RealGM

Rondo is #3 in Wins Produced among NBA PG.

His overall wins Produced is #6 in the NBA.

[Note: all these wins produced numbers are based on last years stats.]

For those of you not familiar with win produced, they are like PER with a much larger "defensive element" which helps good defensive players like Rondo [The only defense shown in PER is things like defensive rebounds, steals and blocks.]

[Win produced is a proxy for how many wins the player contributed to the team. If you look at the wages of wins journal you will see wins produced for each individual on the team based on his stats. When you add up all individual player wins produced and compare it to the teams wins, you will see they are plus or minus a few wins to the teams overall wins. (The stats used to calculate win scores are correlated to actual wins for the statisticians among us).]

If you want to know more about wins produced see the "wages of wins journal".


Rondo vs all TOP NBA players in win produced

Chris Paul 29.4
Lebron 27.1
Howard 24.6
Jason Kidd 21.0
Wade 21.0
Rondo 18.3
Pau Gasol 16.8
Davis Lee 16.4
Tim Duncan 16.0
Gerald Wallace 15.7
Brandon Roy 14.5

Rondo vs Top NBA PG

Chris Paul 29.4
Jason Kidd 21.0
Rondo 18.3
Calderon 12.4
Andre Miller 12.2
Nash 12.0
Deron Williams 11.9
Billups 11.2
Parker 9.5
Sessions 9.2
Harris 9.0
Bibby 8.9
Mo Williams 8.2
Conley 8.0
Nelson 7.0

Celtics
Rondo18.3
KG 11.6
Ray 10.6
Pierce 10.2
Perkins 5.0
House 4.7
Wallace 3.2

Rondo is a much better player than most people understand.

First off, it's Win Share, not Win Score.
Second off, Win Share is a garbage stat.

azuresou1 wrote:First off, it's Win Share, not Win Score.
Second off, Win Share is a garbage stat.

Like I said its correlated to actual wins.

If you add up individual player wins produced the total number of teams wins is the same as the total wins produced plus or minus a couple of games.

It is the most objective and accurate way to forecast team wins.

In science a theory is thought to be a "good one" if it can forecast unknowns.

Wins produced can forecast a teams wins [plus or minus a couple of games.]

Its the best statistical method to evaluate individual players since it ties individual performance to team wins.

Most people just casually look at things like points per game, and ignore, efficiency getting those points [shooting percentages], rebounds, assists, free throw attempts, defense etc.

Your "mouthing off" doesn't change that.

Wolves2011 wrote:

azuresou1 wrote:First off, it's Win Share, not Win Score.
Second off, Win Share is a garbage stat.

Like I said its correlated to actual wins.

If you add up individual player win share/wins score [in wages of wins they call its "win produced"] the total number of teams wins is the same as the total win score plus or minus a couple of games.

It is the most objective and accurate way to forecast team wins.

In science a theory is thought to be a "good one" if it can forecast unknowns.

Wins scores can forecast a teams wins.

Its the best statistical method to evaluate players.

Your "mouthing off" doesn't change that.

Well, in that case, someone get Danny Ainge on the phone so we can trade KG for David Lee. It's obvious that Lee is the better player because he's ranked higher than KG. Let's just hope Popovich doesn't see this and offer Lee up for Tim Duncan. No way we can get past the Spurs if they acquire David Lee.

CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:

Wolves2011 wrote:

azuresou1 wrote:First off, it's Win Share, not Win Score.
Second off, Win Share is a garbage stat.

Like I said its correlated to actual wins.

If you add up individual player win share/wins score [in wages of wins they call its "win produced"] the total number of teams wins is the same as the total win score plus or minus a couple of games.

It is the most objective and accurate way to forecast team wins.

In science a theory is thought to be a "good one" if it can forecast unknowns.

Wins scores can forecast a teams wins.

Its the best statistical method to evaluate players.

Your "mouthing off" doesn't change that.

Well, in that case, someone get Danny Ainge on the phone so we can trade KG for David Lee. It's obvious that Lee is the better player because he's ranked higher than KG. Let's just hope Popovich doesn't see this and offer Lee up for Tim Duncan. No way we can get past the Spurs if they acquire David Lee.

Wins Produced are heavily influenced by minutes played. Both Duncan and KG missed many minutes last year.

A more useful comparison is 2007-2008, when KG played a full season. His wins produced was 17.9

Duncan also misses a lot of minutes last year.

But you do point out something interesting about Lee, while he is not as good as KG or Duncan, he is a much better player than most people realize, as is true about Rondo.

To take 2007-2008, lets compare those three players per minute played.

wp48 is like wins produced per minute played.

KG wp48 0.370
Duncan wp48 0.328
Lee wp48 0.259

comparing 2008-2009

KG wp48 0.314
Duncan 0.304
Lee wp48 0.280

Lee is catching up to Duncan and KG as they age.


If you look back a couple of years to when KG was in his prime he always ranked #1 in wins produced.

For instance KG's wins produced in 2005-2006 - 26.5

KG's not as good as he once was. Neither is Duncan.

We remember them as they used to be, though they are still very good.

In his prime KG led the league in wins produced for 4 or 5 years.

In the 2005-6 example as I said his wins produced was 26.5
The rest of the team had COMBINED wins produced of 9.5
So the forecast was 36 wins, they actually won 33 games.

Combined wins produced of Celtics last year 61.1 - actual wins 62
Combined wins produced of Bobcats last year 37.8 - actual wins 35
Combined wins produced of Bulls last year 40.4 - actual wins 41
Combined wins produced of Cavs last year 64.6 - actual wis 66

They are all like this every team, every year.

The full team in 2007-2008
KG 17.9
Pierce 13.2
Rondo 10.5
Ray 8.1
Perkins 5.8
Posey 5.1
House 3.8
Powe 3.6
T.A. 1.3
PJ Brown 0.6
Pollard minus 0.1
Pruit minus 0.1
Cassell minus 0.1
Davis minus 0.2
Scalabrine minus 1.2

Total 68.3, actal wins 66

Wins produced tells us many useful things.

KG used to be the tops in the league, Duncan was also towards the top.

Both are nearing the end of their careers.

A trade of Lee for KG might not be a bad trade if you are breaking up the team as we probably will next year. But I don't think the Knicks would do it.

It also tells me that Rondo is now the best player on this team, as I showed earlier.

You are living in the past if you don't understand that.

You have seriously reinforced cajones to make that argument on this board. Tighten your chinstrap.

elrod enchilada wrote:You have seriously reinforced cajones to make that argument on this board. Tighten your chinstrap.

What did I say that insulted people on this board.

I'm saying Rondo is a great player.

I'm saying KG was one of the best players in the NBA is now getting older, but is still very good.

I've provided facts to back up my views.

Where's the problem?

Win Score is not a statistic that has been proven valid. The David Lee example is good one but their are other more awful errors like when Nash ranked fairly low and won the MVP.

It doesn't really work - well not better then other similiar statistics like PERs or PER differentials and so on.. For those who do not know..

Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½Assists + ½Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers – ½Free Throw Attempts – ½Personal Fouls

That's the win score formula from which the win share formula is created. As with any linear statistic its prone to error (as almost all the metrics for basketball are).. How do we really know for example that block shots are "worth" the same as an assist. Or that would should subtract so much for a field goal attempt?

We don't really know as the exact value for these things as in reality it would vary for the role on the team. Win Score favours players who like Rondo and Lee are very efficent - take few shots and miss few shots.

However you could easily create an all "garbage man" team of players like David Lee and Rondo (guys who simply pass on bad shots they can't make but cannot shoot) and you would have a team that's really awful IMHO. Some poor sod would be forced to take a bunch of difficult shots and miss them. Think what happened to Rondo in the Orlando series.

This is why teams in the real world ignore win score and win share to some extent and covet "overrated" players like say Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash. Its considerably less accurate then a good GM who will consider role and a players strengths on the basketball court.

Statistics in basketball have a long way to go compared to sports like baseball (which seem to be much easier to model statistically). Rondo of course is a fine player but would be moved quickly for many players below his win share or win score.


Pete

I said you had cajones to make that argument because there are many people who dispute the conclusion about Rondo, and do so with passion.

I tend to agree with the conclusion.

I am in no position to evaluate winshares compared to PER. I know the economist who devised it is a very smart guy who knows hoops, for what that is worth. He devised it to get around the basic problem with basketball stats, which is that, unlike baseball, a single player's stats come at the expense of the team (if player A shoots 40 times, there are fewer shots for his teammates). Moreover, it is difficult to statistically determine defensive value, and there is little question that superb defense wins games just as superb offense wins games. This is a real limitation of PER.

When I go down the list of winshares stars it generally correlates to what I see when I have watched games over the past 40 years. But again, I don't have the statistical tools to either attack it or defend it.

I think history has shown that Nash probably deserved a lower ranking, by the way. If anything, that could verify the strength of winscore or winshares or whatever it is called. Bill Simmons had a nice piece not too long ago on how D'Antoni's system inflated Nash's statistics.

GuyClinch wrote:Win Score is not a statistic that has been proven valid. The David Lee example is good one but their are other more awful errors like when Nash ranked fairly low and won the MVP.

It doesn't really work - well not better then other similiar statistics like PERs or PER differentials and so on.. For those who do not know..

Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½Assists + ½Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers – ½Free Throw Attempts – ½Personal Fouls

That's the win score formula from which the win share formula is created. As with any linear statistic its prone to error (as almost all the metrics for basketball are).. How do we really know for example that block shots are "worth" the same as an assist. Or that would should subtract so much for a field goal attempt?

We don't really know as the exact value for these things as in reality it would vary for the role on the team. Win Score favours players who like Rondo and Lee are very efficent - take few shots and miss few shots.

However you could easily create an all "garbage man" team of players like David Lee and Rondo (guys who simply pass on bad shots they can't make but cannot shoot) and you would have a team that's really awful IMHO. Some poor sod would be forced to take a bunch of difficult shots and miss them. Think what happened to Rondo in the Orlando series.

This is why teams in the real world ignore win score and win share to some extent and covet "overrated" players like say Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash. Its considerably less accurate then a good GM who will consider role and a players strengths on the basketball court.

Statistics in basketball have a long way to go compared to sports like baseball (which seem to be much easier to model statistically). Rondo of course is a fine player but would be moved quickly for many players below his win share or win score.


Pete

Some on this board have said wins produced isn't a good stat to look at.

The way to test any theories validity is to test it,.

Does it PREDICT?

lets look at wins produced for every team in the NBA in 2007-2008 and compare it to their record.
[I'm using 2007-2008 because the wages of wins journal hasn't posted all stats for all teams from last year yet.]

Keep in mind that the prediction are made by looking at things like points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks etc and applying a "weighting" to them. That provides a wins produced for an individual player. It then adds up the wins produced for all the players on the team and compares that to "reality".

As you can see below, all of the predictions except 4 were accurate within plus or minus 3.5 games. Most are within a game or two.

The model for predicting wins has validity.

The stats that the model says are important [and the model is "weighted" to reflect that] do predict wins.

Atlanta predicted wins 36.3, actual 37
Boston predicted wins 68.3, actual 66
Charlotte predicted wins 29.5, actual 32
Bulls predicted wins 32.8, actual 33
Cavs predicted wins 40.2, actual 45
Mavs predicted wins 53, actual 51
Nuggets predicted wins 51, actual 50
Pistons predicted 60.6, actual 59
Warriors predicted 46.8, actual 48
Rockets predicted 53.3, actual 55
Pacers predicted 37.2, actual 36
Clippers predicted 21.6, actual 23
Lakers predicted 60.4, actual 57
Grizzlies predicted 24.5, actual 22
Heat predicted 18.2, actual 15
Bucks predicted 22.8, actual 26
Wolves predicted 22.8, actual 22
Nets predicted 27.6, actual 34
Knicks predicted 23.6, actual 23
Hornets predicted 55.1, actual 56
Magic predicted 55.6, actual 52
76ers predicted 42, actual 40
Suns predicted 54.5, actual 66
Blazers predicted 38.7, actual 41
Kings, predicted 35.1, actual 38
Spurs, predicted 53.6, actual 56
sonics predicted 17.7, actual 20
Raptors predicted 48.8, actual 41
Jazz predicted 58.2, actual 54
Wizzards predicted 40.4, actual 43

An example of wins produced for a team is the 2007-2008 Celtics

The full team in 2007-2008
KG 17.9
Pierce 13.2
Rondo 10.5
Ray 8.1
Perkins 5.8
Posey 5.1
House 3.8
Powe 3.6
T.A. 1.3
PJ Brown 0.6
Pollard minus 0.1
Pruit minus 0.1
Cassell minus 0.1
Davis minus 0.2
Scalabrine minus 1.2

Total 68.3, actal wins 66

Lets also look at the 2008-2008 Celtics.

Rondo 17.2 wins
KG 11.6 wins
Ray 10.6 wins
Pierce 10.2 wins
Perk 5.0 wins
Powe 4.8 wins
House 4.7 wins
Tony 1.6 wins
Pruitt 0.2 wins
Giddens 0.1 wins
Walker 0.0 wins
O'bryant minus 0.1 wins
Moore minus 0.1 wins
Marbury minus 1.1 wins
Scalabrine minus 1.1 wins
Davis minus 2.5 wins

Total predicted wins 61.1, actual 62 wins

The model does a very good job of predicting wins [there are always statistical outliers in any model like this. ]

The model says "how much" to weight a stat = a point, rebound, assist, steal, block to get a win.

Its a good player evaluation tool.

The best available.

As for Nash, his win score has fallen

2008 - 12.0
2007 16.7
2006 19.4
2005 18.6

Those latter number would be in the top 5 to 10 in the league.

He was somewhat overrated when he won the MVP, bu he was a top 5 to 10 player in the league.

^^^Of course it predicts. The win share is derived from wins. LMAO. Your being ridiculous. And any stat that puts Gasol as more valuable the Kobe stinks.

Pete

GuyClinch wrote:^^^Of course it predicts. The win share is derived from wins. LMAO. Your being ridiculous. And any stat that puts Gasol as more valuable the Kobe stinks.

Pete

/end thread

GuyClinch wrote:^^^Of course it predicts. The win share is derived from wins. LMAO. Your being ridiculous. And any stat that puts Gasol as more valuable the Kobe stinks.

Pete

OK, this is getting ridiculous. You guys are arguing/describing 3 different things, but mixing up all of the terminology.

What the OP is referencing is called "Wins Produced", not "Win Score". Every stat that he has used in this thread is for Wins Produced, or Wins Produced per 48 minutes (WP48). It is Dave Berri's stat, and you can go to the Wages of Wins website to read more about it.

The equation given earlier in the thread: Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½Assists + ½Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers – ½Free Throw Attempts – ½Personal Fouls is the equation for "Win Score". This is meant as a rough-and-ready estimate to be used if you don't feel like going through the whole Wins Produced calculation. It is NOT the same as Wins Produced.

"Win Shares" are something entirely different. It is a different stat altogether, with no connection in any way to Wins Produced or Win Score. For more on Win Shares, go to basketball-reference.com.

OK. That was bugging me. Carry on.

What the OP is referencing is called "Wins Produced", not "Win Score". Every stat that he has used in this thread is for Wins Produced, or Wins Produced per 48 minutes (WP48). It is Dave Berri's stat, and you can go to the Wages of Wins website to read more about it.

Hmm we know all about it here.

The equation given earlier in the thread: Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½Assists + ½Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers – ½Free Throw Attempts – ½Personal Fouls is the equation for "Win Score". This is meant as a rough-and-ready estimate to be used if you don't feel like going through the whole Wins Produced calculation. It is NOT the same as Wins Produced.

Of course its not the same. But its what its BASED on. Its not "rough and ready" its the basis for the stat that's then correlated with the teams wins and losses. Don't bother lecturing...

"Win Shares" are something entirely different. It is a different stat altogether, with no connection in any way to Wins Produced or Win Score. For more on Win Shares, go to basketball-reference.com.

You got me there - I should have said "wins produced.." But you got the idea. Let's not nitpick.

This is the same guy who said that Rodman produced more wins than Jordan. Win stats are hot garbage.

GuyClinch wrote:

What the OP is referencing is called "Wins Produced", not "Win Score". Every stat that he has used in this thread is for Wins Produced, or Wins Produced per 48 minutes (WP48). It is Dave Berri's stat, and you can go to the Wages of Wins website to read more about it.

Hmm we know all about it here.

The equation given earlier in the thread: Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½Assists + ½Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers – ½Free Throw Attempts – ½Personal Fouls is the equation for "Win Score". This is meant as a rough-and-ready estimate to be used if you don't feel like going through the whole Wins Produced calculation. It is NOT the same as Wins Produced.

Of course its not the same. But its what its BASED on. Its not "rough and ready" its the basis for the stat that's then correlated with the teams wins and losses. Don't bother lecturing...

"Win Shares" are something entirely different. It is a different stat altogether, with no connection in any way to Wins Produced or Win Score. For more on Win Shares, go to basketball-reference.com.

You got me there - I should have said "wins produced.." But you got the idea. Let's not nitpick.

Lol. I didn't consider it nitpicking because there really is something called Win Shares, and on Real GM people talk about Win Shares a lot more often than they do Wins Produced. And folks in this thread were starting to seem confused because they were posting Win Shares arguments.

Also, Wins Produced isn't correlated with teams wins and losses. Not sure where you got that from. There used to be an old Win Shares calculation (I believe based on baseball) that did that, but Wins Produced doesn't have that at all. Wins Produced corrects for minutes played and for position value, but not for team wins.

Also, Wins Produced isn't correlated with teams wins and losses. Not sure where you got that from. There used to be an old Win Shares calculation (I believe based on baseball) that did that, but Wins Produced doesn't have that at all. Wins Produced corrects for minutes played and for position value, but not for team wins.

Hmm.

All I know is that if you look at the winsproduced (raw numbers) before they are mutiplied by minutes played you get some crazy conclusions.

Before we look at the numbers, let’s note that an average player posts a 0.100 WP48. In other words, a team of average players will win 41 games. A team of players that surpasses the 0.200 mark will win 82 games, so if a player doubles the average mark he is very, very good.

Pau Gasol: 0.312 WP48 [08-09], 0.273 WP48 [07-08]
Kobe Bryant: 0.207 WP48 [08-09], 0.247 WP48 [07-08]
Andrew Bynum: 0.272 WP48 [08-09], 0.394 WP48 [07-08]
Derek Fisher: 0.072 WP48 [08-09], 0.043 WP48 [07-08]
Lamar Odom: 0.062 WP48 [08-09], 0.253 WP48 [07-08]
Vladimir Radmanovic: 0.141 WP48 [08-09], -0.023 WP48 [07-08]
Trevor Ariza: 0.427 WP48 [08-09], 0.245 WP48 [07-08]
Jordan Farmar: 0.277 WP48 [08-09], 0.125 WP48 [07-08]
Sasha Vujacic: 0.182 WP48 [08-09], 0.113 WP48 [07-08]

Basically what is going on here is that instead of mutiply but the number of minutes played (like the other figures here) they are looking at how they do on a per 48 basis.

This says that basically Kobe kinda sucks. Kobe only ends up with high wins produced because that number gets the number of minutes played worked in.

So like Jordan Farmer is better then Kobe. For real - I aint making it up. Gasol is light years ahead of Kobe.. Now coaches are less stupid then the statistic so they end up playing the guys who are actually good alot and so the stat looks a bit more sensible then it is. But if you dig below the surface on this thing...whoa. Its got some issues.

Wins Produced = WP48/48 * Minutes Played

It's been a while since I looked at it but I stand behind the idea that its one *%^#$% stat.
Also of some interest it some crazy year to year jumps.

The main issue with the flaws in this stat is that it doesnt really factor in team roles appropriately. It totally slams scorers for a start.

Pete

The main issue with the flaws in this stat is that it doesnt really factor in team roles appropriately. It totally slams scorers for a start.

Pete

The wins produced stat doesn't slam scorers, it slams inefficient scorers.

You can be a scorer like Antoine Walker used to be a scorer. Make 40% of your shots but shoot a lot of them or you can be a scorer like Wilt Chamberlain who shot 54% for his career.

Lebron is a scorer as is Chris Paul, they are the top 2 by far in Wins Produced.

But to win baskeball games you need more than just scoring.

You need to shoot efficiently, you need rebounds, blocks, steals etc.

Players who do the things besides scoring are under appreciated in basketball.

But they are extremely important to winning.

GuyClinch wrote:^^^Of course it predicts. The win share is derived from wins. LMAO. Your being ridiculous. And any stat that puts Gasol as more valuable the Kobe stinks.

Pete

Of course it predicts wins? but then LOL??

If it predicts wins, then it is a good model for how you win basketball games, what combination, of points, rebounds, assists, rebounds etc you need to win games.

How do you divide up the glory for the players doing the scoring, rebounding, getting assists, blocked, shots, steals etc.

In the NBA today, almost all of the glory goes to the scorers.

And if you happen to be a scorer who also does other things well, like a lebron or a Chris Paul, the glory is overflowing.

But what if you were only a decent scorer, averaging say 15 points per game.

Would you be a great player?

What if you averaged almost 23 rebounds per game?

Would that help make you a great player?

What if it was estimated by players and coaches of the day, that you averaged 10 blocked shots per game, but that stat wasn't tracked in your day. And you "altered" even more shots,.

Would you be considered to be a great player?

Most people today say this man, Bill Russell was NOT the greatest player. They say Jordan was better because he was a scorer.

The Boston Celtics have more championships than any other franchise, yet they seldom had the best scorers of their day.

They had the guys who did all of the other things to win games.

Scorers in basketball get too much glory.

It is a role like any other.

It is easier to find a great scorer than a great rebounder or a great passer.

There are lots of Antoine Walkers in the NBA. They score because they shoot often enough, but contribute little else. They are the most over rated players in the NBA. There are far too many of them.

Now if you ask about scorers who are very efficient, shoot at a high percentage, and get lots of "three point play" opportunities because they drive the hoop a lot, or they shoot 3 pointers at an extraordinarily high percentage, they are as difficult to find as great rebounders, great passers, and great defenders.

But those are the things that Wins Produced tell you.

Thats why its a GREAT STAT.