fpliii wrote:ElGee wrote:fpliii wrote:Follow-up question -- do you think it's reasonable to classify any non-star player as a role player? If so, would you agree that we can define a star player as someone who can excel in multiple facets simultaneously?
Hmm -- I'm not sure what you mean.
When you say role player, do you mean they only have one primary function (rebound, corner 3, wing defender, etc.?). Seems reasonable if you want to classify role vs. star I suppose.
But the whole "star player" vs. "superstar player" is a bit of semantics to me. I just care how much guys impact the game, and from a team perspective if I have all my bases covered.
The bolded is what I was looking for, thanks. You are correct, it is largely (entirely?) semantics, but I'm trying to determine how to parse out credit/responsibility for the Survey Project. My current hypothesis is that players with limited responsibilities (primarily those with a single function/purpose) are moving parts, and can't really be held accountable for team success. This is a bit of a leap, but I think it's a reasonable assumption (and will make the parsing a lot easier). On the surface I thought it was relatively simple to just produce estimates for the project (since, as I believe you've said, its purpose is to formalize already extant beliefs), but in order to be relatively accurate, one first needs to solidify his/her beliefs about supporting casts. I'm probably making too much of this, but I feel like the process will become more streamlined and take far less time after I'm satisfied with my attempts for the first few guys.
I moved this here from the top 15 wings thread...
I think you are over-thinking it. You don't have to be so thorough to estimate the value of stars. At the same time, I applaud you being thorough, I never discourage it, and I think if it helps you solidify your quantification then go for it.
My 2 cents? Role players matter A LOT. I've been working lately with a replacement player value of ~ -3, which is pretty standard in the industry. This basically means if we put together a team of guys who could barely make an NBA roster, we'd see something like a -15 team...which is what the worst teams in NBA history bump against. The reason supporting casts have so much variation, and the reason role players are so important, can be illustrated by this principle of -3 (or looking at a -15 team).
Case study: 2003 Lakers vs. 2003 SpursLet's use RAPM just to make a point -- it doesn't have to be 100% accurate, but it captures the point objectively.
2003 Spurs without "stars" (Duncan) = +1.5 RAPM (weighted minute)
2003 Lakers without "stars" (Shaq and Kobe = -3.0 RAPM (weighted minute)
That's a 4.5 point difference, or the difference between a 32-win team and a 45-win, just from the "non stars." That's an enormous difference, and this example isn't even extreme. We see huge variations in the so-called "supporting cast" because of this principle of -3. These are players who would barely be able to play on a team with a remotely decent player performing the same function(s).
LAL
Pargo -- some run in Chicago (-7 SRS) next season. Plays for 3 teams and lives on 10-day contracts
Madsen -- started 12 games in Minnesota next year because he was desirable over Gary Trent (who would never play again)
Shaw -- retired
George -- probably slightly above replacement
That's 4 guys close to "crap, we need to hit the waiver wire" level. They played 29% of the teams minutes in the 2003 PS.
SAS
On the other hand, the Spurs have players just about every team would want unless they were really deep with quality at a functional position (incredibly rare). Without going into details of their game, Parker, Jackson, Rose, Robinson, Ginobili, Bowen and Claxton were all guys that other good teams would desire. Assuming they were even just a slight bump up from -3 to -2 takes a -15 to -8, or more realistically is the difference between a team being -8 without a star (19 wins) and .500.
The "role players" matter a lot, because even a team of 3 "stars" still has nearly half its minutes occupied by "role players."! (eg the 2008 Celtics had 53% on-court MP in the PS from people outside the Big 3, and 43% of the shot attempts from non Big 3 players.)
