prime wowy comparisons for lebron, duncan, magic, mj, and hakeem

[konr0167]

lebron 09-21 wowy
656-263 with lebron 0.714% win rate
37-73 without lebron 0.336% win rate
net rating with lebron +6.49 (59 win pace level)
net rating without lebron -5.50 (25 win pace level)
+8.6 ortg difference
-3.68 drtg difference
+12 total swing


duncan 01-07
396-144 (73.3% win rate) with duncan
17-17 (50% win rate) without duncan
+8.5 net rating with duncan (64 win pace level)
-0.4 net rating without duncan (40 win pace level)
+4.3 ortg change
-4.6 drtg change
+8.9 overall change

jokic 2022-24
136-68 (66.7% win rate) with jokic
8-15 (34.8% win rate) without jokic
+4.1 net rating with jokic (53 win pace)
-4.6 net rating without jokic (28 win pace)
+6.5 ortg change
-2.2 drtg change
+8.7 overall change

magic 84-91
454-149 75.3% win rate with
29-24 54.7% win rate
+7.4 net rating with (61 win pace level)
+0.2 net rating without (42 win pace level)
+4.9 ortg difference
-2.3 drtg difference
+7.2 overall diffrence


hakeem 91-97
333-177 65.3% win rate with hakeem
26-38 40.6% win rate without hakeem
+3.5 net rating with hakeem (51 win pace level)
-2.7 net rating without hakeem (33 win pace level
+1.1 ortg change
-5.1 drtg change
+6.2 overall change


jordan 88-98
bulls with MJ 490-176 (73.6% win rate)
bulls without MJ 90-64 (58.4% win rate)
net rating with MJ +7.7 (62 win pace level)
net rating without MJ +3.6 (52 win pace level)
+5.1 ortg difference
+1.1 drtg difference
+4 total swing

[eminence]

I don't agree with combining with multiple types of wowy* into one number.

*A - How your team does in games you miss to injury
*B - How your former team does after you've retired/been traded/etc

And then not used here C is just on/off. (WOWY within a game)

All are noteworthy, but distinct.

[OhayoKD]

I don't agree with combining with multiple types of wowy* into one number.

*A - How your team does in games you miss to injury
*B - How your former team does after you've retired/been traded/etc

And then not used here C is just on/off. (WOWY within a game)

All are noteworthy, but distinct.

I think there's some value to seeing the whole of the data but it's a fair distinction to draw.

Would be interesting if there was a way to combine low and high-end stuff for B. Eg: future team impact looks lower than former team impact, speaking perhaps to situational differences.

Similar thing can be said of C where I think ideally seeing both the wowy and "wowy within a game" seperate and the two combined offers different sorts of insight though the difference there is a bit more fundemental I think.

The big thing to keep in mind with all this sort of data is sample-size, per game, per seaosn, and accumulative. Those tend to vary between players for whatever you're using.

[homecourtloss]

lebron 09-21 wowy
656-263 with lebron 0.714% win rate
37-73 without lebron 0.336% win rate
net rating with lebron +6.49 (59 win pace level)
net rating without lebron -5.50 (25 win pace level)
+8.6 ortg difference
-3.68 drtg difference
+12 total swing


duncan 01-07
396-144 (73.3% win rate) with duncan
17-17 (50% win rate) without duncan
+8.5 net rating with duncan (64 win pace level)
-0.4 net rating without duncan (40 win pace level)
+4.3 ortg change
-4.6 drtg change
+8.9 overall change


magic 84-91
454-149 75.3% win rate with
29-24 54.7% win rate
+7.4 net rating with (61 win pace level)
+0.2 net rating without (42 win pace level)
+4.9 ortg difference
-2.3 drtg difference
+7.2 overall diffrence


hakeem 91-97
333-177 65.3% win rate with hakeem
26-38 40.6% win rate without hakeem
+3.5 net rating with hakeem (51 win pace level)
-2.7 net rating without hakeem (33 win pace level
+1.1 ortg change
-5.1 drtg change
+6.2 overall change


jordan 88-98
bulls with MJ 490-176 (73.6% win rate)
bulls without MJ 90-64 (58.4% win rate)
net rating with MJ +7.7 (62 win pace level)
net rating without MJ +3.6 (52 win pace level)
+5.1 ortg difference
+1.1 drtg difference
+4 total swing

LeBron over 13 seasons is pretty wild here. +34 swing is also crazy.

[scrabbarista]

Pretty ridiculous to include numbers from when a player wasn't even in the league. But do you, I guess.

[AEnigma]

Not in the league but also the highest paid player on a 3-seed.

[OhayoKD]

Pretty ridiculous to include numbers from when a player wasn't even in the league. But do you, I guess.

It's called isolating for variables(in this case the variable being the stars in question), would have expected someone like yourself to be familar with the concept. A season where a player has little to no influence on the team is pretty useful information...for assessing what the team offered without said player.

That said...

magic 84-91

...


hakeem 91-97

...

jordan 88-98

Ideally players would be compared for comparable time-frames like so:

Of course, a common knock on Hakeem is his consistency as an RS performer, but even over longer periods, he looks quite good. IIRC, if you use 10-year samples...

Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins, 15 win lift
Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins, 15 win lift
Magic takes 44-win teams to 59

Magic Johnson(3x MVP) 1980-1991
Lakers are +0.8 without, +7.5 with

Micheal Jordan(5x MVP) 1985-1998
Bulls are +1.3 without, +6.1 with

Hakeem(1x MVP) 1985-1999
Rockets are -2.8 without. +2.5 with

Not the exact same stat, but shorter-time frames tend to boost players unless they have unusual trajectories(at least statistically). Going by full-games, Magic statistically demonstrated the most rs lift of the 3 in general. It's also fair to Jordan a rs tie-breaker vs Hakeem for having more successful teams though raw net-rating splits might favor Olajuwon.

Hakeem's conventional box and most importantly his team's results improve more than either of the two. Moreover his teams seem to suffer the least when co-stars are absent(Rockets were basically unaffected by sampson and otis thorpe's injuries). Combine that with a raw minutes advantage and its fair enough to favor Hakeem, even without situation/skillset/theoretical curving

That said, giving him a shorter stretch of years inflates his numbers by this measure and is generally bad practice. It's fair enough to note when a player is able to mantain a similar or even higher average over a much longer/larger minute sample(averages tend to go down there), but if that longer period is suppressing the sample you should probably use even ones.

[Paulluxx9000]

These sorts of numbers really make me wonder whether or not a Magic without HIV could’ve changed the way Jordan is remembered. Perhaps make him remembered more as the Wilt to Magics Bill Russell. Especially when you consider the work Jerry West could do to improve those teams. And James Worthy is probably happier with his situation than Pippen would be if they didn’t win.

[One_and_Done]

This reminds me of Hakeem fans trying to combine opponent SRS with other numbers, then divide it, then come up with a new meaningless number that ranked Hakeem favourably. Alot of metrics can't be multipled and broken up like that.

[OhayoKD]

This reminds me of Hakeem fans trying to combine opponent SRS with other numbers, then divide it, then come up with a new meaningless number that ranked Hakeem favourably. Alot of metrics can't be multipled and broken up like that.

Hakeem looks best bysimple subtraction. This is a wierd angle when his "worst" numbers are the ones that require more complex and involved processes.

[Heej]

These sorts of numbers really make me wonder whether or not a Magic without HIV could’ve changed the way Jordan is remembered. Perhaps make him remembered more as the Wilt to Magics Bill Russell. Especially when you consider the work Jerry West could do to improve those teams. And James Worthy is probably happier with his situation than Pippen would be if they didn’t win.

Never really hear this take expressed but it's interesting. Magic is ostensibly Jordan's biggest rival in plus minus numbers for their overlapping eras no? Definitely interesting to think about. At bare minimum 1998 with Old Magic x Shaq + baby Kobe probably swings a title the way 2014 Spurs did with Timmy and crew plus Kawhi

[OhayoKD]

These sorts of numbers really make me wonder whether or not a Magic without HIV could’ve changed the way Jordan is remembered. Perhaps make him remembered more as the Wilt to Magics Bill Russell. Especially when you consider the work Jerry West could do to improve those teams. And James Worthy is probably happier with his situation than Pippen would be if they didn’t win.

Never really hear this take expressed but it's interesting. Magic is ostensibly Jordan's biggest rival in plus minus numbers for their overlapping eras no? Definitely interesting to think about. At bare minimum 1998 with Old Magic x Shaq + baby Kobe probably swings a title the way 2014 Spurs did with Timmy and crew plus Kawhi

Talking pure data, it's probably more accurate to say Jordan is Magic's biggest rival as things stand though Hakeem has the better net-rating split.

That said Jordan has a better playoff elevation case(though Hakeem's is the best of the three by some margin I think). Contextually all three have things you can argue for them:

-> Hakeem's teams suffer the least without key teammates, wasn't used optimally till he was 30, raw minutes edge, worst off-court situation by far, theoretical port/archetype track-record(duncan), probably hurt by lineup effects while the other two are probably getting inflated(both are platooning from the onset of their primes)

-> Magic is the most proven in different situations and was able to make multiple finals without Kareem, win a title with Kareem washed, and made his last final in spite of worthy also being injured, #1 win rs and playoff win percentage all-time(though i would not be suprised if duncan had a higher win-percentage through a similar spot in their careers), archetype track-record

-> Jordan's teams peaked higher(and were just ouright alot more successful than hakeem's) in the rs and playoffs, most consistent performer if you internally scale "production" probably, potentially best small-sample impact (on/off, rapm) though magic can potentially match

Saying all that, I have Magic as the worst of the three but I guess cold analysis would support Magic as the best

[konr0167]

bump
added data for jokic though lower timeframe but they certainly look very good

[VanWest82]

Worst metric in the history of sports analytics, if you're even brave enough to call it that - particularly the way it's being done here with seasons before/after included. I've made my case in many places at this point and so I won't rehash again, but I'm just going to keep repeating it for posterity.