Once again, ilikeflowers has asked a good question: The Cav’s are very top heavy this year and last. Has any team ever won a title when they only had one player in excess of wp48 0.200?
If we define a “star” as a player with a WP48 in excess of 0.200, then we can rephrase this question as follows: Do you need more than one “star” to win a title?
Technically – given our definition – the Cavaliers had two stars. Jamario Moon posted a 0.211 WP48 in 2009-10. Moon, though, only played 1,052 minutes. And he achieved his WP48 number because I think he spent significant time at shooting guard this season.
Although one could quibble with whether the Cavaliers fit the definition of a team with only one “star” (I am sympathetic to the argument), let’s continue with the question. We can calculate Wins Produced for every player since 1977-78. With these calculations in hand, these are all the teams that won an NBA title with only one player posting a WP48 in excess of 0.200.
- Detroit Pistons [2003-04]: Ben Wallace [0.312 WP48]
- LA Lakers [2001-02]: Shaquille O’Neal [0.332 WP48]
- Houston Rockets [1993-94]: Hakeem Olajuwon [0.289 WP48]
- LA Lakers [1986-87]: Magic Johnson [0.444 WP48]
- Seattle Supersonics [1978-79]: Gus Williams [0.208 WP48]
- Washington Bullets [1977-78]: Wes Unseld [0.254 WP48]
So across 32 seasons, only six teams have managed to win a title with only one “star.” And only four since 1980.
If we define a “superstar” as a player with a 0.300 WP48, we can see that three of the above teams have managed to win a title without a “superstar.” Two more teams — the Lakers in 2008-09 and Miami in 2005-06 – also managed to win a title without a defined “superstar.” In sum, since 1980, only three teams have won a title without a “superstar.”
Now let’s look at the Final Four this year. The Lakers and Magic each have multiple “stars” and one “superstar” (Pau Gasol for the Lakers and Dwight Howard for the Magic). Although the Celtics have two “stars” (Rajon Rondo and Kevin Garnett), neither “star” is a defined “superstar” in 2009-10. Turning to the Suns, we see only one “star” (Steve Nash) and no “superstar”.
So if you believe having multiple “stars” and one “superstar” is necessary to win a title, fans of the Magic and Lakers should be optimistic. Of course, we have seen teams win without meeting these thresholds. In other words, this doesn’t suggest fans of the Celtics or Suns should be that dismayed by this quick analysis.
- DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Watch what Kobe does to the Suns and J. Rich…you’re about to see a supernova.
D. Berri,
KG on LeBron’s free agency said, “Loyalty is something that hurts you at times because you can’t get youth back.” In essence, KG became aware of his past “tragedy” once he won in Boston where, by this post’s definition, had one superstar in KG, and two stars in Rondo and Pierce (Leon Powe as well, but…).
So, while the Cleveland teams in the past two years won in an excess of 60 games, did we witness a minor tragedy of LeBron’s first two MVP years? Although he’s played 500 games, I don’t think he will decline drastically next year, but maybe LeBron should consider Vilfredo Pareto, accompanying stars, and less about loyalty to a city that first employed him.
BTW, Dante, if you’re a Lakers fan like myself, don’t pay too much attention to Kobe, because I have a feeling Lamar Odom is the one who will have a field day against the Suns.
Hate to say it, but Kobe and the Suns have been a very bad mix in the past; remember the infamous Game Seven pout/statement/cry for help. All us Laker fans should hope the ‘real’ stars–the WP stars–perform as their numbers might lead us to expect. One might also think that most of the matchup inequities favor LA. Next question: Who do we pull for in the East?
For teams that won a title when they only had one player in excess of wp48 0.200, what did their opposition’s wp48 line up look like?
The fact that you think Gasol, and not Kobe, is the Lakers’ superstar proves your “win produced” statistic is a sham. No wonder it hasn’t caught on with the basketball world.
Welcome to The Wages of Wins Journal, Joe. For all of us, I’d like to say we look forward to just this kind of keen, insightful analysis in each of your comments. A thought: I’m not saying you should go back and read years of posts before opening fire; just go back five or six, and try to guess which letter your hackneyed, unsubstantiated, reason-free position falls under. A WP superstar is different from the pop world; here the designation denotes actual on-court production, rather than which guy looks the prettiest with the ball in his hands.
And I’m a huge Laker fan, so don’t think you can go there, either. Kobe is an important ingredient in the recipe, but Gasol–and, right behind him, Odom–are the meat and potatoes of the dish. Think I’m wrong? 2008.
Lakers without Gasol… (with Kobe in his prime)
Misses playoffs, out round 1, out round 1.
Lakers with Gasol…
NBA finals, NBA champion
Find the correlation. Research – it works.
Gasol without Kobe
6 years, 3 playoff appearance, 0 playoff wins…
Find the correlation. It does not work.
Statistics, expecially in a team sport like basketball, doesn’t explain everything. I probably can go further and say that they don’t explain a lot.
You can argue Kobe vs whomever. The strength of the Lakers squad is their size. They led the league in defensive 3 pt fg% this season and it’s not because Bryant and Fisher are quick. Teams are able to extend their defenses more aggressively when their bigs are able to help. They match up perfectly against Orlando, unless Nelson can score 20+ ppg.
Bryant has 13 seasons under his belt and turns 32 this summer. He played more minutes and took more shots this season and his productivity dropped like a stone. His role needs to change and the Lakers need to address their perimeter roster during the off-season. If the Lakers do have a weakness at this point, it’s a lack of speed. OKC beat them when they broke 100 points. The Suns will have to force the tempo and consistently break the 100 point barrier to be successful.
Matchups. I’ve always had trouble with matchup talk. The problem is, is that it seems like you can usually invert the premises and come to an equally well argued conclusion–i.e. “Orlando matches up perfectly against the Lakers, unless Gasol can run faster and move more efficiently on perimeter D.” See Don Nelson. That said, I agree that bigger is usually better. That’s sort of a basketball axiom. On interior defense in particular. Notice the overall WP production of bigs vs smalls across the league–I just don’t see what it has to do with “matchups”.
Jrice/
Can you please go further and explain (statistically) how it does not explain a lot? It would be nice.
Dante, based on the playoffs so far, I’d be much more worried about what Richardson does to Kobe. Richardson’s been on an absolute tear.
Meanwhile, Kobe’s been about the same scorer he was during the regular season. Likewise, in terms of assists, blocks and steals, he’s been roughly the same.
But his turnovers have increased, while his rebounds and steals have decreased, for a net-possession decrease of nearly 3/game. That’s a big decline; I doubt that Kobe’s been even average this postseason. At least, from a WP perspective.
Fortunately, Gasol’s been playing well enough to pick up the slack.
2003:
“The fact that you think Nick Swisher, and not Juan Pierre, will be a good baseball player proves your “VORP” statistic is a sham. No wonder it hasn’t caught on with the base-ball world.”
Rick H, the problem with that is it’s easy for anyone to understand the importance of not making outs. And even if you think VORP is a sham, and at this point it’s been well outclassed by multiple stats, all you have to do is look at obp and see the huge difference at the rates they make outs in. As complicated as some baseball stats are what they’re built on, offensively at least, is stupid simple, how often do you make outs (since outs are the only thing that can prevent you from scoring runs), and how many bases do you get when you don’t make an out. (the fact it’s also entirely one on one match ups also helps, as A-rod being awesome doesn’t really affect Swisher’s ability to make an out).
Basketball really doesn’t break down that easily.
I hypothesize that a team needs a certain level of overall completeness and then also offensive stars capable of playing at a certain level.
I have done exactly three seasons of research into this. And by season I mean looked for comparisons between the last 3 seasons.
If the pattern holds true then Phoenix will win the championship.
I understand that, Gina, but we can measure how efficiently a player scores points when given an opportunity to do so, and that’s something that should be fundamentally understandable.
It’s not, though, and we see that each time someone judges players by W-L and ring count rather than much more relevant and telling metrics, like TS% and OREB%, however limited they may be. I’m not looking for truth in basketball– I just don’t want to be ignorant to better ways of thinking.
Why Phoenix over the other teams marparker?
Yeah but while we can judge them I’m not sure I’m convinced the efficiency at scoring points is as useful as something like obp in baseball in telling you how valuable a player is to a team or a teams wins. I just don’t see how scoring efficiency leads directly to wins the same way not making outs does I should say.
“. A WP superstar is different from the pop world” – A WP superstar is also different from the practical world… Yes, Kobe is not as productive as measured by WP, but perhaps then we should be looking as why that is so, and why he can still be more valuable a player to have than those with higher WP scores. What is it that is not being measured by WP? I believe that it is the versatility, breadth, and uniqueness of his skill set. While Pau Gasol may have a higher WP, his skill set may be easier to replace and duplicate. Kobe’s ability to create his own shot is widely recognized (and I think, not debated even amongst WP followers). While his general play may not translate to more wins, when paired with a team that has sufficient win producers, that quality may become the difference between winning and losing. Then, if you believe there are only a handful of players with that skill regardless of their WP, doesn’t that make them more valuable than those players with higher WP, but whose skills and performance are relatively easier duplicated? I recognize that this is not a provable hypothesis, but can’t this be one explanation of Kobe’s value that recognizes his “superstar” status while still co-existing with the frame of the WP model? Can the rarity of the ability to create your own shot explain why certain WP underperformers are really more valuable in actual basketball play? Is this what GMs are looking for when they try to pay “scorers”, when they are really hoping that scoring is a reflection of the elusive ability to create a decent shot when the shot clock is winding down, and the defense has stifled the strategies of the offense? If a player has a rare ability that can significantly impact winning (but only under certain circumstances) that very few others possess, wouldn’t that ability be in high demand? I also recognize that many other stories can be made up, but this is just one that doesn’t contradict WP and still recognizes the very very high value of only an “above average” Kobe Bryant… I have a vague feeling this is nothing new in the Kobe Bryant vs WP argument, but to me, it’s original, so please accept my apologies in advance to those who think this a re-tread …
Gil,
True, your contention is dated (D, mainly, with a little B and E thrown in), but presented reasonably and politely; I will break character and respond in kind. Keep in mind I believe Kobe is the #4 SG to play in the modern era, so I don’t come at this from the typical hater perspective.
Robert Horry has taken, and made, some of the biggest shots in the history of basketball. So has Derek Fisher, to a lesser extent. I think it is safe to say their buzzer-beaters and game-winners have, on average, come in bigger, more meaningful games than Kobe’s. By your logic, they present a skill that is extremely rare; so, as long as you have a Kobe or two on your team–to produce enough points to keep them in the game–Fisher and Horry will prove to be the most irreplaceable, and therefore the most valuable, players on the team. They should be the highest-paid players on the team, right? I’m certain they would have loved to have you as an agent.
The problem, obviously, is that neither of them will consistently put up enough points to keep their team close enough to need their buzzer-beating skills; they only get to demonstrate their rare value because Kobe dropped 37 in the previous 47:55 to keep them within a point or two. That’s why Kobe is more valuable. You would want guys with their skills on the team, but you would have to consider them a luxury.
But scoring like Kobe’s is not the only skill which contributes to winning; someone has to rebound, initiate the offense, make the timely pass. Someone has to take care of the ball, maximize possessions, block shots. The more efficiently your team handles all these areas, the less you need last-second shots, or high-volume scoring (or shooting). Kobe only gets to demonstrate HIS points-in-bunches, carry-you-for-a-quarter skill set because guys like Gasol have done the lion’s share of the heavy lifting, the dirty work, to keep Kobe’s largely one-dimensional effort from being wasted.
We can keep going, and argue that Jerry West’s ability to hit a 63-footer at the buzzer in an NBA Championship Series demonstrates the single most unique, and valuable, ability in the history of the game–and Jerry’s my all-time favorite, so I’ll enjoy those negotiations immensely. My point is the argument reduces to the absurd.
Much more sensible to conclude that players who do the MOST things to help the team win, and do the most OF those things, are the most valuable. They may not be the flashiest, or make the most awe-inspiring moves, or be the most popular with the jersey-buying crowd, but you don’t win without them.
I believe you’re giving a lot of people way too much credit; popular opinion goes for flash, and most GM’s think more points equals more wins. If you focus on skills over production, I believe your team will consistently disappoint. When Andre’s website is up, I expect 30-plus years of WP numbers to tell me some interesting stories about my NBA heroes; I hope my various preconceptions won’t be too much in the way.
Gina,
My post was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. All I did was look at the last 4 teams from each of the last 3 seasons. The team with the best 2 offensive players(used offensive win shares from bballreference) won the championship.
I wanted to observe offensive duo because Lebron James seems to be lacking a 2nd option.
To answer the question that Berri presented I think a team needs
the above post is what happens when you are
1. falling asleep while trying to write
2. fall asleep on the keyboard apparently hitting enter
I agree with Gil that Lakers work because of the combination of ingredients. Take out either Bryant or Gasol (and Odom at times) and they don’t get this far.
Except for the Lakers all the conference finalists have 3 guys who have scored 15+ pts per game in the playoffs.
All the second round losing teams were close to having this but all failed except Utah.
None of the first round losing teams fully met this criteria. I haven’t studied past years but team versatility of playoff scoring looks like it might important.
A few teams can get anyway with fewer scorers over this threshold, especially if they play real good defense and slow. It amplifies Kobe’s importance generally and Kobe’s performance from here. He wouldn’t have it any other way. Enough help to be able to get it done… but if it gets done it will almost surely have to be heavily because of him- or it will at least look that way to him and his style of fans and analysts.
Like I said, Lamar Odom will have his way against the Suns. In 30 mins of play, LO posted a Win Score per 48 of 35.2
Pingback: The Potential Contenders in 2009-10 « The Wages of Wins Journal
Pingback: Face of the Franchise Rematch: Andre Iguodala vs. Carmelo Anthony « Nerd Numbers the Blog
Pingback: Face of the Franchise: David Robinson vs. Hakeen Olajuwon « Nerd Numbers the Blog
Pingback: An Elite Duo in Miami: How Often Does this Happen? | The Wages of Wins Journal
Pingback: Why Jack Sikma and Gus Williams were a more impressive duo than LeBron and Wade « Wages of Wins Journal