mnWI, if you want to debate stats, have at it!!

[Wolves2011]

mnWI, If you want to debate stats like wins produced make your argument.

I'll be happy to respond... was in the middle of some long drawn out discussions on Rondo last week, so sorry didn't see your postings.

Make your argument.....why do you think berri stats material, [and I'm assuming others that are somewhat similar like PER, win share, efficiency rating etc] don't work.

[By the way, I'm not saying any of these methods are the be all and end all, either. But they are the best method available when combined with other information. I try to look at ALL methods, but if I want one stat to compare players I use one like wins produced that is comprehensive.]

Looking at things like wins produced is better than just looking at scoring averages, which is all many fans look at....but these statistical methods like all models of real performance are not "perfect". They have flaws....

Now tell me whats wrong with wins produced....and more importantly .... whats BETTER?

If you can't give me something thats better, you make my point for me....

[mnWI]

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=949117


There's no need for this new thread. I already brought up what I wanted to debate in the topic above, in response to what you posted.

[Wolves2011]

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=949117


There's no need for this new thread. I already brought up what I wanted to debate in the topic above, in response to what you posted.

If you want to debate... debate HERE... I'm not jumping all over the place.....if you don't want to debate, thats ok too.

[Esohny]

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=949117


There's no need for this new thread. I already brought up what I wanted to debate in the topic above, in response to what you posted.

If you want to debate... debate HERE... I'm not jumping all over the place.....if you don't want to debate, thats ok too.

Ah, Weaseling out of things; the one thing that separates us from the animals...except for the weasel.

[cpfsf]

the squirrel ate some nuts

[Wolves2011]

If you want to debate... debate HERE... I'm not jumping all over the place.....if you don't want to debate, thats ok too.

Ah, Weaseling out of things; the one thing that separates us from the animals...except for the weasel.

I hope I'm not the one your accusing of "weaseling out".....I've offered to debate here!!....have at it!! If the argument is a good one, someone should be able to summarize here. I've also asked for a better stat for comparing players across teams, than comprehensive stats like: PER, wins produced, win share or NBA efficiency rating.

If he can't produce a better stat, he makes my argument for me!

[4ho5ive]

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=949117


There's no need for this new thread. I already brought up what I wanted to debate in the topic above, in response to what you posted.

If you want to debate... debate HERE... I'm not jumping all over the place.....if you don't want to debate, thats ok too.

Ah, Weaseling out of things; the one thing that separates us from the animals...except for the weasel.

[Wolves2011]

Why I think wins produced is meaningful?

When comparing players across teams I want one comprehensive stats that includes both offense and defense. I want it to be correlated to team wins. You can try to individually compare every possible stat under the sun but we can NOT simultaneously comprehend 20 to 30 stats for hundreds of players. Out minds don't work that way. Reducing it all to one stat is useful, since we can create hierarchies of players overall and players by position.

[Wolves2011]

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

[Wolves2011]

Some say Wins Produced slams scorers:

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.

[Wolves2011]

Here are some articles about wins produced for those who don't know much about it.



http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/0 ... rbo_books1

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom ... _by_t.html

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/ ... n-the-nba/

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/ ... aks-again/

[Wolves2011]

By the way, to reiterate again, what I said at the beginning. I don't think Wins Produced or any stat is the "be all and end all". But if you want to compare players, especially many players it is very useful. I haven't found anything more useful.

We must use all of these stats "tools" and our eyes.

But these tools can be helpful because sometimes our lying eyes can deceive us.

As I posted earlier, most GM's of teams have done a poor job evaluating talent.

When Berri and those guys looked at the correlation between team payroll and winning they found a poor correlation. That tells us that many GM's are overpaying for groups of players who do not win at a high rate.

They then looked at what GM's were paying for.... it was almost overwhelming scoring.

When they then looked at what did correlate with winning, they found that rebounding, steals, blocks, shooting percentage [as opposed to points alone] etc, were much more important than GM's gave them credit it. GM's didn't pay for those other things nearly enough, as opposed to points, which they overpaid for....

Thats why tools like Wins Produced - which I think is the best one, but also PER, NBAEfficiency rating and other tools should all be used along with our lying eyes.

Look at everything before making up your mind.

If it helps us identify guys like Rondo, Jason Kidd and others who are not great scorers, but do all of the other things that help teams to win, these tools can be extremely useful.

The people who get the press and the money are the guys who score points....

Classic examples to me are Antoine Walker and Allan Iverson. I think both were terribly overrated. They even scored inefficiently and did little else besides.

We need tools like wins produced to pull back blinds on these overrated players, and help us identify the "hidden gems" like Jason Kidd and Rondo.

Anyway, as I've said these stats are tools. Since they are not perfect in the end we have to use our judgement.

We do have to use our brains. But these stats can be food for thought to get us thinking about the right things.

Peace

[john2jer]

Sometimes I like to watch the games. But only sometimes.

[Wolves2011]

Sometimes I like to watch the games. But only sometimes.

you expressed an interest in seeing a list of best players for wins produced in another thread:

I had this same debate on the Celtics board.... read that... link is here, then get back to me....

Rondo vs NBA's best in "Wins Produced"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=948689

Then read the other Rondo strings for the last 2 weeks because the debate spilled over into many other Rondo links....

in particular read:

Addressing some popular Rondo myths
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=952100

Top Salaries for NBA PG
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=950798

List of Best Defensive Players of all Time -
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=951852

These are a good place to start, there are more... thats why I was busy....

As part of the Rondo debate, we extensively discussed the value of of some these stats..... and what they show...

[john2jer]

I don't really give a rip about Rondo. Especially since he's inked his deal now. And don't care about the discussion of the value of this stat until I at least see a ranking of players, since you said it can compare players from different teams.

So yeah, do you have a link to a ranking of players based on your win produced stat from berri?

[Esohny]

I wouldn't worry about reading those threads. It's basically 2011 repeating the same post over and over like he does here; a simplistic explanation of WoW, followed by a claim that it's great (basically because it functions how its creator built it to function).

[Wolves2011]

I wouldn't worry about reading those threads. It's basically 2011 repeating the same post over and over like he does here; a simplistic explanation of WoW, followed by a claim that it's great (basically because it functions how its creator built it to function).

Thats your opinion, why not let others decide for themselves.

I didn't ask for a debate on wins produced. Somebody else said I was a coward for not debating. [I didn't even know he wanted a debate as I was busy discussing Rondo.]

All I've done is lay out part of my side of the argument. If they are interested, I suggest they read them.

[Wolves2011]

I wouldn't worry about reading those threads. It's basically 2011 repeating the same post over and over like he does here; a simplistic explanation of WoW, followed by a claim that it's great (basically because it functions how its creator built it to function).

Thats your opinion, why not let others decide for themselves.

I didn't ask for a debate on wins produced. Somebody else said I was a coward for not debating. [I didn't even know he wanted a debate as I was busy discussing Rondo.]

All I've done is lay out part of my side of the argument. If they are interested, I suggest they read them.

So far no one has offered a better alternative to WINS PRODUCED, that allows a comparison of players offensive and defensive abilities.

Until somebody does, I'll assume my point is made, as I said in the first post.

[Note: wins produced like PER, win share and NBA efficiency rating all are "comprehensive stats" that combine all major individual player stats into "one player rating".]

[Esohny]

Your "side" is repeating the same post over and over without saying anything. And Adjusted Plus/Minus was thrown out as being better.

[Wolves2011]

Your "side" is repeating the same post over and over without saying anything. And Adjusted Plus/Minus was thrown out as being better.

Tell me about adjusted plus minus and why its better.

Can it be used to compare many players on many teams? Can you compare Gay to Wallace to Granger to Jefferson to Love to Rondo to Flynn etc. Where can you find historical date for all NBA player for say the last 10 or 20 seasons.

Make your case, if you want to make it. I'm open minded enough to listen. But don't challenge me to a debate and then not participate. I didn't ask for this debate. I have other things to do.