Monthly Archives: August 2011

No one really wants parity

Posted on by
11

Patrick Minton is the mastermind over at The NBA Geek. He’s also one of the few Timberwolves fans left in existence. He’s a software developer by day and a number crunching basketball expert by night.

Parity Sucks

Remember the good old days when the league was more fair?

You hear the talk every time any sports league sits down to negotiate a new CBA with its players (or, if you are an MLB fan, every time Bud Selig opens his mouth): the owners want more parity. Small market teams have no chance. Quite a bit of research has actually gone into the various measures that each league has put in place to encourage more parity, but as it happens I’m not going to debate the merits of any of them. Instead, I’d like to posit this: parity sucks. The only people that want parity are perennial losers. And even they won’t like it once they get it.

Editor Arturo's note: I really liked Patrick's piece that follows. So much so that I decided to make and add a nice infograph inspired by it. Let's get back to the regularly scheduled broadcast.

Games with Parity

Parity is fun right?

To see why, let’s take a look at some games with perfect (or near-perfect) parity. There are a few reasons that a game may have perfect parity. Perhaps the optimal strategy is so easy that it becomes impossible for either player to win (Tic Tac Toe, Rock-Paper-Scissors). Or perhaps the game is so dominated by luck that strategy is nearly impossible (the card game War, Monopoly [unless you are using the original rules with an auction], coin flipping). And of course, some combine both — there is certainly strategy to Monopoly, and it’s slightly more complex than Tic Tac Toe, but it isn’t rocket science.

What unifies nearly all games with perfect parity, however, is that most participants become bored with them very quickly. And spectators even more so. Even most people that purport to like playing games like Monopoly usually enjoy it for the social interactions with other players, rather than on the merits of the game itself.

Games without Parity

It takes skill to win.

Contrast this with games that lack parity, where luck is either not a factor or it can be mitigated through a strategy (one that is challenging to master): chess, backgammon, poker, Scrabble, Go, etc. In each of these games, “luck” or “variance” may play short-term roles but over the long run, to win more than one loses, one must simply be better at the game than the opponents. If you never win at chess, you can rant and rave all you want, but the only explanation is that you aren’t good at chess. If you lose consistently at Scrabble, it is probably not always because “my opponent keeps pulling the X, the J, and the Q!”

A Simple Solution

Randomly put LeBron on a new team each season.

If the NBA wanted perfect parity, this would be easy to achieve. Simply put all the players’ names in a hat, and randomly dole out players to all teams at the beginning of the season. The beauty of this is that none of us stat-heads have to sit around and argue about what metric to use to divide the players “fairly” — randomly is, by definition, fair. I guess you can make an argument that coaching determines success as well, so let’s divide them up randomly also. Sure, this would put a lot of stress on the players and coaches, but the NBA owners seem to believe that there are plenty of players willing to play basketball for money, so forcing this kind of agreement down the players’ throats shouldn’t be a problem. Bingo, parity guaranteed!

However, I doubt the owners would want this (except, as mentioned, if you lose perennially). The owners of NBA teams are generally the types of people that have made lots of money by executing smartly in their businesses — by recognizing emerging markets before others saw them, or by out-performing their competitors in an existing market. In short, they strike me as the type of men and women that have earned their money and are proud of it. They wouldn’t enjoy being in a market where they could not outperform the competition, and indeed, they wouldn’t see a business opportunity involved in entering a perfectly efficient marketplace. And fans, I suspect, are the same — they’d much rather watch a game where they believe the outcome is driven by how well their team is put together, and how well their coach manages the team, and not, well, randomly.

-Patrick

NBA Jam from Shut Up and Jam!

Posted on by
4

James is a law student from Tacoma, Washington. He is a lifelong Seattle SuperSonics fan, but is still able to enjoy the NBA, perhaps more objectively, without his favorite team. Check out his great work at Shut  Up and Jam.

NBA Jam

Greatest NBA Game Ever

Nathan Verney came up with a great idea in the comments section of a previous post, so I thought I’d take him up on it. Like any kid growing up in the 90s, I was very fond of NBA Jam. It introduced unforgettable catch phrases like “Boomshakalaka” and “He’s on Fire!” (a phrase that I might add is still used on college campuses throughout the country).  Everyone has their favorite team and strategy.  I played as the Pistons because, for some unknown reason, Isiah Thomas was a perfect 3 shooter, so I would shoot only 3s and hope Bill Laimbeer would rebound my misses.

But what if these were real teams playing against each other? Who would be the best? The arcade version was based on the 1992-93 season, so all the numbers are used from that season.  Also, since players didn’t get tired (as long as you didn’t hold the turbo button too long), there weren’t injuries, and no one could foul out, I think WP48 is the proper measure rather than total wins produced.
Since Nathan’s comment focused on the worst tandems, I think that is a good place to start.

The 5 Worst NBA Jam Tandems

1 and 2 were so bad no one kept photos.

5. Milwaukee: Brad Lohaus and Blue Edwards, .059 Average WP48.

Really? Midway couldn’t have thought of a better player from the Bucks than Brad Lohaus? Eric Murdock would have been the best choice, but there are a number of others to choose from. To be fair, Milwaukee was a pretty bad team in ’93, so you can’t complain too much.

4. Boston: Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale, .057 Average WP48.

Somehow Midway managed to make a playoff team one of the worst teams in its game. Lewis was productive, but McHale, who was way past his prime, gets the dubious distinction of being the only player not named Lohaus to be in NBA Jam after posting negative Wins Produced numbers. Midway should have used Robert Parish and Dee Brown to keep a respectable team respectable.

3. Detroit: Isiah Thomas and Bill Laimbeer, .057 Average WP48.

Well, they were good in the game at least. Both players were past their prime by 1993, and both were surprisingly unproductive that year, considering the ceiling each reached in previous seasons. Rodman and Dumars would have been the best choice; Midway really screwed the pooch on this one since Rodman had the highest WP48 (.410) of any player in the league that season.

2.  Dallas: Derek Harper and Mike Iuzzolino, .050 Average WP48.

Dallas and all of its 11 wins was by far the worst team in the league in ’93. Would anybody have heard of Mike Iuzzolino if not for NBA Jam? Has anybody heard of Iuzzolino even after NBA Jam? These questions may never be answered, but one thing is clear: Dallas is one of the worst teams in the game.

1. Sacramento: Wayman Tisdale and Spud Webb, .048 Average WP48.

What do you expect when your team’s average height is 6’2”? Neither of these players was ever very good in the NBA and ’93 was no exception. Sacramento was really bad and the game couldn’t have made them much better, but Lionel Simmons would have saved them from being worse than the historically bad Mavs.

The 5 Best NBA Jam Tandems

These two again?

5. Orlando: Shaquille O’Neal and Scott Skiles, .229 Average WP48.

Shaq was a monster. And Scott had just enough skiles, err, skills, to boost the Magic into the top 5. Denver, New York, and Portland were all very close behind. Midway would have been better off using Nick Anderson in place of Skiles, but then I wouldn’t have been able to make that joke.

4.Cleveland: Mark Price and Brad Daugherty, .255 Average WP48.

What do you get when you cross a sharp shooting point guard and a solid big man? A good NBA Jam team of course! Cleveland was one of the better teams in the ’93 season and in the game.

3. Houston: Hakeem Olajuwon and Kenny Smith, .269 Average WP48.

If I wasn’t using the Pistons or my Sonics, you could bet I was using Houston. Why? Because Hakeem was a beast! In fact, he led the league in Wins Produced that season (and ranked 3rd in WP48). Smith was the second most productive player on Houston, making this team a force to be reckoned with.

2. Phoenix: Charles Barkley and Dan Majerle, .278 Average WP48.

Had Midway used Cedric Ceballos instead of Majerle, Phoenix would have been through the roof. Still, they’re one of the best teams in the game, thanks largely in part to Barkley’s 0.391 WP48, which was second in the league. The 1993 MVP was no role model, but he knew how to shut up and jam.

(Editor Arturo’s note: Come on now, you know what’s coming :-))

1.  Utah Jazz: John Stockton and Karl Malone, .315 Average WP48.

Come on, what did you expect? Arguably the most famous dynamic duo in basketball history, the league has never seen two players play together so well for as long as Stockton and Malone. They are two of the best players ever to not win a title, but you can bet if the NBA did a real season with the NBA jam teams, the Jazz would have won it all.

As a final note, had Jordan been in the game instead of Horace Grant, the Bulls would have been at .309, just behind the #1 Jazz. Jordan and Pippen did produce more wins overall than Stockton and Malone.

All NBA Jam Teams Ranked by WP48

Two Top Tandem Lists in a Week!

In case your favorite playable pair didn’t make the cut, here’s the fill list ordered by WP48

Team WP48 WP Player 1, WP48 Player 2, WP48
Utah 0.315 39.2 Stockton, .287 Malone, .343
Phoenix 0.278 34.2 Barkley, .391 Majerle, .164
Houston 0.269 33.6 Olajuwon, .380 Smith, .157
Cleveland 0.255 27.1 Price, .220 Daugherty, .289
Orlando 0.229 29.3 O’Neal, .324 Skiles, .134
Denver 0.227 27.8 Mutombo, .298 Ellis, .156
New York 0.227 24.9 Ewing, .237 Oakley, .216
Portland 0.225 20.1 Drexler, .275 Porter, .175
Chicago 0.216 26.6 Pippen, .243 Grant, .188
San Antonio 0.212 26.9 Robinson, .312 Elliot, .111
Indiana 0.193 24.3 Miller, .183 Schrempf, .202
New Jersey 0.17 19.3 Coleman, .245 Petrovic, .094
Philadelphia 0.163 19.8 Hawkins, .170 Hornacek, .155
Golden State 0.163 15.5 Hardaway, .178 Mullin, .147
Miami 0.153 16.8 Seikaly, .216 Rice, .089
Atlanta 0.138 14.0 Wilkens, .173 Augmon, .102
Seattle 0.134 13.5 Kemp, .243 Benjamin, .024
Charlotte 0.116 15.1 Johnson, .178 Gill, .054
LA Lakers 0.105 10.9 Divac, .182 Worthy, .027
LA Clippers 0.099 12.0 Manning, .040 Harper, .157
Washington 0.096 10.9 Gugliotta, .088 Grant, .103
Minnesota 0.069 8.2 Laettner, .105 Person, .032
Milwaukee 0.059 6.9 Lohaus, -.014 Edwards, .131
Boston 0.057 7.6 Lewis, .116 McHale, -.002
Detroit 0.057 4.9 Thomas, .016 Laimbeer, .098
Dallas 0.05 3.8 Harper, .021 Iuzzolino, .078
Sacramento 0.048 4.6 Tisdale, .023 Webb, .072

Boomshakalaka

-James

Beating their Opponents: Introducing Wins Prevented

Posted on by
12

Arturo Galletti is the Co-editor and Director of Analytics for the Wages of Wins Network. He is an Electrical Engineer with General Electric in the lovely isle of Puerto Rico, where he keeps his production lines running by day and night (and weekends) and works on sport analysis with his free time.

“The only real defense is active defense”

-Mao Tse-tung

One of the commonly heard caveats to the Wins Produced numbers (and in fact for all box-score regressed metrics) is that they don’t fully capture individual defense. The typical argument goes that Player X cannot possibly be that good as he gets killed by his opponent.

Right Boys?

This has always bothered me. Is it really that hard to tell if a player does a better than average job at shutting down their opponent?

I say no.

Let’s take a look at how well each player’s opponent’s did over the course of the 2010-2011 NBA season.Introducing the Wins Prevented rankings for 2010-2011:

The results were downright peculiar.

A few explanations on method before we get to the discussion portion of the program:

  • I am looking at the production of the average opponent for each player in terms of Wins Produced per 48 minutes. I do this on a game to game basis by looking at average production by position (as opposed to play by play). What this means in practical terms is that it’s an approximation that’s improves the closer a player’s minutes per game edge towards 48 minutes. To that end I will focus on players with a large sample size (>1500 Minutes played).
  • Pay attention now, because this is where it gets funky. When I started looking at this back in the day, I focused on opponent performance versus league average’s. The more I thought about it though, the more unfair that seemed. Players do not get to pick their teammates for the most part. I decided to look at player opponent performance versus the performance of the average team opponent. I want to identify player’s who are better defenders than you would expect based on their  team and/or system.

Let’s take a look at the top 20 to illustrate what I mean by peculiar:


Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Iguodala, Kobe, Rajon Rondo, Kirilenko and Thabo are not that surprising to me in that Top 20.  But Stephen Curry at number 1 was a stunner. Kevin Love, Kevin Martin and Nick Young are also big surprises. To be fair it shouldn’t be, in all those cases the players in question managed to keep their opponents from producing at a significantly lesser rate than the rest of their team.

The Bottom 20 has some surprises as well:

John Wall was a total turnstile for the Wizards and this was not surprising (to be fair he is very,very young) . Chandler being number 2 is a stunner (this may be a function of the Dallas zone defense though). The jaw dropper for me is Tim Duncan, who may very well have reached the end of the road.

Fooled you didn't I?

-Arturo

NBA Owners Do Not Understand Competitive Balance

Posted on by
31

In the July 25th edition of Sports Illustrated we saw the following statement (from a story about Derek Fisher and the NBA labor dispute):

The league contends that owners and players together will grow financially and thrive in competitive balance as long as the richest teams aren’t permitted to overspend and the smallest markets are assured of profitability.

This one sentence seems to suggest much that is inconsistent with the evidence. To see this, here is what I think we know about competitive balance in the NBA.

1. The NBA – relative to the other major North American sports – is relatively imbalanced.  And this has been true throughout the tenure of David Stern.

Competitive Balance in the Stern Era.

Roger Noll and Gerald Scully developed a measure of competitive balance that involves calculating the ratio between the level of competitive balance we observe and the ideal level of balance (the calculation is detailed in many places, including The Wages of Wins). For the NBA, here is the average value for this ratio in the 27 years since Stern became commissioner (in 1984) and the 27 years before Stern took over the NBA (Editor’s Note: In a perfect world the measure would be 1.0).

  • Competitive balance ratio in the NBA from1984-85 to 2010-11: 2.8
  • Competitive balance ratio in the NBA from 1957-58 to 1983-84: 2.5

So the NBA, both before and after Stern, has consistently had a ratio in excess of 2.0. To put that in perspective, here is the same snap-shot for the NHL, NFL, and both leagues in baseball.

  • NHL: 1.7 since 1984, 2.1 before 1984
  • NFL: 1.5 both before and after 1984
  • AL: 1.8 both before and after 1987
  • NL: 1.7 since 1984 and 1.8 before 1984

As one can see, the other sports have generally had a ratio below 2.0. And that means – relative to other North American sports – the NBA is not very balanced.

One should note that historically baseball used to look like the NBA today. In the first half of the 20th century, the AL and NL both had an average ratio of around 2.4. How baseball improved – and how the NBA has not – is important to our explanation of what drives competitive balance. Before we get to that story, though, let’s talk about what doesn’t seem to drive balance in a sports league.

2. Salary caps, payroll caps, luxury taxes, and revenue sharing don’t seem to have much impact on competitive balance.

Capped at $5.5 Million and $22 Million and still can't compete.

David Stern and the NBA owners want to impose further limits on the spending of owners in the NBA. The NBA (in 1984) was the first to impose any kind of cap on team payroll. And in 1999 the NBA was the first leage to cap the salaries of individual players. As one can see, the 1984 cap didn’t alter competitive balance. And since 1999, the average ratio in the NBA has been 2.7. So the 1999 salary cap also didn’t seem to have much impact on balance.

This is not a surprising result. Martin Schmidt and I presented research this past summer that looked at the impact of various institutions (i.e. salary caps, luxury taxes, etc…) the NBA, NHL, NFL, and Major League Baseball have created to alter competitive balance. We found that none of these institutions had any statistically significant impact on balance in any of these leagues.

One should add that Martin and I are not the only researchers to look at how league institutions impact balance. Tony Krautmann and John Solow published research recently that indicated that increased revenue sharing in baseball also failed to impact competitive balance. Krautmann and Solow, though, did find that revenue sharing reduces the wages paid to players.

So the institutions that leagues use reduce wages but don’t seem to change competitive balance. Before moving on, let’s briefly note what seems to drive balance in a league. As we have shown in past research (and as discussed in The Wages of Wins), competitive balance in a league are primarily about changes in the population leagues draw upon for talent. For example, racial integration had a positive impact on competitive balance in baseball. And an influx of foreign talent in hockey (as Marty and I noted in our research this summer) led to more balance in the NHL.

Although the NBA also draws upon foreign talent, the impact on balance isn’t seen because the population basketball teams draw upon – even when we consider the entire world – is still quite small. Specifically, NBA teams require really tall athletes. And since tall athletes are in short supply, the NBA persistently has a problem with balance. In other words, the supply of dominant players – like LeBron James and Dwight Howard – is quite small. Some teams get these amazing players. And others have to employ players like Andrea Bargnani and Travis Outlaw.

3. There is no relationship between market size and team wins.

9.6 Million fans vs. 1.6 Million fans. Both win titles. . . .

The NBA has one team located in Salt Lake City (1.1 million people in metropolitan area) and one team located in Chicago (9.6 million people in metropolitan area). Such disparities in market size leads people to suspect that teams located in smaller markets are at a competitive disadvantage. But when we look at the average number of wins from 1999-00 to 2010-11 and the population in each metropolitan area, we fail to find a statistically significant link. In sum, market size and on-court success are not related.

One can also look at payroll and wins across this same time period. We do find a statistically significant link between team spending and wins. But team payroll only explains 6% of the variation in team wins. In other words, teams are not able to effectively buy wins in the NBA.

4. Fans don’t seem to care much about competitive balance.

Like it or not people tuned in to watch.

But what if the richest teams could actually buy wins effectively? Wouldn’t that cause a problem for the league?

Researchers have looked at the link between competitive balance and league attendance in baseball. As noted in The Wages of Wins, the link is quite small. Two different studies found that in baseball, a movement from the most competitive position in league history to the least competitive position in league history would only result in about a 15% increase in attendance. Yes, that is something. But that is all you get from a move from the least balanced position to the most balance.

Recently I have looked at this same issue in the NBA. And the preliminary results seem quite similar. NBA fans don’t seem to care much about competitive balance. To illustrate, the NBA was much more balanced in the late 1970s, but it was not very popular. As noted, since Stern took over the NBA has not been balanced at all. And yet per game attendance has risen from about 11,000 in 1983-84 to more than 17,000 this past season. Furthermore, the league’s television contract has risen from less than $40 million per year (for the entire league) in 1984 to more than $900 million per year today.

Despite all this evidence, though, owners are still demanding salary concessions in the name of competitive balance. And as noted in the past, owners of professional sports teams have made this argument since the 1870s. So it is not surprising to see this story being told. But one hopes is understood – at least someday – is that the owner’s argument is not supported by the empirical evidence.

Let me close with an unrelated note from the aforementioned Sports Illustrated article. The following paragraph from the article clearly has a Wages of Wins theme:

The owners maintain that a hard ceiling on team salaries is crucial, citing the failure of even the luxury tax to curb teams’ overspending. Fisher says that a hard cap would encourage each team to budget the majority of its payroll for two or three stars, leaving other players to not only compete for the remaining money but also to do so largely on nonguaranteed contracts. “What we envision is a cannibalist-type system, where you would constantly be in competition with your teammates over shots and points and minutes,” says Fisher. “We’ve had a problem over the years convincing fans that guys really do care about playing as a team and wanting to make a sacrifice to win a championship and not just thinking about themselves.”

The Wages of Wins argued that salary in the NBA was primarily driven by scoring. And this argument was echoed in Stumbling on Wins. Here we have a quote from Derek Fisher confirming this notion. Yes, the players know what gets them paid. And that means players are not just competing to win games, they are also competing with each other for shot attempts and ultimately salaries. This feature of the labor market, though, isn’t about the league’s collective bargaining agreement. It is really all about the NBA’s confusion about what drives wins.

Of course – like the competitive balance story above – the link between scoring and pay has been discussed before. And like the competitive balance story above, one should expect that the link between scoring and pay will be discussed again.

- DJ

The Winningest Tandems

Posted on by
12


Dre Alvarez (@nerdnumbers) is a Co-Editor for the Wages of Wins Network and is also in charge of handling the stats data. He’s a long time fan of Colorado Sports, depending on the weather. He’s an even bigger fan of the stats, data and all things nerdy.

It Takes Two to Tango

Looking at teams with two great players is always fun. Today I thought I’d go through all of the possible combination of positions to find the best set of players to ever play.

Before we get started, let me explain my methodology.  I begin with tandems where both players produced more than 10 wins in the same season.  In other words, a tandem only counted if both players hit the 10 Wins Produced mark. I then looked for tandems with multiple years on the same team.

Given this criteria, here are the top tandems.  Enjoy!

Top Backcourt (PG and SG)

En Garde!

Terry Porter and Clyde Drexler from 1987-1992 on the Portland Trail Blazers

  • Terry Porter (PG) – 17037 Minutes Played, 0.247 WP48, 87.7 Wins Produced
  • Clyde Drexler (SG) – 17524 Minutes Played, 0.320 WP48, 116.7 Wins Produced
  • Total – 34561 Minutes Played, 0.284 WP48, 204.4 Wins Produced

In six seasons these two anchored a great Portland team. They helped the Blazers to four 50 win seasons and two finals. This tandem is overshadowed by the Jordan-Pippen duo of the same period. Still, they are the greatest backcourt of the last 30 years.

Top Pass and Shoot (PG and SF)

There was this other guy too.

Dr. J and Mo Cheeks from 1980-1983 on the Philadelphia 76ers

  • Maurice Cheeks (PG) – 10001 Minutes Played, 0.257 WP48, 53.5 Wins Produced
  • Julius Erving (SF) – 10896 Minutes Played 0.291 WP48, 66.1 Wins Produced
  • Total – 20897 Minutes Played, 0.275 WP48, 119.6 Wins Produced
Dr.J had been a great player for a decade. In 1980 he got Mo Cheeks to back him up and the 76ers managed to make it to two finals. In 1982 Moses Malone came aboard and this team won it all. Sadly Dr. J’s age kept this tandem from staying on top. However, they helped the 76ers to 244 wins, 3 finals appearances and a title in four years. Not too shabby!

Top Pick and Roll (PG and PF)

Pick and Roll!

John Stockton and Karl Malone from 1988-2001 on the Utah Jazz

  • John Stockton (PG) – 37640 Minutes Played, 0.330 WP48, 259 Wins Produced
  • Karl Malone (PF) – 42171 Minutes Played, 0.289WP48, 254 Wins Produced
  • Total – 79811 Minutes Played, 0.309WP48, 513 Wins Produced

This pair was great for fourteen consecutive seasons! In that time they managed twelve 50 win seasons and two finals appearances. Stockton and Malone are the epitome of a top tandem and they have the numbers and results to back it up.

Top “Small” and Tall (PG and C)

Who's turn is it to be MVP again?

Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in 1980,1981,1982 and 1985 on the Los Angeles Lakers

  • Magic Johnson (PG) – 9938 Minutes Played, 0.430 WP48, 89.1 Wins Produced
  • Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (C) – 11426 Minutes Played, 0.265 WP48, 63 Wins Produced
  • Total – 21364 Minutes Played, 0.342 WP48, 152.1 Wins Produced

Thirty years later and this duo remains the best point guard and center combo I can find. Magic hit the ground running and Kareem still had some life. Every season these two were both healthy the Lakers won 55+ games and also won the NBA Championship. Sadly — because of Kareem’s age (he played college ball in the 1960s) — their window was short, but it was certainly sweet.

Top Wings (SG and SF)

How would you feel if you became a synonym for side-kick?

Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen from 1990-1993 and 1996-1997 on the Chicago Bulls

  • Michael Jordan (SG) – 18596 Minutes Played, 0.382 WP48, 147.9 Wins Produced
  • Scottie Pippen (SF) – 18369 Minutes Played, 0.259 WP48, 98.9 Wins Produced
  • Total – 36965 Minutes Played, 0.321WP48, 246.9 Wins Produced
Once Pippen hit his prime, this duo tore through the league. In their six great seasons together the Bulls never failed to get less than 55 wins.  And they also collected five titles [and a 6th title in 1997-98]. Sadly, Jordan took a break in the middle (and by 1998 Pippen had faded). It’s pretty easy to call this one of the greatest tandem of all time.

Top Shooting Power (SG and PF)

Pace yourselves.

Reggie Miller and Dale Davis from 1993-1995 and 1997-1998 on the Indiana Pacers 

  • Reggie Miller (SG) – 14016 Minutes Played, 0.190 WP48, 55.5 Wins Produced
  • Dale Davis (PF) – 11665 Minutes Played, 0.221WP48, 53.6 Wins Produced
  • Total – 25681 Minutes Played, 0.204WP48, 109.2 Wins Produced
These two are the weakest tandem on the list. They are also the only one to fail to make a finals while both players were playing at their peak (they did make it in 2000 when Reggie Miller had faded). Reggie Miller was good but possibly over-appreciated and Davis was great and possibly under-appreciated. However, I think the Pacers would be happy to get them both back at this point.

Top Shaq and Kobe (SG and C)

Bickering like an old married couple.

Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant from 1999-2004 on the Los Angeles Lakers 

  • Kobe Bryant (SG) – 16114 Minutes Played, 0.216 WP48, 72.6 Wins Produced
  • Shaquille O’Neal (C) – 15213 Minutes Played, 0.339 WP48, 107.5 Wins Produced
  • Total – 31327 Minutes Played, 0.276 WP48, 180.1 Wins Produced
That’s right, this duo was good enough and popular enough to name the category. From 1999 to 2004 they managed to lead the Lakers to a threepeat and four finals. There were ups and downs and they split up a few seasons too soon. Still, they rightfully earn their spot.

Top Forwards (SF and PF)

Big Stiffs

Larry Bird and Kevin McHale from 1985-1988 and 1990 for the Boston Celtics 

  • Larry Bird (SF) – 15188 Minutes Played, 0.401WP48, 126.9 Wins Produced
  • Kevin McHale (PF) – 13222 Minutes Played, 0.239WP48, 65.9 Wins Produced
  • Total – 28410 Minutes Played, 0.326WP48, 192.8 Wins Produced
These two made up part of the greatest front court ever assembled. Bird and Parish were the big producers, but McHale definitely helped. Injuries limited him late in his career but his time at the top with Bird was well spent. The Celtics hit 50 wins every season with Bird and McHale playing hot and the Celtic also went to three finals (including one victory).

Top Mixed Bigs (SF and C)

Two out of three aint bad.

Larry Bird and Robert Parish from 1981-1987 and 1990-1991 for the Boston Celtics 

  • Larry Bird (SF) – 26672 Minutes Played, 0.372WP48, 206.5 Wins Produced
  • Robert Parish (C) – 23407 Minutes Played, 0.253WP48, 123.5 Wins Produced
  • Total – 50079 Minutes Played, 0.316WP48, 330.1 Wins Produced
The Celtics of the 80s were lucky enough to have a trio of great players. But  before there was the big three it was just Larry Bird and Robert Parish. These two helped the Celtics to 50 wins every season Larry Bird was healthy. They also tacked on three titles for good measure.

Top Two Towers (PF and C)

I intended to keep it at one tandem a category. I ended up making an exception here and we get a tie!

No, you're a power forward!

Tim Duncan and David Robinson from 1998-2002 for the San Antonio Spurs  

  • Tim Duncan (PF/C) – 14535 Minutes Played, 0.297WP48, 90 Wins Produced
  • David Robinson (PF/C) – 11243 Minutes Played, 0.298WP48, 69.9 Wins Produced
  • Total – 25778 Minutes Played, 0.298WP48, 159.9 Wins Produced

David Robinson waited a long time for his title. As soon as Tim Duncan joined the Spurs these two were a top tandem. Sadly David Robinson was already near the end and faded in 2003. These two managed to start San Antonio’s streak of 50 win seasons (it stands at 12 or 14 if you adjust 1999 season for 82 games). Tack on two titles and these two are the best Front-Court ever assembled.

We're better than Robinson and Duncan!

Charles Oakley and Patrick Ewing from 1989-1991,1993-1994 and 1997 for the New York Knicks

  • Charles Oakley (PF) – 15574 Minutes Played, 0.226 WP48, 73.2 Wins Produced
  • Patrick Ewing (C) – 18027 Minutes Played, 0.245 WP48, 91.9 Wins Produced
  • Total – 33601 Minutes Played, 0.236 WP48, 165.1 Wins Produced
These two just barely manage to put up a fight against Duncan and Robinson by having six seasons of greatness together (as opposed to five). They had four 50 win seasons and a trip to the finals. Oakley managed to contribute even as he faded by getting Marcus Camby to the Knicks via trade.

Summing Up

Hope you enjoyed the list. . With the exception of Oakley and Ewing vs. Robinson and Duncan the winner was usually clear cut. Still, I’d love to hear any names I may have missed.

-Dre