Here is another wayof looking at the lists Arturo and Andres presented yesterday.
A few quick observations on the top rookies since 1977…
- The only other rookie to reach the 10.0 mark in Wins Produced was Kevin Love in 2008-09.
- In other words, there have been 330 top 10 picks since 1977. Only 34 rookies – including those in and out of the top 10 picks – have produced 10 wins his rookie season. So once again, chances are the players chosen at the end of the month are not going to have a large impact on their new NBA team.
- The top names – David Robinson, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O’Neal, Magic Johnson, and Tim Duncan – would probably make anyone’s list of top rookies since 1977. In other words, Wins Produced does tend to fit conventional wisdom for the very best players.
- Some surprising names, though, are Larry Smith, Clark Kellogg, Nate McMillan, Jeff Ruland, and Sam Bowie. Yes, before injuries struck Bowie down, he was actually a very good NBA player.
Posts have been offered before on Clark Kellogg and Sam Bowie. Perhaps a post on the other surprising rookies might be a good idea.
- DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Are those ages their ages when they are drafted or when they play their first game?
Wow! I guess this settles the 1984 rookie class vs the 2003 rookie class, at least inasfar as their first year production is concerned.
And wow, Sam Bowie! I’d have never guessed! I suppose I’ll have to stop ridiculing Portland for drafting him over Jordan and Barkley… or not, but yeah, interesting list!
Ages when drafted.
Philos,
I think Portland still deserves ridicule. They still got the least production out of their pick. I will never understand the philosophy of passing on a great player because you already have a great player. The way you win the most games is by accumulating the most great players. Anecdotally, whoever wins my fantasy league every year always ends up with a top point getter on the bench. I guess my point is that its foolish to let someone have a .3 player because you can’t maximize his production on your team. Inevitably you are allowing another team to be better than you.
This should be a lesson to Philly as it concerns Evan Turner and Iguadala. Don’t allow someone else to have a heavy producer because you won’t be able to maximize their production. You will still be holding wins away from the rest of the league.
Moving on, I read a rumor that Clippers have a chance to get Iguadala if they give up their pick. What If Blake Griffin turns out to be as heavy a producer as Love/Blair. The CLippers will actually be realizing that production by playing Griffin starter minutes. If they get Iguadala as well, they have a chance to be like Memphis this year.
What a surprise some of the best players ever came in and domianted from the get go.
Off topic, but did anyone read hollingers pathetic excuse for a list of best finals performances, or the awful statistical measures he used. Points as usual give the largest benefit.
Updated the finals table.
http://tinyurl.com/2010nbafinal
Kobe’s been pretty good but Rondo’s the MVP so far.
Oh and 17 of the 34 top rookies have been picked outside the top three picks.
I loved Bowie and went out of my way to see him play. He was big, smooth and cerebral; somewhere in between a Brad Daughtery and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Larry Smith was a gem, too. His nickname was “Mr. Mean” while he played. He was stuck on some bad teams. My interest in the league has always been toward players regardless of the team, titles or awards. The prof’s work has been a great help in separating the wheat from the chaff. Gerald Wallace is another player who’s largely ignored by the media that I’d pay to see.
It’s also worth noting that amassing lots of young, cheap talent gives a team great trade assets.
If Turner becomes the player he appears to be capable of becoming, Philly suddenly has lots of trade options it didn’t have before, which potentially gives them the ability to maneuver out of some of their bad contracts.
Brevin Knight surprises me!
I was always a fan, since I followed Stanford when I was younger, and it definitely makes sense– he was a net possessions all-star with his low turnover rate and his very high steal rate.
Larry Smith is aprobably a surprise to a lot of people.
Smith was a rebouding machine but couldn’t put the ball in the ocean. He didn’t shoot much, basically only for dunks and put-backs, so that’s why WP likes him so much. WP tends to overrate some high percentage/low volume offensive players.
that should say “high fg%,/low shot volume…”
Kevin,
Opening an old argument, but what do you mean by overvalue rebounds? A common metric any analyst will use is “points per possession”. A rebound gains the team possession of the ball.
If a team has a “points per possession” of greater than 1 then a rebound is really helpful. In fact if a team has a “points per possession” of greater than 1 and a player has a real shooting % of less than 50% then it is more helpful to the team for them to get a rebound than to take a shot.
Who should be the NBA Finals MVP?
It’s not so much that WP “overvalues” rebounds, Dre. Rather, it tends to overvalue players who rely totally on rebounding for their value, like Smith. Clyde Lee, Jerome Lane and Bill Bridges would be other examples.
Smith’s skills with the ball were awful. he could not dribble. At all. Nor could he pass or shoot. He was a complete bricklayer at the line. So, as long as you kept a body on him and didn’t let him get offensive rebounds, he was a zero threat. His teammates could not give him the ball unless he had a wide open 5 footer or a dunk. So, fo the opponents, it was like playing 5 against 4. Neither WP, nor any other metric, attempts to value the “rest” factor, the fatigue bonus points a defense gets when one of the guys they have to contain offers no threat. We’re seeing this now in the Finals. Since Kobe has decided he’s the only guy who is worthy of taking any shots, the interior players get to rest during the set, since they really don’t have to guard their man all that hard. All they have to do is stay between him and the basket and wait for the rebound.
He also was poor at perimeter defense. Power forwards with an outside shot could light him up. But neither WP, nor any other metric, measures opponent FG%.
We need better statistics, especially on the defensive side of the ledger, so the valuations have the chance to be more nuanced and comprehensive. WP is the best out there, and by a fair margin, but they all need work.
“Who should be the NBA Finals MVP?”
Assuming the Celtics win, I’d go with either Pierce or Rondo. But you could make a case for garnett as well. I thought his game 5 was awesome. 5 steals and 2 bolcks from you power forward? You gotta be kidding me.
Based on what has transpired so far, I’d give to Gasol if the lakers win, unlikely as that may seem. Really, he should have gotten it last year too.
kevin,
Ty, over at Courtside Analyst, is trying to do just that by using counterpart production.
<blockquote<So, as long as you kept a body on him and didn’t let him get offensive rebounds, he was a zero threat. His teammates could not give him the ball unless he had a wide open 5 footer or a dunk. So, fo the opponents, it was like playing 5 against 4.
I refer you to the 2004 Detroit Pistons and Ben Wallace in particular. Regardless of your criticisms, teams that employ players like Ben Wallace win games, and in some instances, even championships (and if not for Robert Horry’s luck, back-to-back championships).
Bah, html fail. My bad.
Smith and Wallace aren’t really comparable. Smith was a great shotblocker and interior presence. Smith was a lousy shotblocker for a power forward and opponents could put high percentage shots right up over him.
that should say “WALLACE was a great shotblocker…”
I wish ther was a edit function, so I could correct the numerous typos in my impetuous comments.
I would throw Rodman out there as another non-scoring threat on a winning team.
On another topic… Kobe has not been the most productive player on the Lakers in the Finals. Should I offer another Kobe post? Or are we tired of these?
“So, as long as you kept a body on him and didn’t let him get offensive rebounds, he was a zero threat. His teammates could not give him the ball unless he had a wide open 5 footer or a dunk. So, fo the opponents, it was like playing 5 against 4″
Seems like you want it both ways there.
He had a man on him or he didn’t.
If teams chose to let him kill them by not putting a man on him, it would seem he was a very productive player and deserves the credit for his production.
Kevin,
I will ask how much you have gone over WP48. Some of your comments imply you may not have a full understanding.
In terms of Smith you mentioned a lot of stuff he couldn’t do and you are right. Despite being bad at scoring and dribbling he was good in that he didn’t shoot a lot, didn’t turn the ball over a lot. He did rebound and he did it much better than others at his position. He may be the definition of a role player. Your comment as long as you kept him from rebounding seems flawed as he clearly was able to get many many rebounds.
Also WP48 does take into account opponent %. A potential “flaw” in this is that it distributes this calculation among team members based on minutes played. So it is possible Smith was responsible for letting the opponent shoot well, but the odds this completely undid his rebounding are low. I will agree though I would love to be able to get a better grasp of good or bad defense not measured by steals and rebounds.
Two of your other players played before the WP48 stats were available. I may see if I can look into Jerome Lane though as I am curious as to his effect.
“Seems like you want it both ways there.
He had a man on him or he didn’t.”
Nope. You didn’t have to guard him. All you had to do was put a body on him once the shot went up. Understand the difference?
Rodman was also a different player. He ran the floor extremely well and was a great finisher on the break. Rodman was also an excellent passer off rebounds. You did not want Smith handling the ball. All he could do was get rebounds. He couldn’t do anything else.
Lane is a little different. Sizewise, he was a 3 but played like a 4 except he COULD put the ball to the floor. He couldn’t finish anything but a dunk once he did it but he was a competent ballhandler.
And he was a putrid foul shooter, one of the worst ever. .379 lifetime. He made Wilt look like Ray Allen. Even Chris Dudley was better.
“Despite being bad at scoring and dribbling he was good in that he didn’t shoot a lot, didn’t turn the ball over a lot.”
That doesn’t reflect a positive, Dre, it reflects a negative. He didn’t turn the ball over because he didn’t handle the ball, not because he was good at avoiding turnovers.
“Should I offer another Kobe post? Or are we tired of these?”
There’s really nothing left to add, Dave. We all predicted the same thing, that same thing transpired exactly as we all predicted it would, and the media reaction to what transpired is exactly what we all expected. We’ve all seen this movie before and it sucked the first time.
Kevin-
“Nope. You didn’t have to guard him. All you had to do was put a body on him once the shot went up. Understand the difference?”
I understand what you’re getting at, but I think you’re overstating your case. Against a good rebounder who is only concentrating on rebouding, waiting to put a body on him until after the shot is in the air is too late. Since the good rebounder will anticipate when the shot is going up, the good rebounder will already be in position by the time the ball is in the air (most likely by being inside of the defender or having wedged the defender under the basket so that the rebounder can get any long rebounds with ease).
on ESPN, and so forth, this has been asked: “Win or lose, Kobe Finals MVP?”
LOL, you guys just can’t seem to get a break, huh?
Anyway, I hope the Lakers can rally to force a game seven.
“LOL, you guys just can’t seem to get a break, huh?”
??? Why should we be worried about catching breaks if ESPN puts up another ignorant byline?
Kobe hasn’t even been the best player on his team, never mind the series.
Kevin,
I agree that some “role-players” post up some wp/48 numbers that would be contradictory to conventional wisdom, but some of these role players have mastered much of their art. In other words, you know how there are great scorers in the league, well, there are also many great rebounders, post-defenders, interior passers, etc. To suggest all one needs to do to stop a great rebounder is to “put a body on them,” is probably as insightful as “put a hand in his face” to great jumpshooters.
kevin,
this forum seems pretty sensitive when it comes to Kobe and receiving accolades. thus, I predict this:
Kobe wins Finals MVP = WoW Journal goes apeshit.
You wanna put your wallet where your big mouth is, Alvy?
Or are you just spillin’ more BS like you always do?
Kevin,
It’s a sucker bet. I personally will go apeshit if Kobe wins MVP in a losing effort.
Yeah but he’s not going to, Arturo. The Lakers are going to lose.
I understand you understand, Sam.
Kevin,
Even if they lose there is a chance Kobe might still win MVP, given the amount of hype he has received these playoffs. I for one wouldn’t be surprised. In that case, I fully expect everyone here to go apeshit, as it would be the correct reaction.
Well, at least one member of the media, Michael Wilbon, noticed the problem in Kobe’s game. And if he didn’t directly criticize him for it, he obliquely did so. And Magic, of all people, nodded in agreement. So it’s not like people aren’t noticing.
And you have to believe the Celtics have certainly recognized the lakers Achilles heel. Doc Rivers was caught by the camera saying to his team during a timeout: “Let Kobe shoot. Just stop the other guys.” or something like that.
Kevin,
no need for the hostility; however, i would bet this forum would be in an uproar if kobe won finals mvp (understandable, but i’m not sure the same could be said if pierce won the award, regardless of what wp/48 suggest about his teammates). you may have missed what i was implying though.
Rebounding wins games, and it isnt easy to stop. In fact no matter what teams do vs the dominate rebounders they continue to rebound. I would argue that this puts immense pressure on the defense as a whole. There is nothing worse(or demoralizing) then giving up heaps of offensive rebounds. And then do not underestimate defensive rebounds like so many people do, because that means the opposing team has to crash the boards leaving you passing lanes for fast breaks and quick offense.
Schermeister is right about rebounding and it shows WP applies even to Rec League games. Players intuitively want the guy on their team who rebounds and boxes out over the guy who just launches up a bunch of outside shots, usually with a weak percentage.
And “putting a body on” someone is hard work and having to do so often prevents a defender from helping out on defense when someone drives to the basket. Being a rebounding threat can really help your offense by tying up an opposing big man. In a rec league game I had recently I had to cover a guy 6 foot 11. He was 8 inches taller than me so I had to spend the whole half with a body on him at all times to prevent him from getting any offensive rebounds. At his height any offensive rebound would have been an automatic 2 points. I couldn’t leave him for a moment so just the threat of him rebounding helped the other team’s offense by tying down their opponent’s defense. This is a case where one of those intangibles that critics of WP often look for I think actually works in favor of WP.
I’m sure players like Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace attracted considerable attention from opposing defenders who didn’t want them to follow up missed shots with offensive rebounds and dunk. And here’s a related intangible: players like to avoid the embarrassment of their coach yelling at them. Are there any coaches who don’t yell at their players who fail to box out opponents who get offensive rebounds?
SA,
Please take your sound argument elsewhere. Everyone knows that only outside shooters tie up defenders.(please note sarcasm)
Nobody’s arguing rebounding isn’t important. What I’m arguing is that, if that’s all you do, it’s very limiting in terms of overall impact.
“And “putting a body on” someone is hard work and having to do so often prevents a defender from helping out on defense when someone drives to the basket.”
It’s not nearly as tiring as chasing someone from side to side constantly, having to fight through picks. If you don’t have to worry about someone creating offense, it makes it easier for everyone. Nobody has to drop off to double-team, nobody has to worry about whether to cut above or below the screen.
The guys with the highest WP should be the complete players. Generally, they are but, as I’ve said a thousand times, the raw data is inadequate and when you have inadequate input data, the output data is going to have issues sometimes.
Basketball is a game of complimentary skills. Guys like Smith, Ben Wallace, Buck Williams and Charles Oakley were great rebounders and intimidating defenders who played within their limitations offensively. John Wooden also felt that the teams that made the fewest mistakes were more successful. The prof’s methodology reflects that thinking.
Smith wasn’t an intimidating defender. He had limited lateral movement and couldn’t block shots.
Putting Buck Williams with those other guys is wrong. Buck had a solid post game, could put the ball to the floor and ran the floor extremely well.
And Oakley had a decent set shot. You couldn’t just dare him to shoot.
Smith, by far, was the most limited of those 4 players. The only thing he could really do is rebound.
Guys,
I think some people are confused. Right now it is Kobe Bryant season. All comments and posts are supposed to tie into how good/bad Kobe Bryant is. After the finals then it becomes Rebounds season. Then we comment/post on conventionally underrated players whose high production can only be explained if Wins Produced over estimates rebounds.(sarcasm)
Here is something from Espen today,
Second, Kobe Bryant can never be Michael Jordan if the Lakers lose. But some coaches, executives and scouts within the league believe that Kobe is equal to if not better than Jordan. They say he’s a better shooter and ball handler. One of Jordan’s former teammates once strongly implied to me that Kobe was MJ’s superior.
“All I know is Mike never scored 81 points in a game,” he said. “And believe me, he tried.”
More extra stupid sauce please:
And although the Celtics are clearly the deeper team, the Lakers have the best player (Kobe)
and
I think Kobe is neck and neck with Magic as the greatest Laker of them all whether he wins or loses this series. After all, Magic never won any of his five rings without Kareem, but Kobe has one title sans Shaq.
ILF,
What will be fun is to gather who said what before and compare to what they say after.
ILF,
QFT
Because Gasol is so much worse than Kareem was for that last title (bangs head on table)
Tell me who these front-office guys are who think Kobe is better than MJ, and Kupchak will trade him for MJ prices–at gunpoint, if that’s what it takes; I volunteer.:-)
Pingback: Ranking Thirty Years of Draft Picks « Arturo Silly Little Stats
Pingback: A Sunday Kind of Piece: Return of The Draft « Arturo's Silly Little Stats
Pingback: The Rookie Year Week 1: Accounting for the perils of small sample sizes « Arturo's Silly Little Stats
Pingback: The Rookie Year Week 2: The Talented Mr. Fields « Arturo's Silly Little Stats
Pingback: Early Returns on the 2010 NBA Draft « Arturo's Silly Little Stats
Pingback: Get a great player and win! The difference between the NHL and the NBA « The Wages of Wins Journal
Pingback: The Hawks are still soaring thanks to some amazing wings. | The Wages of Wins Journal
Pingback: Kyrie Irving is not the rookie of the year. | The Wages of Wins Journal