How legit is win shares?

[pete's montreux]

Because all I read is how Kevin Love is incapable of affecting an NBA game and he's second in win shares right now with 2.8. LeBron is first with 3.2

[Mr. Jabbar]

A fine example of how ppl needs to watch games and not look at stats. Kobe haters be mad good at doing that sh1t.

[I.R.Beast]

Because all I read is how Kevin Love is incapable of affecting an NBA game and he's second in win shares right now with 2.8. LeBron is first with 3.2


Stats are only relelveant when they support a person's agenda.


Watch games, look at the stats and be sure to apply context to them. I hate advanced stats. they IMO are a failed attempt to capture nuances of the games that only the eyes can measure. Basic stats and eye test is sufficient.

[ThatsGame]

Win shares is a fuzzy kind of stat. It's not as obvious as something like PPG, FGA, FG%, etc.

It's only there to give a general idea of who was most responsible for a win on that particular team.You can't just compare them player vs. player. The Wolves BLOW, and if you look at the stats, Kevin Love is clearing the best player on that team, and is most responsible for giving them a chance to win by getting points and rebounds.

[Kblaze8855]

Hakeem wasnt top 10 in 1995.

28/11/4 regular season 33/10/5 in the playoffs leading his team to back to back rings Hakeem.

That is all.

[Fatal9]

how I hate this stat...

[nathanjizzle]

:roll:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Hakeem wasnt top 10 in 1995.

28/11/4 regular season 33/10/5 in the playoffs leading his team to back to back rings Hakeem.

That is all.

Quick and efficient, good post. I used winshares to mess with the Kobe apostles, but in reality it's a completely useless stat.

PER is probably the only adjusted statistic not named eFG% I like.

[Dasher]

Win Shares is a solid stat. Over the course of a career it tends to give an accurate accounting of how important a player was to the teams he played on. Though like all stats it only gives a piece of the puzzle.

[pete's montreux]

I wasn't saying Kevin Love is good because he's second in win shares, I was asking if It's legit.

[Dasher]

Hakeem wasnt top 10 in 1995.

28/11/4 regular season 33/10/5 in the playoffs leading his team to back to back rings Hakeem.

That is all.
Hakeem missed ten games that year. The only outlier in the top 10 of win shares that year are Detlef Shremph and Dana Barros. The Admiral, Shaq Stock & Malone, Scottie, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, and Clyde Drexler make up the rest of the top 10.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Like all of these formula stats that try to combine all numbers into one, it's useless. Incredibly subjective values given to each area. Win shares may be the worst of them.

Just pure crap. As a follow up to KBlaze's Hakeem example, look at the '95 playoffs.

Hakeem- 33/10/5/3
Clyde Drexler- 21/7/5

Now....their win shares.....

Hakeem- 2.8
Clyde- 3.0

:facepalm

A good rule to go by when using stats, if it takes more than a few seconds to explain the stat, it's useless.

By this point, I have an automatic reaction when I see win shares, which is to tune out whatever that poster says about basketball after using them.

Even worse is that I've seen defensive win shares used.....for the 60's......when there were no defensive stats kept......

[Kblaze8855]

Hakeem missed ten games that year.

He didnt lead his team in win shares in the playoffs either.

Brent Barry had more win shares in 02 than Hakeem did in 11 of his first 14 seasons.

Brad Miller and Nene have more win shares per 48 than Patrick Ewing.

Per 48 Jeff foster is ahead of all of the following people:

Bernard King
Grant Hill
Dave cowens
Chris Mullin
Rasheed Wallace
Bob cousy
Mo Cheeks
Ben Wallace
Glen Rice
Deron Williams
John havlicek
Jason Kidd
James worthy
Tim Hardaway
Chris Webber
Lenny Wilkens
Joe dumars

Not that theres anything wrong with that....

[HurricaneKid]

Its a fine stat. People don't understand what it is or what it does so they whine about it. All is does is breaks down the wins a team had and who was statistically responsible for those wins. If you miss 10 games you get a zero for those games.

The Olajuwon line that was brought up came from a year when they were the 6 seed and he missed a lot of time. Schremf played on a 62 win team. Barros had a ridiculously efficient line.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

[HurricaneKid]

Even worse is that I've seen defensive win shares used.....for the 60's......when there were no defensive stats kept......

Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details). Here is a description of the process (once again using LeBron James in 2008-09 as an example):

Calculate the Defensive Rating for each player. James's Defensive Rating in 2008-09 was 99.1.
Calculate marginal defense for each player. Marginal defense is equal to (player minutes played / team minutes played) * (team defensive possessions) * (1.08 * (league points per possession) - ((Defensive Rating) / 100)). For James this is (3054 / 19780) * 7341 * ((1.08 * 1.083) - (99.1 / 100)) = 202.5. Note that this formula may produce a negative result for some players.
Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.32 * (league points per game) * ((team pace) / (league pace)). For the 2008-09 Cavaliers this is 0.32 * 100.0 * (88.7 / 91.7) = 30.95.
Credit Defensive Win Shares to the players. Defensive Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal defense) / (marginal points per win). James gets credit for 202.5 / 30.95 = 6.54 Defensive Win Shares.

[Dasher]

It takes more than 3 games for Jeff Foster to play 48 minutes. Using a guy who has a limited sample size to disprove something that generally does a good job separating the wheat from the chaff is a bitch move. I expect more from you KBlaze.

[ballinhun8]

Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details). Here is a description of the process (once again using LeBron James in 2008-09 as an example):

Calculate the Defensive Rating for each player. James's Defensive Rating in 2008-09 was 99.1.
Calculate marginal defense for each player. Marginal defense is equal to (player minutes played / team minutes played) * (team defensive possessions) * (1.08 * (league points per possession) - ((Defensive Rating) / 100)). For James this is (3054 / 19780) * 7341 * ((1.08 * 1.083) - (99.1 / 100)) = 202.5. Note that this formula may produce a negative result for some players.
Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.32 * (league points per game) * ((team pace) / (league pace)). For the 2008-09 Cavaliers this is 0.32 * 100.0 * (88.7 / 91.7) = 30.95.
Credit Defensive Win Shares to the players. Defensive Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal defense) / (marginal points per win). James gets credit for 202.5 / 30.95 = 6.54 Defensive Win Shares.



I usually end up with a 6.7 defensive win share when I play ball outside with my boys.


I just give em that formula when I force my matchup into a bad shot.

[Kblaze8855]

It takes more than 3 games for Jeff Foster to play 48 minutes. Using a guy who has a limited sample size to disprove something that generally does a good job separating the wheat from the chaff is a bitch move. I expect more from you KBlaze.

Its a "bitch move" to point out dozens(well...hundreds no doubt if the lists were that long) of absurd results because the absurd ones shouldnt count when some factor throws it off?

Ever consider that...if a formula cant figure out how to not rank scrubs over hall of famers its probably not accurate to begin with?

You know how I know Jeff Foster isnt better than Chris Webber?

I have seen the game of basketball be played. by both of them.

But a formula tells me Foster is higher. He has worse numbers. Is less skilled. And has not really even won anything even as a role player.

The formula ranking him over Webber(and Cowens...and Worthy...and other hall of famers) doesnt invalidate it....it just means we shouldnt count those parts?

If you have to disregard hundreds of results because of the obvious absurdity...why look at the list at all?

If you need to modify the results to make sense....**** it.

The results making so little sense they cant even be pointed out without a disclaimer is reason enough not to give them to begin with.

[Dasher]

Just because The Eye-ball Test says that you are the most impactful player doesn't mean the numbers have to bear it out.

The small sample size of a playoff run also can skew numbers. The difference, which is rather slight, between Hakeem and Clyde's win shares seems to be that The Rockets performed much better on offense when Clyde was on the floor. The difference is 10 points. The team played better on defense with Hakeem on the floor, but the difference is only 4 points.

[Dasher]

In stats outliers, like Jeff Foster are thrown out all the time.

[Doranku]

Easily the worst "advanced metric" that is thrown around on this site.

[Kblaze8855]

Just because The Eye-ball Test says that you are the most impactful player doesn't mean the numbers have to bear it out.

Of course. There isnt a number in basketball im aware of that even paints a terribly accurate picture of the skill its supposed to represent. Some are closer than others(rebounds being closer than say...ppg). But none are al lthat accurate.

And all you get when you combine a gang of them is a cluster****. It always has good players at the top....which would be the case if you combine any positive numbers in any order that makes any hint of sense.

Add the positive numbers up and remove points for the negative....the results will be good players at the top.

But its just piling up numbers that dont mean that much on their own into one number that still manages to be less than the sum of its parts.

[Kblaze8855]

In stats outliers, like Jeff Foster are thrown out all the time.

Which is very well and good. But it has what to do with basketball?

And at what point are hundreds of crazy results closer to a standard result than an exception? Not like Foster is the only one. And if you just looked at them in individual matchups...there must be hundreds(really...thousands) of examples of it painting a picture that goes against common sense.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details). Here is a description of the process (once again using LeBron James in 2008-09 as an example):

Calculate the Defensive Rating for each player. James's Defensive Rating in 2008-09 was 99.1.
Calculate marginal defense for each player. Marginal defense is equal to (player minutes played / team minutes played) * (team defensive possessions) * (1.08 * (league points per possession) - ((Defensive Rating) / 100)). For James this is (3054 / 19780) * 7341 * ((1.08 * 1.083) - (99.1 / 100)) = 202.5. Note that this formula may produce a negative result for some players.
Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.32 * (league points per game) * ((team pace) / (league pace)). For the 2008-09 Cavaliers this is 0.32 * 100.0 * (88.7 / 91.7) = 30.95.
Credit Defensive Win Shares to the players. Defensive Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal defense) / (marginal points per win). James gets credit for 202.5 / 30.95 = 6.54 Defensive Win Shares.

How can you possibly make any sort of estimate of how many points an individual player gives up without +/- numbers available? This is especially true for players in the 60's.

An estimate of how many points that player allows....yeah, I can tell you where that estimate came from.

Defensive ratings for teams actually makes sense. Points per 100 possessions. Very easy to explain and a logical way to measure a team's defense if you're going to try to look to stats for that.

But for players? Again, box scores don't tell you who that player was guarding and for how many possessions, or what that did player did when the other player/team was off the court.


Just because The Eye-ball Test says that you are the most impactful player doesn't mean the numbers have to bear it out.

The small sample size of a playoff run also can skew numbers. The difference, which is rather slight, between Hakeem and Clyde's win shares seems to be that The Rockets performed much better on offense when Clyde was on the floor. The difference is 10 points. The team played better on defense with Hakeem on the floor, but the difference is only 4 points.

And again, how could they state even statistically that the Rockets performed better in those situations without complete +/- numbers available? So that doesn't explain the playoffs either.

[KevinNYC]

Its a fine stat. People don't understand what it is or what it does so they whine about it. All is does is breaks down the wins a team had and who was statistically responsible for those wins. If you miss 10 games you get a zero for those games.

The Olajuwon line that was brought up came from a year when they were the 6 seed and he missed a lot of time. Schremf played on a 62 win team. Barros had a ridiculously efficient line.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

So it sounds like you can use win shares to compare seasons, but you may also need something like winshares/game to account for an absence.

Also does that mean the very best player on the worst team gets less winshares than the worst starter on the best team?

[Dasher]

The offensive rating of The 1995 Houston Rockets with Clyde on the floor is 120. Hakeems Offensive Rating was 110. Per 100 offensive possessions the team performed better with Clyde on the floor.

The team predictably fared better defensively with Hakeem on the floor. 108 for Hakeem to 112 for Clyde.

I still think arguing that Hakeem's 1995 invalidates Advanced statistics like Win Shares is shaky because the 1995 Rockets are arguably the flukiest champion aside from the 1974-75 Warriors.

[Kblaze8855]

Also does that mean the very best player on the worst team gets less winshares than the worst starter on the best team?

No but it seems to be a factor. For example...Tmac in 04 had 8.4 win shares. Jeff foster(just by chance its him again...his team had the best record) was 3rd in win shares on the pacers with 8.3. Third on his team in win shares had him almost the same as a top 5 player in the NBA. He was probably the 5th or 6th best player on the Pacers(Jermaine, Artest, Reggie, and Harrington at least have a case to be over him). Reggie only did 10ppg on 44% shooting and had 8.9 win shares since he was in almost all the games and they won a lot. Prime Tmac on a bad team having missed some games...8.4. Last legs Reggie doing 10ppg on 44% shooting on a good team in most of the games....8.9.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The offensive rating of The 1995 Houston Rockets with Clyde on the floor is 120. Hakeems Offensive Rating was 110. Per 100 offensive possessions the team performed better with Clyde on the floor.

But how could they know this without having play by play stats available for the game, or without going through each game and tracking them....which would be too time consuming and it wouldn't explain how they'd come up with individual's offensive/defensive ratings for before such a thing would be possible.

[Kblaze8855]

The people who come up with many of these systems wouldnt want to even attempt to make a play by play. They arent basketball people in some cases. Isnt win shares a concept taken from baseball and modified? I feel like I read that at some point.

[HurricaneKid]

The people who come up with many of these systems wouldnt want to even attempt to make a play by play. They arent basketball people in some cases. Isnt win shares a concept taken from baseball and modified? I feel like I read that at some point.

Yes. It certainly is. You probably read my post on that a week or so ago. Baseball analytics are so far beyond all other sports because of the huge data sets and the limited number of variables (always a pitcher vs a hitter) so they have an amazing level of accuracy. Attempts to use similar statistical analytics in FB are borderline inaccurate due to the enormous number of variables, the limited sample sizes, etc. Basketball falls in the middle. It is fairly accurate but a few weird data points give enough credence to those who would disparage its fundamentals.

[StateOfMind12]

Hakeem wasnt top 10 in 1995.

28/11/4 regular season 33/10/5 in the playoffs leading his team to back to back rings Hakeem.

That is all.
:applause:


Basketball is not baseball. In baseball you are better off creating a team off of a computer opposed to a person while in basketball you would be in big trouble if you tried to do the same thing.

[Glide2keva]

how I hate this stat...
Not as much as I hate TS%, PER, eFG%, etc.

[tpols]

:applause:


Basketball is not baseball. In baseball you are better off creating a team off of a computer opposed to a person while in basketball you would be in big trouble if you tried to do the same thing.
Exactly.. in Baseball, the number of 'experiments' is the same for every player.. scrubs get as many at bats as the superstar batter.. so you can readily see and compare who was the best based on how many times they converted on an equal amount of chances. Basketball isn't like that.. not only do different players get a different amount of chances to make plays, but one guy might consistently create for another or a player might get his 10ppg on almost all putbacks.. numbers alone CANT define ability.. way too many moving parts.

Some of the people in this thread sound like they watch basketball games in labs with moving boxscores and formulas flashing on a bunch of different screens instead of the games being played themselves.

[Glide2keva]

Quick and efficient, good post. I used winshares to mess with the Kobe apostles, but in reality it's a completely useless stat.

PER is probably the only adjusted statistic not named eFG% I like.
:facepalm

PER is the most useless stat in the world.

[StateOfMind12]

Exactly.. in Baseball, the number of 'experiments' is the same for every player.. scrubs get as many at bats as the superstar batter.. so you can readily see and compare who was the best based on how many times they converted on an equal amount of chances. Basketball isn't like that.. not only do different players get a different amount of chances to make plays, but one guy might consistently create for another or a player might get his 10ppg on almost all putbacks.. numbers alone CANT define ability.. way too many moving parts.

:applause: Well spoken.



Some of the people in this thread sound like they watch basketball games in labs with moving boxscores and formulas flashing on a bunch of different screens instead of the games being played themselves.
That's pretty much what most people on RealGM do.

[Glide2keva]

Crediting Defensive Win Shares to players is based on Dean Oliver's Defensive Rating. Defensive Rating is an estimate of the player's points allowed per 100 defensive possessions (please see Oliver's book for further details). Here is a description of the process (once again using LeBron James in 2008-09 as an example):

Calculate the Defensive Rating for each player. James's Defensive Rating in 2008-09 was 99.1.
Calculate marginal defense for each player. Marginal defense is equal to (player minutes played / team minutes played) * (team defensive possessions) * (1.08 * (league points per possession) - ((Defensive Rating) / 100)). For James this is (3054 / 19780) * 7341 * ((1.08 * 1.083) - (99.1 / 100)) = 202.5. Note that this formula may produce a negative result for some players.
Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.32 * (league points per game) * ((team pace) / (league pace)). For the 2008-09 Cavaliers this is 0.32 * 100.0 * (88.7 / 91.7) = 30.95.
Credit Defensive Win Shares to the players. Defensive Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal defense) / (marginal points per win). James gets credit for 202.5 / 30.95 = 6.54 Defensive Win Shares.

If you have to go through all of this to figure out a stat, it's useless.

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm

PER is the most useless stat in the world.

It really isn't at all. Its great for comparing across eras.

[Yung D-Will]

It really isn't at all. Its great for comparing across eras.

It's actually pretty bad no matter how badly I hate agreeing with anything Glide saids.

[Glide2keva]

It really isn't at all. Its great for comparing across eras.
No, it isn't. It's some made up bullshit derived from numbers pulled out of John Hollinger's ass in which he adjusted so Jordan will always be on top. Thus it has no credibility and it isn't based on anything that actually happens on the court.

[RRR3]

Win shares are retarded. They're not consistent and don't reflect what happens very well. I used to think ws were cool but i realized I didn't even get them for real and they weren't consistent or useful. Advanced stats are great for baseball (I'm a big baseball fan and tbh one can talk knowledgably about the MLB w/O really watching the games) but not for basketball.

[Heavincent]

It really isn't at all. Its great for comparing across eras.

It's not great for anything. It's useless.

[GOBB]

Damn Dasher, you got your basketball took and roofed. :oldlol:

[Heavincent]

A good rule to go by when using stats, if it takes more than a few seconds to explain the stat, it's useless.


This is like the best quote I've seen on ISH in a long time.

Repped.

[RRR3]

This is like the best quote I've seen on ISH in a long time.

Repped.
Generally true. Ironically it's often the opposite on baseball.

[GOBB]

This is among the best quote I've seen on ISH

Repped.

Fixed because you said what you initially did before and will end up saying it somewhere down the road. I just taxed you, bill payment will be in mail. Scammed much?

[1987_Lakers]

Not as much as I hate TS%, PER, eFG%, etc.

TS% >> PER & eFG%

[TheAdmiral3]

TS% >> PER & eFG%
wrong

[DMAVS41]

No, it isn't. It's some made up bullshit derived from numbers pulled out of John Hollinger's ass in which he adjusted so Jordan will always be on top. Thus it has no credibility and it isn't based on anything that actually happens on the court.

Its not a ranking of players. Its a formula for overall efficiency taking into account the league averages and pace...etc.

Far better than looking at elgin baylor's or oscar's raw numbers and thinking those mean anything more. LOL...wake up.

[chips93]

all of a team's players' combined win shares add up to that teams win total right? i think thats how it works. and if its the case, that puts way too much emphasis on team success.

[Yung D-Will]

Its not a ranking of players. Its a formula for overall efficiency taking into account the league averages and pace...etc.

Far better than looking at elgin baylor's or oscar's raw numbers and thinking those mean anything more. LOL...wake up.
If you can't look at a player than look at his raw numbers and make a simple evaluation that's more of a reflection on you than the stats.

[ZenMaster]

Not as much as I hate TS%, PER, eFG%, etc.

As for TS% and eFG%.


Is it because you don't understand them? Or is it because you don't play with free throws when you play pick up ball?

[Dasher]

Damn Dasher, you got your basketball took and roofed. :oldlol:
Actually I didn't.

[LakersReign]

The whole stat argument, if you can even call it that is some straight b.s. I just love it how some people OVERUSE them, but the minute it makes their argument look bad, they throw it out. Then expect people to take their so called argument seriously:lol

[HurricaneKid]

Its not a ranking of players. Its a formula for overall efficiency taking into account the league averages and pace...etc.

Far better than looking at elgin baylor's or oscar's raw numbers and thinking those mean anything more. LOL...wake up.

Good luck. Having a conversation about advanced statistical analysis with a bunch of kids who are failing 9th grade Geometry is wasted effort.

LOL at people here who think "its too team oriented" and "its too complicated". The reason it was created was so that a players impact on winning could be measured. Its basis is on the team. If you don't care how the team did don't use the metric. Too complicated? Any good stat should be. PPG, etc are vastly overrated because guys who jack it up at 36% get rewarded for jacking it. You have to measure efficiency.

[GOBB]

Actually I didn't.

Your ball on the roof bro. :roll: Dont be mad.

[Glide2keva]

TS% >> PER & eFG%They all suck, so who cares.

[Glide2keva]

Its not a ranking of players. Its a formula for overall efficiency taking into account the league averages and pace...etc.

Far better than looking at elgin baylor's or oscar's raw numbers and thinking those mean anything more. LOL...wake up.
Yeah, raw numbers mean squat. Some made up formula weighs more than what they actually did on the floor. :rolleyes:

[Droid101]

As for TS% and eFG%.


Is it because you don't understand them? Or is it because you don't play with free throws when you play pick up ball?
He doesn't understand any stat that he deems "unworthy." He chooses which ones he follows in a completely arbitrary manner (for instance, he credits "Blocks" but not "Shots altered" or "Passes tipped").

[Glide2keva]

As for TS% and eFG%.


Is it because you don't understand them? Or is it because you don't play with free throws when you play pick up ball?

I under stand them just fine and they are easily manipulated.

They put too much emphasis on FT's and that's why guys like Durant usually has a high TS%, because he gets a conga line to the FT line and it can hide the fact that he may have shot poorly from the floor.

They are just useless stats that people use as a crutch to make a player look like he played better than what he did. Then when you look at real stats like FT%, 3-point%, FG% they tell the truth.

[Glide2keva]

The whole stat argument, if you can even call it that is some straight b.s. I just love it how some people OVERUSE them, but the minute it makes their argument look bad, they throw it out. Then expect people to take their so called argument seriously:lolThis.

People use stats and do not watch games. Sad.

[tpols]

Good luck. Having a conversation about advanced statistical analysis with a bunch of kids who are failing 9th grade Geometry is wasted effort.

LOL at people here who think "its too team oriented" and "its too complicated". The reason it was created was so that a players impact on winning could be measured. Its basis is on the team. If you don't care how the team did don't use the metric. Too complicated? Any good stat should be. PPG, etc are vastly overrated because guys who jack it up at 36% get rewarded for jacking it. You have to measure efficiency.
You're an idiot who cant recognize real basketball ability.. stats can be accumulated in a 100 different ways in basketball. There are a million guys in the league that have averaged 20ppg on decent efficiency that have never been the scorer of say.. Ray Allen. Andrew Bynum averages 15/10 on great percentages but Paul Millsap can average the same thing and notW be considered nearly as good because he cant dictate games like Bynum has at points.

There's more to basketball games than raw scoring/passing efficiency.. momentum, making the right plays, effort, off the ball positioning, defense.. they all cant be accurately measured. If you have a guy that can take over games at will and make amazing momentum swinging plays, that guy may be more important to your team winning than a big man who just scoops a lot of offensive rebounds and gets a lot of putbacks even if that big man has a higher FG.. or a guard that constantly gets a lot of his points when he's fed open jumpers or gets a lot of opportunities on the fast break.

I perfectly understand PER.. and TS.. and eFG. TS and eFG at least have concrete concepts behind them. They are VERY simple formulas. Winshares and PER? They are very complicated formulas that stretch for paragraphs that apply different SUBJECTIVE weights to the stats of their creator's preference. PER isn't that bad in my eyes though because even if you altered some of it's formulas, you'd still generally have the guy with the best/most efficient statline be on top. Of course efficiency is not the most important thing in basketball.. much more to the game when it comes to winning ball games than efficiency.

Anyone thats ever played even remotely competitive basketball knows the emotions and natural swings of momentum that occur often dictate where the game will end. Guys and teams that can control that momentum the best are the ones that win.. even if they dont post 40+ PERs.

[Glide2keva]

He doesn't understand any stat that he deems "unworthy." He chooses which ones he follows in a completely arbitrary manner (for instance, he credits "Blocks" but not "Shots altered" or "Passes tipped").

Make shit up much?

When did we have a conversation about passes tipped and shots altered? I'd love to know this because to my recollection, we've never had that conversation.

Secondly, shots altered and passes tipped are things that actually happen on the floor and can give you a feel for the nuances of the flow of the game, like FG, 3P, FT, blocks, steals, rebounds.

Third, I don't throw out stats because I don't understand them. I understand them just fine, that's why I say they are useless. Besides, you can't rely on stats too heavily in basketball, because each game has it's one ebb and flow. Baseball on the other hand has the same feel no matter where it's played.

You can break the whole game down in stats because it generates so many things that can happen, but tendencies always prevail. Basketball? Not so much.

And I used to be a stat junkie. When I worked at U.S Cellular Field (then Comiskey Park), the old Chicago Stadium, and the United Center, the first thing I would do is get stat sheets from the floor. So miss me with that.

[Glide2keva]

You're an idiot who cant recognize real basketball ability.. stats can be accumulated in a 100 different ways in basketball. There are a million guys in the league that have averaged 20ppg on decent efficiency that have never been the scorer of say.. Ray Allen. Andrew Bynum averages 15/10 on great percentages but Paul Millsap can average the same thing and notW be considered nearly as good because he cant dictate games like Bynum has at points.

There's more to basketball games than raw scoring/passing efficiency.. momentum, making the right plays, effort, off the ball positioning, defense.. they all cant be accurately measured. If you have a guy that can take over games at will and make amazing momentum swinging plays, that guy may be more important to your team winning than a big man who just scoops a lot of offensive rebounds and gets a lot of putbacks even if that big man has a higher FG.. or a guard that constantly gets a lot of his points when he's fed open jumpers or gets a lot of opportunities on the fast break.

I perfectly understand PER.. and TS.. and eFG. TS and eFG at least have concrete concepts behind them. They are VERY simple formulas. Winshares and PER? They are very complicated formulas that stretch for paragraphs that apply different SUBJECTIVE weights to the stats of their creator's preference. PER isn't that bad in my eyes though because even if you altered some of it's formulas, you'd still generally have the guy with the best/most efficient statline be on top. Of course efficiency is not the most important thing in basketball.. much more to the game when it comes to winning ball games than efficiency.

Anyone thats ever played even remotely competitive basketball knows the emotions and natural swings of momentum that occur often dictate where the game will end. Guys and teams that can control that momentum the best are the ones that win.. even if they dont post 40+ PERs.

:cheers:

Epic post is epic.

[HurricaneKid]

You're an idiot who cant recognize real basketball ability.. stats can be accumulated in a 100 different ways in basketball. There are a million guys in the league that have averaged 20ppg on decent efficiency that have never been the scorer of say.. Ray Allen. Andrew Bynum averages 15/10 on great percentages but Paul Millsap can average the same thing and notW be considered nearly as good because he cant dictate games like Bynum has at points.

There's more to basketball games than raw scoring/passing efficiency.. momentum, making the right plays, effort, off the ball positioning, defense.. they all cant be accurately measured. If you have a guy that can take over games at will and make amazing momentum swinging plays, that guy may be more important to your team winning than a big man who just scoops a lot of offensive rebounds and gets a lot of putbacks even if that big man has a higher FG.. or a guard that constantly gets a lot of his points when he's fed open jumpers or gets a lot of opportunities on the fast break.

I perfectly understand PER.. and TS.. and eFG. TS and eFG at least have concrete concepts behind them. They are VERY simple formulas. Winshares and PER? They are very complicated formulas that stretch for paragraphs that apply different SUBJECTIVE weights to the stats of their creator's preference. PER isn't that bad in my eyes though because even if you altered some of it's formulas, you'd still generally have the guy with the best/most efficient statline be on top. Of course efficiency is not the most important thing in basketball.. much more to the game when it comes to winning ball games than efficiency.

Anyone thats ever played even remotely competitive basketball knows the emotions and natural swings of momentum that occur often dictate where the game will end. Guys and teams that can control that momentum the best are the ones that win.. even if they dont post 40+ PERs.

You don't know me son. I've played at levels you couldn't reach on a ladder. I've been paid to coach players far better than yourself. You are certainly right that there are 100s of unmeasurables in basketball. I just don't trust you to know, understand, or value those subjects. I'll gladly spend an hour dissecting a set with you and why it was good/bad or how to make it better. But I'm certain any advanced conversation about basketball would fly over your head faster than a "complicated" formula.

The truth is known statistics are far more accurate than almost all analysis. They are far from foolproof, but they certainly outweigh fools like yourself.

[chips93]

They are just useless stats that people use as a crutch to make a player look like he played better than what he did. Then when you look at real stats like FT%, 3-point%, FG% they tell the truth.

but they dont.

last year ray allen shot better than daquan cook from 3pt, from the line, and from the field, but cook had a better TS%.

ray allen shot better from everywhere, but cook took more of the efficient shots (free throws and 3s).

[StateOfMind12]

You're an idiot who cant recognize real basketball ability.. stats can be accumulated in a 100 different ways in basketball. There are a million guys in the league that have averaged 20ppg on decent efficiency that have never been the scorer of say.. Ray Allen. Andrew Bynum averages 15/10 on great percentages but Paul Millsap can average the same thing and notW be considered nearly as good because he cant dictate games like Bynum has at points.

There's more to basketball games than raw scoring/passing efficiency.. momentum, making the right plays, effort, off the ball positioning, defense.. they all cant be accurately measured. If you have a guy that can take over games at will and make amazing momentum swinging plays, that guy may be more important to your team winning than a big man who just scoops a lot of offensive rebounds and gets a lot of putbacks even if that big man has a higher FG.. or a guard that constantly gets a lot of his points when he's fed open jumpers or gets a lot of opportunities on the fast break.

I perfectly understand PER.. and TS.. and eFG. TS and eFG at least have concrete concepts behind them. They are VERY simple formulas. Winshares and PER? They are very complicated formulas that stretch for paragraphs that apply different SUBJECTIVE weights to the stats of their creator's preference. PER isn't that bad in my eyes though because even if you altered some of it's formulas, you'd still generally have the guy with the best/most efficient statline be on top. Of course efficiency is not the most important thing in basketball.. much more to the game when it comes to winning ball games than efficiency.

Anyone thats ever played even remotely competitive basketball knows the emotions and natural swings of momentum that occur often dictate where the game will end. Guys and teams that can control that momentum the best are the ones that win.. even if they dont post 40+ PERs.
:applause: :bowdown:

http://cache.sharenxs.com/images/wz/cabb/aj/a-/af/be/TimDuncameGamOverLH.gif

[Dasher]

Your ball on the roof bro. :roll: Dont be mad.
Nah they made the same huff and puff anti-advanced statistics argument that is always made on ISH. The game is art. People who use advanced statistics don't watch games. Hakeem Olajuwon 1995 season, which actually does more to prove his regular season dominance and the viability of win shares than anything. He was 11th in the NBA in win shares after missing ten games and playing for a team that only won 47 games. The numbers say Hakeem was playing on an otherworldly level. So how in that instance does that season invalidate it? The real point of advanced stats is that they are supposed to remove the bias that the traditional basketball narrative that relies too much on the story and sportswriter cliches to allow front office personnel to make better decisions. Advance stats and information technology has been shown to be successful in soccer, a sport a lot like basketball, and with time it will revolutionize the game of basketball.

[chips93]

seems to me like team success plays way too big a part in this metric.

lots of great players, who have been consistently great, have their winshares fluctuate a ton, often correlating with how well their team is playing.

how much does defense come into win shares?

hypothetical:
say superstar player A is on a team where he puts up great offensive stats, but he has little help on offense, and their defense sucks. they lose a lot of games, so his winshares are pretty low. then next year, they hire a great defensive coach, they improve their defense vastly, but their offense remains mediocre, with superstar player A continuing to carry them offensively, but they win way more games, mostly on account of their defensive improvement. wont superstar player A's winshares go way up even though hes playing virtually the same?

[StateOfMind12]

Nah they made the same huff and puff anti-advanced statistics argument that is always made on ISH. The game is art. People who use advanced statistics don't watch games. Hakeem Olajuwon 1995 season, which actually does more to prove his regular season dominance and the viability of win shares than anything. He was 11th in the NBA in win shares after missing ten games and playing for a team that only won 47 games. The numbers say Hakeem was playing on an otherworldly level. So how in that instance does that season invalidate it.
Will this invalidate it then?

Terry Porter and Reggie Miller both had higher win shares than Hakeem Olajuwon did in the 89'-90' season. Oh and you want to know something more interesting? Reggie Miller and Hakeem Olajuwon both played the same amount of games. The only difference was the Reggie Miller won just ONE game more than Hakeem did. The Pacers were 42-40 and the Rockets were 41-41. If such a stat penalizes someone and shows someone is inferior than another player just because he had one less win than the other player then the stat sucks. Well, the stat win shares sucks and is useless.

You want another one? Ok...

How come Brent Barry in the '01-'02 season had higher/more win shares than Jason Kidd did? That was the season where a lot of people argued that Kidd should have been the MVP.

What is even more funny about that is that Brent Barry played one less game than Kidd did and played on a team that finished with a worse record than Kidd did. Barry played 81 games in the season and his Sonics finished the season with a 45-37 record while Kidd played all 82 games and his Nets finished the season with a 52-30 record.


The stat sucks....

[Duncan21formvp]

One of the best stats around, just like in Baseball which is called Wins above replacement.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml

[ZenMaster]

I under stand them just fine and they are easily manipulated.

They put too much emphasis on FT's and that's why guys like Durant usually has a high TS%, because he gets a conga line to the FT line and it can hide the fact that he may have shot poorly from the floor.

They are just useless stats that people use as a crutch to make a player look like he played better than what he did. Then when you look at real stats like FT%, 3-point%, FG% they tell the truth.


TS% is "easily manipulated" because points from the free throw line for some reason don't count as much as other points.

Got it.

So if you coached basketball would you tell your players to take semi-open jumpers instead of trying to force fouls? And would the reasoning behind it be that they shoot a better FG%?