Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Connie Hawkins
I've said a lot already so I'm not sure what else to say. One thing I will talk about is my use of Win Shares. I got called out on the last thread in a way that made me think people felt like I was ranking players simply by WS. Of course that's not at all the case, and my rankings don't look much like a WS leaderboard, but let me clarify.
I respect WS as a solid "rough sketch" of what a player accomplished in a particular season. Whereas PER is trying to determine who is the best player when he plays, WS is just trying to say what actually went down. I'll also say that the fact that a player gets credit with a fraction of the team's team success is something I like. It's not perfect, but I do think it makes the stat correlate with actual team impact more than stats that don't do this.
On a seasonal basis, I by no means consider this my bible, but labeling seasons above X to mean a certain thing seems to me to be such an obvious thing to do as an approximation, I really don't understand vehement objections.
On a career basis, there is one glaring problem: It vastly overrates longevity simply because there's nothing close to a VORP-adjustment to it.
So when I look at a guy known for his lack of longevity, and this longevity-heavy stat says he's up there with plenty of other people considered, it makes me think people need to check themselves. That and the association with Walton as if Connie only had a year or two worth anything just makes it clear: People have not thought this through.
Now, Mark Price is getting some buzz right now, and I don't object. Damn fine player, and I don't at all think his longevity is that big of an issue at this point in the project. But look,
Career WS: Hawkins 76.7, Price 71.1.
Deron Williams also might get nominated this time around, he's sitting down at 47.3 WS.
I can't for the life of me justify knocking Hawkins on longevity relative to guys like this. If you're not sold on his peak, I at least get that. But if a longevity-heavy stat has Connie a bit above Price, and you think Connie had the better peak, then I don't know what the heck you're doing siding with Price.
My take on WS: I do think it's a nice ballpark stat - But I can also see reasons why it'd lead to misleading results. As far as I can tell, the point of OWS is to take the amount of wins the team has offensively, then look at how had what ratio of role of the offense as best they can by the boxscore stats, and divide it up like a pie.
But this method clearly fails at times. A really, really good example is Chris Paul vs Deron Williams in 2009. The Jazz have 25.5 total OWS, the Hornets 24.6. This is the year where Carlos Boozer plays 37 Gs and puts up a 16/10 .52 TS% when he plays, so Deron has to make lemonade with Millsap at PF instead. Paul has 13.3 OWS this year for 54% of his team's, while Deron Williams has 6.5 for 25.5%. Even if you take into account Deron playing 87% of the games Paul did (68 instead of 78), 87% of that 54% number is still 47% - Which means at 25%, Deron's "share" of the offense in a year without Boozer is still WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too much below Chris Paul's. There is simply no way to argue Paul's importance to his offense was twice as important as Deron's to a Jazz team without Boozer in 09. 10% more, maybe. Not 88% more.
If you gave Deron 50% of his team's OWS that year you'd be looking at a 12 OWS season and a 14+ one overall. Obviously it could be debated that's too high, but is the grounds for calling Deron a 10-12 OWS player in 09 really any less solid than saying he's really a 6.5 OWS guy that year? In both cases it's shaky ground.
Carmelo is another example. In 2010, his best regular season, the Nuggets had the 3rd best offense for 30.6 total OWS, and they give Carmelo 5.6, which is 18%. 2010 Kevin Durant puts up a 11.1 OWS out of 25.3 total for 44% of his team's offense. If Melo was given 40% of his team's offense that year he's looking at 12 OWS. So again it's a case where the method of "ORTG + who had the biggest share of the pie" goes IMO, horribly wrong. Because I see Melo's importance to the Nuggets as slightly lower than Durant's to the Thunder, at best, personally. Like I could accept 35% vs 44% there. Durant being twice as important to his team's offense via OWS makes me think "yeah, that stat is missing something"
So in the case of both of those players, I just don't trust what OWS is punching out. I think they're legit 10-13 WS players in their best years based on other players I consider them to be similar to in caliber of play, which for their respective longevity, is enough for me to give them this vote
