensive rebounds are the result of a stop on defense. Yet, how often is the player forcing the miss on defense the one getting the rebound? In basketball the players who can play defense are generally a lot more valuable, yet in wages of wins (and in most every linear statistic), the player getting the rebound is getting credit for the defensive stop on paper.

[john2jer]

The majority of rebounds in a game are defensive rebounds. Defensive rebounds are the result of a stop on defense. Yet, how often is the player forcing the miss on defense the one getting the rebound? In basketball the players who can play defense are generally a lot more valuable, yet in wages of wins (and in most every linear statistic), the player getting the rebound is getting credit for the defensive stop on paper.

Completely agreed in cases of a forced bad shot, which is what I'm sure you're referring to here. The rebounder should get some credit for effectively ending the possession(which is something we emphasize on defense), but unfortunately stat wise players aren't credited for forcing a bad shot, or at least a less than ideal shot.

[mnWI]

The majority of rebounds in a game are defensive rebounds. Defensive rebounds are the result of a stop on defense. Yet, how often is the player forcing the miss on defense the one getting the rebound? In basketball the players who can play defense are generally a lot more valuable, yet in wages of wins (and in most every linear statistic), the player getting the rebound is getting credit for the defensive stop on paper.

Completely agreed in cases of a forced bad shot, which is what I'm sure you're referring to here. The rebounder should get some credit for effectively ending the possession(which is something we emphasize on defense), but unfortunately stat wise players aren't credited for forcing a bad shot, or at least a less than ideal shot.

Exactly. There is no holy grail when it comes to stats, but adjusted plus/minus is above everything else by a good margin, because it accounts for factors that other stats just aren't able to.

Edit for the op: Name me ONE stat in the traditional box score that can't be achieved selfishly.

[john2jer]

The majority of rebounds in a game are defensive rebounds. Defensive rebounds are the result of a stop on defense. Yet, how often is the player forcing the miss on defense the one getting the rebound? In basketball the players who can play defense are generally a lot more valuable, yet in wages of wins (and in most every linear statistic), the player getting the rebound is getting credit for the defensive stop on paper.

Completely agreed in cases of a forced bad shot, which is what I'm sure you're referring to here. The rebounder should get some credit for effectively ending the possession(which is something we emphasize on defense), but unfortunately stat wise players aren't credited for forcing a bad shot, or at least a less than ideal shot.

Exactly. There is no holy grail when it comes to stats, but adjusted plus/minus is above everything else by a good margin, because it accounts for factors that other stats just aren't able to.

Edit for the op: Name me ONE stat in the traditional box score that can't be achieved selfishly.

Not 100% sure on ADJUSTED +/-, but in the case of just flat +/-, Corey Brewer has been as good as Jefferson so far this pre-season. Surely you don't agree with that. I think Brewer has been better than people expected, or at least outsiders, but he definitely still has a long way to go.

EDIT: I'm not sure how the ADJUSTED portion works. Link to a site that uses it and explains it?

EDIT*2: I think I see what you mean based on the link you posted in the first reply to this thread. Adjusted meaning how do the other players' +/- change based on whether the player in question is on the floor or on the bench. Not only how that player's +/- is, but how his teammates change based off playing with him. Interesting. If I'm not understanding that properly, please correct me.

[mnWI]

Jeremy, I was in the process of typing up an explanation when I saw a good one in the comments section of that article:

Those #s are based on Adjusted +/- as opposed to Traditional Old-Skool +/-. The Old Skool version is exactly what you’re talking about: if Telfair is replaced by someone awful then he’d look great, but if he was replaced by someone amazing, he’d look sucky. Which makes the Old Skool +/- pretty limited in value. However Adjusted +/- compares the player to the “average” player not their backup. Meaning, the “Telfair In” #s would stay the same even if his backup was Chris Paul. Thus, except for Kevin Love, all four guys performed above average when Telfair was in.

[casey]

The only reason I've ever thought of WoW as being a useful stat is because of their claim on how accurately it predicts actual wins. But I think you'd find most stats to be just as accurate.