31 thoughts on “Two Perspectives on the Top 10 across the Past Decade”

1. Huh, I see you want another discussion about Kobe-hating :)

2. Apparently. Althought I would note…Mike Kurylo at Knickerblogger said the same thing today about Kobe and MJ. And Wayne Winston recently argued that Lamar Odom was better than Kobe. It will be interesting to see which comment generates the most anger.

3. I love seeing Ben Wallace on these lists … When I talk to friends about WoW, I always mention two players: Allen Iverson and Ben Wallace.

   I’m a Piston fan talking to (mostly) Piston fans, so it makes sense to use these two players as poster boys.

   Dr. Berri, have you ever written about “talent” vs. “productivity”? Obviously, Kobe is extremely talented (can do amazing things with the basketball, incredibly athletic, makes difficult shots look routine, etc.), but talent doesn’t always translate into production.

   I struggle to articulate that to people in conversation; I wonder if you might have articulated it better somewhere yourself.

4. brgulker,
   Yes, that has been my exact impression reading through comments posted to articles on this site. Most people find it hard to believe that a talented player like Allen Iverson, who can drive into the lane and make impossible shots despite being less than 6′ tall, is not “good” according to a statistical measure. The thing these comments are failing to take into account is that talent does not win games, strictly speaking. It’s not about what a player can do, but what he does do. Allen Iverson can do a lot, but what he does do is jack up a lot of poor shots, hurting his team’s offensive eficiency. I think a lot of Dr. Berri’s work can be summed up with this distinction.
   This factor is also in effect the opposite way. people find it impossible to believe that someody like Ben Wallace, who can’t make two point with a pencil, is a “great” player according to this model. The thing is, though, that Ben Wallace’s low level of “talent” is not what plays on the floor for his teams. What he actually does on the floor is rebound and defend better than just about any player in the NBA (during his prime, of course).

5. Even with the SDAA measurement, KG’s performance looks incredible… four of the top ten performances. This guy was a champion years before he was on a championship-winning team.

6. Shaq > Gasol > Kobe > Odom > Horry

7. gulker and steele,
   I honestly had to start betting people to get them to shut up. When the Celts won it all last year and I had people’s money in my pocket that shut up a bunch of the argument. Even when the Lakers won this year those same stupid arguments never came back. When people lose money, they tend to want to figure out how they lost their money.

   Now if we can get some decent gm’s around the games best players then stuff like last year won’t happen to the basketball world again. The Lakers winning was a travesty.

8. Since the pool of small men is larger than the pool of big men, doesn’t that also imply that “on average” the small men are better.

   If so, then a small man that performs “X” standard deviations above average for his position is actually better than a big man that performs “X” standard deviations above the average big man.

   The question then becomes, how do you adjust for “pool size”?

9. brgulker,

   I think you hit the nail on the head. When the average fan evaluates a player he is typically looking at skill and talent levels. By that measure, I think you could reasonably argue that Kobe is just about as good as anyone that ever played the game. However, basketball is also a game of strategy, decision making etc… Therefore, there is no guarantee that the most skilled players will also produce the most.

10. Let me chime in on the talent discussion. I think when people think about talent they think about scoring. But grabbing rebounds is also a talent. Avoiding turnovers is a talent. Knowing how to avoid taking low percentage shots is a talent. When you expand your view on talent, you can see that Kobe is not talented at every aspect of the game. And althought Ben Wallace lacks scoring talent, he is very talented (or he was before) with respect to other aspects of the game.

11. I would expand on what you say Prof. Berri.

    I would say people see not just scoring raw totals, but also ball handling skills, general speed and agility.

    Which are nice to have, but don’t necessary translate to success.

    I don’t doubt, that when it comes to these absolutes, the little guys are typically more quick, and better ball handlers.

    However, being tall is ALMOST just as much a “skill” as being fast.

    People can grow taller via better nutrition. Speed is a “god-given” ability, which can be optimized by exercise, and training. But someone who is faster than someone else, will always be the faster one, if the other circumstances are the same. Which is the same as size. Some people are just taller.

    My ultimate point here, is that people draw their lines where they want on “talent”, but at the end of the day, it’s all subjective. Height, speed, hand-eye coordination, etc… are all just as definable as talents. And that’s not even getting into specific basketball “talents” such as rebounding, boxing out, making layups, jump shots, ball-handling, etc…

    The very definition of talent is subjective.

    I’m sure there are just as many guys who are 6’5, as there are guys who can run a 4.3 40-yard dash. So why is one a talent, and the other considered luck by the general public.

12. DBerri,

    I’m not sure I agree with your “perception” of what other people think even though I have no problem with your own definition of talent.

    It’s the range of abilities and skill demonstrated that gets noticed by the public.

    If you’re 7′ , score 20 PPG on all layups and dunks, and get 10 rebounds per game, that may be highly efficient basketball. The public may even want you on their team, but it doesn’t take a ton of diversified skill and talent.

    The public is more impressed by players that can make spectacular moves, get to the hoop over bigger men, fake out other great players and get by them, shoot effectively from any spot on the court, score effectively despite being double and triple teamed, make spectacular off balanced shots, score under pressure etc… in addition to getting rebounds, assists, playing defense etc…

    For the public talent is a combination of extreme skill and extreme athleticism.

    The reason those things are valued is because at times they are REQUIRED. They may be required only a very small percentage of the time, but it’s often an especially critical time.

    I think poor decision making gets put into a different bucket because it’s intellectual. It the intellectual part the public does not grasp very well.

    This is what the public can’t grasp.

    What good is an attempted flying 360 over a 7′ center when there was a guy wide open in the corner for an easy mid range shot?

    IMO, Kobe’s physical talents and skills are pretty much mind numbing. IMHO he could easily become a way more efficient scorer and rack up more assists and rebounds, but he doesn’t play the game as well intellectually as players that are much less “physically” talented, skilled, and gifted.

    Like I said, I have no problem with putting “decision making” into the list of talents, but I think that’s the part of the public has a problem measuring and understanding. There’s a place for the spectacular, but it’s not a very big place.

13. I think that you should do something about how unreliably assists are awarded in your rankings. It’s likely that these metrics over value his actual contribution. Perhaps, you could start be creating a penalty using road/home assist splits.

14. *meant to say CP3′s

15. Chris Paul is not the only guy with a large disparity between home and road assists – its nearly universal (with a few notable exceptions). I’m not sure why CP has become the scapegoat for this sort of thing…. its been going on for a long time. Just look at Stockton’s home/away splits. Or even look at Kevin Garnetts splits… you’ll see the same thing.

    Not to mention, assists aren’t the only stat that is rewarded unreliably… blocks and steals can be very subjective as well.

16. Top 10 statistical seasons of the decade according to Win Shares:

    1. Lebron James 19.6 (2008-2009)
    2. Shaq 18.7 (1999-2000)
    3. Kevin Garnett 18.1 (2003-2004)
    4. Tim Duncan 17.7 (2001-2002)
    5. Chris Paul 17.5 (2008-2009)
    6. Chris Paul 17.3 (2007-2008)
    7. Dirk Nowitzki 17.2 (2005-2006)
    8. Tracy McGrady 16.5 (2002-2003)
    9. Dirk Noqitzki 16.4 (2002-2003)
    10. Tim Duncan 16.1 (2002-2003)

    Some pretty big differences between Win Shares and Wins Produced. No Dirk or T-Mac with WP, no Ben Wallace with Win Shares. In fact Ben Wallace doesn’t show up on the list until #93… and its his 2001-2002 season. Wallace’s 2002-2003 season is ranked #161. That’s a pretty stark difference. Also, Iverson shows up a couple of times in Win Shares top 100. I doubt the same can be said for Wins Produced. Finally, Kobe’s 35 ppg season is not in the top 10 but still ranked pretty highly… #16.

    So which metric is right? I’ll guess neither. Just more evidecnce to suggest that metrics based on box score stats don’t truly capture a players “wins.” Surely I’m not the only one that thinks its a rather proposterous notion in the first place? I still find this stuff interesting though.

17. blocks and steals are a big problem sure. But not as big a problem. CP3 is the “scape goat” perhaps because he’s on the list.

    until basketball standardizes it’s stats like baseball box score based metrics will be pretty bad.

18. Tom, it doesn’t matter much if players are getting the “home-court bonus” since WP is adjusted with positional averages. As Caleb said, most players tend to get higher stats at home, so that should cancel out the effect. Also it should be remembered that basketball is a game where a home-court advantage is real so it’s players probably do really perform better at home to an extent, not just by stats-recording.

    I also think the standard in stats-recording is definitely something that should be reviewed by the league, but I don’t think its effect is significant enough to make a box score based metric “pretty bad.”

19. People tend to forget what talet actually means. I define it as a special ability that’s not easily found among the general population.

    By that definition, being good at playing efficient basketball by getting a lot of layups, rebounds, assists, etc while making little mistakes at the NBA level is defintely a talent. It might not be aesthetically pleasing or awe-inspring, but there aren’t that many people in the world who can perform those feats, even in the NBA.

    If I remember correctly Bill Russel said a phrase in the same vein, “hustle is a talent because not everyone does it,” or something like that.

20. David,

    I’m curious if–in some of your team evaluations–you could offer a look at what the team looks like collectively, compared to the average at their positions (ie, instead of giving us WP48s, give us SDAAs for the entire team. I wonder, for example, if this wouldn’t close the gap between Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, because SFs have a higher average than SGs?).

21. “CP3 is the “scape goat” perhaps because he’s on the list.”

    Right… sorry, I just often hear people talk about this in regards to CP as if it doesnt happen with other players. Was talking in a general sense.

22. “Since the pool of small men is larger than the pool of big men, doesn’t that also imply that “on average” the small men are better.”

    You’re comparing apples and oranges.

    Here, suppose I have a bakery and it serves both sachertorte and brownies and furthermore serves 30 unique ones of each. This restaurant has been rated by some dining agency and they say that there are five great sachertortes and the other 25 are below average. They further say that there are ten good brownies and twenty that are below average.

    We can state with certainty that the pool of great sachertorte is smaller then the pool of good brownies. But can we say that therefore on average that brownies are better then sachertortes? That’s highly unlikely. Or put another way, I can assure you that a below average sachertorte is better then an excellent brownie. Perhaps, I should have used filet mignon and hamburgers, but you get the point.

    But the average(median) small man is better compared to the best small man then the average(median) big man is compared to the best big man.

    “If so, then a small man that performs “X” standard deviations above average for his position is actually better than a big man that performs “X” standard deviations above the average big man.”

    No. They’re even. Using SDs controls for the quality of your sample. Not to mention that you’d be comparing apples and oranges in any event.

    Here’s the thing, as we saw in Prof Berri’s example, Standard Deviations aren’t constant. By that I mean that the SD for PFs was .11 while the SD for SGs was .092. So, being 3.11 standard deviations better then average requires a different average for a PF(.443) or a SG(.379).

    What this does show is that a PF having a .4 WP is different then a SG having a .4 WP.

23. Pingback: Today’s Celtics Links 9/25 | Boston Sports Nation

24. Talent is too amorphous to provide meaningful evaluation of players. When we say a player appears more talented, we’re talking more about ‘appear’ than ‘talented.’ Kobe has some of the most aesthetically pleasing basketball skills of all time. He exhibits tremendous speed, quickness, and body control.

    And I would agree that rebounding, court vision & awareness, shotblocking, dribbling, and footwork are important skills and abilities that could be considered talents. However, I think we err when we assume that someone who exhibits aesthetically pleasing basketball skills but lacks, skills in less aesthetically pleasing areas has made a conscious choice to be less skilled in those areas.

    To use an example, Shaq has been a tremendously efficient scorer and a very good rebounder, but a lousy free throw shooter. That isn’t by choice. Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman were not very useful players when their teams had possession of the ball because of a lack of scoring skills. They were very talented players with clear limitations.

    Kobe and Iverson, to name two players, have some above NBA-average talents and some below NBA-average talents, but because they are aesthetically pleasing, athletic, ‘appearing’ most talented, players, their limitations are associated with their egos, disinterest, et al. But just like dribbling or scoring well takes more than simple athleticism, so does rebounding, recognizing when a teammate is in position to score, delivering a pass, blocking a shot, keeping your body between your man and the basket. Some players have developed the talent to do these things effortlessly, some have developed the talent to do them with effort, and some just can’t do it.

    And I don’t think we are player hating when identify the weaknesses in Kobe’s game or Iverson’s game. If anything, we are being critical of the individuals, fans, pundits, etc. that over-emphasize scoring. I think we are player hating when we suggest that a character flaw in an individual is at the root of an underdeveloped basketball talent.

25. Fwiw, KD specified a player could not appear twice on the list. So your post should have reflected 10 individual best player seasons, rather than having KG (Or CP3 or Ben Wallace) take up multiple spots.

26. Oren,

    I understand your point, but you are giving a very specific sample. That’s not the way sports works.

    I am talking about a random distribution of big and small men where a select few make it to the pros (I think that was the point being made).

    If you put 500 RANDOM big men (6’10″ – 7′ Cs) into a gym and 20,000 RANDOM small men (Gs 5’11′ – 6’5″) into another gym (best guess at the distribution of very big men and small men in the world), I think it is EXTREMELY LIKELY you will find more elite players among the small men.

    If you then take the 20 best big men (Cs )and 40 best small men (Gs) and start creating some basketball teams, I think the best small men will be way better than the best big men.

    For them to relatively equal, I think you would need similar starting pool sizes.

    If there happens to be 2-3 really terrific big men among the 20 (likely), they will seem like MONSTROUS talents compared to the rest of their pool of 20 because there are going to be some mediocre talents in that group.

    The same would probably not be true among the small men. You could actually see a situation where the 20th best small man is actually as good as the very best big man. But since the pool of small men is so talented, he would not rate very highly when compared to the rest of his group.

    I can’t measure basketball players in a way that would allow me to test or prove the point. However, I can do in horseracing.

    In horse racing there is dirt racing and turf racing. In the US, the pool of dirt horses is massively larger than the pool of turf horse. Most experts will tell you that the best dirt horses in the US are way better than the best turf horses. The point gets proven every year when the best turf horses from Europe (where they race exclusively on turf and have a huge pool of turf horses) come to the US and crush our best turf horses with their 2nd and 3rd string horses.

    Perhaps I am being a bit extreme to make the point, but I think there is a point there.

27. T-ball,

    I understand your point also.

    When it comes to things like free throws, we are clearly talking about skills over which the player has little or no control other than practicing and hoping for improvement.

    When we are talking about thinking “pass first” or “shoot first”, hitting the boards hard, blocking shots, we are talking about things that are partly physical talents/skills, but could also easily be partly intellectual, ego oriented, trust oriented, effort oriented etc…

    When I watch Kobe play, I think he has the physical talents to focus and have greater success at other areas of his game besides scoring. If he did, I think he would become both a more efficient scorer and fill out the stat sheet better.

    IMHO, it is his “choice” to shoot and score more. He may think he is doing the right thing, but I agree with the stats that he is not.

28. Pingback: While We’re Waiting… Browns History, Eric Wedge, Russian Invasion, and CP3/LBJ | WaitingForNextYear

29. One other consequence that Dave forgot to mention (Yes, I am taking Regression Analysis in college right now) is that, because there is an organically greater sample size in guards than big men, the variability of his model will be, well, less variable in guards than big men. The more samples you have, the less each contributes to the model. And if the data for big men has more variability than the data for guards, then you might come to expect that big men will naturally be more “hit and miss” and point guards will naturally be more middle-of-the-road. Indeed, at least in popular perception, this is the case.

    This has tremendous implications for Chris Paul. Indeed, if you look at the models through this factor, then maybe, just maybe, his ’09 performance was even more impressive precisely because he is doing so well in a model that is less star-friendly than the one that, say, KG is in.

30. My previous statement is an indirect consequence of the whole “short supply of big men” issue.

31. Pingback: Is This the Beginning of the Tragedy of Chris Paul? « The Wages of Wins Journal