Knicks · A tale of three forwards (page 5)
Anji wrote:"If basketball had a definitive value system like Homerun/4bases to strikeout, then it would be great. But the Three ball isn't a Home run and there isn't 27 outs to position these plays against."This is my argument, and this thread is my point. Novacks win share is totally inflated because the 3 ball basically carries all his stats like he hits 2 homers a game, it's the only thing he does at a high level and it tells me nothing about him as a player.
I don't get it either. Can you point to the formula for calculating W/S where it gives undue weight to three pointers? I think you are saying it gives the same value to a three pointer that it would give to a home run in baseball, and I thought it counted number of wins a player participated in. I will review the formula posted on Wikipedia again, I don't think it's a bad stat, but I would like to understand your argument better.
Bonn1997 wrote:I must be blind or something but I don't see an Excel table pasted into your first post.
Comical, you have been participating in this thread without seeing the table! Too funny 
You probably have images turned off which is why you are not seeing it. It's pasted in using the image tags.
VCoug wrote:If you're claiming that Novak is more valuable than Amare and Melo because of win shares, then you are claiming that Ryan Anderson is the 4th best player in the league and better than Dwight Howard at 11th; Joakim Noah, 9th, and Carlos Boozer, 14th(!), are better than Derrick Rose; James Harden is the 7th best player in the league; Paul Milsap is 12th; Ersan Ilyasova(!) is 20th; and that all these guys are better than Kobe, Pau and Marc Gasol, everyone's favorite Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, everybody on the Pacers, Tony Parker, and a lot of other great players I'm forgetting.
Maybe you need to read the thread first? I am so tired of people jumping to conclusions. Right now I am trying to understand why Anji thinks Win Shares is a bad statistic.
Win shares statistic correlates positively with good players and good teams! The top 5 is like a SUPERMEGASTAR team, minus Ryan Anderson. High win shares is a good thing to have in your resume! If you look at Carmelo's wack-sauce win shares, it is reasonable to say that Carmelo sucks. Carmelo sucks.
loweyecue wrote:VCoug wrote:If you're claiming that Novak is more valuable than Amare and Melo because of win shares, then you are claiming that Ryan Anderson is the 4th best player in the league and better than Dwight Howard at 11th; Joakim Noah, 9th, and Carlos Boozer, 14th(!), are better than Derrick Rose; James Harden is the 7th best player in the league; Paul Milsap is 12th; Ersan Ilyasova(!) is 20th; and that all these guys are better than Kobe, Pau and Marc Gasol, everyone's favorite Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, everybody on the Pacers, Tony Parker, and a lot of other great players I'm forgetting.Maybe you need to read the thread first? I am so tired of people jumping to conclusions. Right now I am trying to understand why Anji thinks Win Shares is a bad statistic.
I have read the thread and you said
That brings me to the best forward on the Knicks this season - at least the data supports it. Yeah I am talking about Novak.What part of that am I not understanding? And I can't speak for Anji, but I don't like these kinds of statistics outside of baseball. In baseball there are very few variables, it's really just two guys, the pitcher and the hitter, going at it and practically everything that those two guys do is recorded. In basketball, there are 10 guys on the court and there's a lot of stuff that isn't recorded and even more stuff that you can't record.
Basically, in baseball advance statistics take things that we already record, like average, obp, homeruns, etc., and compiles them and weights them so that the tangible, recorded effects of each player can be compared. They also, for the most part, don't factor in team success, which is more than just the effects of one player. In basketball, these stats take the tangible results and are then used as a replacement for intangibles. They also, usually, factor in team success.
MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:We can argue specifics of win shares all day, but let's take a step back:Win shares statistic correlates positively with good players and good teams! The top 5 is like a SUPERMEGASTAR team, minus Ryan Anderson. High win shares is a good thing to have in your resume! If you look at Carmelo's wack-sauce win shares, it is reasonable to say that Carmelo sucks. Carmelo sucks.
You're right about the correlation. I wouldn't say the WS indicate that Carmelo sucks. It indicates that he's an above average player but nothing special.
Ryan Anderson is a very good player. There are definitely valid criticisms of win shares but I'd never trade half the team and future picks for a player with a mediocre WS score. I'd never even give 5 years of max contract salary to such a player.
VCoug wrote:If you're claiming that Novak is more valuable than Amare and Melo because of win shares, then you are claiming that Ryan Anderson is the 4th best player in the league and better than Dwight Howard at 11th; Joakim Noah, 9th, and Carlos Boozer, 14th(!), are better than Derrick Rose; James Harden is the 7th best player in the league; Paul Milsap is 12th; Ersan Ilyasova(!) is 20th; and that all these guys are better than Kobe, Pau and Marc Gasol, everyone's favorite Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, everybody on the Pacers, Tony Parker, and a lot of other great players I'm forgetting.
No, you're taking too literal an interpretation of the statistic. It will give you a very good idea of how effective the player is, and I would interpret those stats as indicating that Harden, Noah, and Anderson are very good players - better than their reputations suggest.
The reason Novak has a better WS score than Amare and Melo is that he is helping the team more on offense than those players are. People just don't understand the statistics of offense. It's really not complicated though. Any team is going to get about 85 shots a game and an effective offense is going to make as many of those 85 as possible. Or put differently, an effective offense is going to get a lot of points from those 85 shots. Clearly, someone taking close to 20 shots a game and shooting around .400 is not going to be helping with that goal. Just to make up for that, you're going to have a particularly high percentage in the remaining 65 shots. Melo has a pretty good A:TO ratio, which partly but not fully compensates for the inefficient shooting.
VCoug wrote:loweyecue wrote:VCoug wrote:If you're claiming that Novak is more valuable than Amare and Melo because of win shares, then you are claiming that Ryan Anderson is the 4th best player in the league and better than Dwight Howard at 11th; Joakim Noah, 9th, and Carlos Boozer, 14th(!), are better than Derrick Rose; James Harden is the 7th best player in the league; Paul Milsap is 12th; Ersan Ilyasova(!) is 20th; and that all these guys are better than Kobe, Pau and Marc Gasol, everyone's favorite Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, everybody on the Pacers, Tony Parker, and a lot of other great players I'm forgetting.Maybe you need to read the thread first? I am so tired of people jumping to conclusions. Right now I am trying to understand why Anji thinks Win Shares is a bad statistic.
I have read the thread and you said
That brings me to the best forward on the Knicks this season - at least the data supports it. Yeah I am talking about Novak.What part of that am I not understanding? And I can't speak for Anji, but I don't like these kinds of statistics outside of baseball. In baseball there are very few variables, it's really just two guys, the pitcher and the hitter, going at it and practically everything that those two guys do is recorded. In basketball, there are 10 guys on the court and there's a lot of stuff that isn't recorded and even more stuff that you can't record.Basically, in baseball advance statistics take things that we already record, like average, obp, homeruns, etc., and compiles them and weights them so that the tangible, recorded effects of each player can be compared. They also, for the most part, don't factor in team success, which is more than just the effects of one player. In basketball, these stats take the tangible results and are then used as a replacement for intangibles. They also, usually, factor in team success.
You read the first post not sure you read the thread. I responded to Crzymdups where I explained Novak is the best forward on the team w.r.t his overall production compared to what is expected of him based on his salary. Novak is producing at a phenomenal level for what he gets paid. Melo and Amar'e clearly are not.
I don't accept the premise that Win Shares can't be used in basketball because there are more variables. I don't also accept that baseball just boils down to two people. If a catcher fails to catch something or shortstop fails to recover it can directly impact the put one of the game. If you find something in the calculation itself that you would like to challenge, I would be interested to know that.
This isn't rocket science.
loweyecue wrote:This is from the first thread. Are you suggesting that you are not claiming what VCoug asks?VCoug wrote:If you're claiming that Novak is more valuable than Amare and Melo because of win shares, then you are claiming that Ryan Anderson is the 4th best player in the league and better than Dwight Howard at 11th; Joakim Noah, 9th, and Carlos Boozer, 14th(!), are better than Derrick Rose; James Harden is the 7th best player in the league; Paul Milsap is 12th; Ersan Ilyasova(!) is 20th; and that all these guys are better than Kobe, Pau and Marc Gasol, everyone's favorite Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, everybody on the Pacers, Tony Parker, and a lot of other great players I'm forgetting.Maybe you need to read the thread first? I am so tired of people jumping to conclusions. Right now I am trying to understand why Anji thinks Win Shares is a bad statistic.
That brings me to the best forward on the Knicks this season - at least the data supports it. Yeah I am talking about Novak. The Melo lovers will be irate no doubt...ask me if I care
Novak has been instrumental in bringing this team back when down by double digits time after time. THIS IS WHAT STARS GET PAID TO DO. Now be honest and ask yourself. When th eteam's down 15 like in the Raptors game - who are you rooting for to bring us back? Amare? Melo? or Novak? Here is role player who is putting up numbers consistently on the offensive side, on defense he is nothing great but neither are the other two. Their defensive effciencies (points allowed per 100 possessions) are almost exactly the same. On offense there is no question who is having he most efficient scoring season. So that makes him the best forward on the team.
CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:This is from the first thread. Are you suggesting that you are not claiming what VCoug asks?VCoug wrote:If you're claiming that Novak is more valuable than Amare and Melo because of win shares, then you are claiming that Ryan Anderson is the 4th best player in the league and better than Dwight Howard at 11th; Joakim Noah, 9th, and Carlos Boozer, 14th(!), are better than Derrick Rose; James Harden is the 7th best player in the league; Paul Milsap is 12th; Ersan Ilyasova(!) is 20th; and that all these guys are better than Kobe, Pau and Marc Gasol, everyone's favorite Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, everybody on the Pacers, Tony Parker, and a lot of other great players I'm forgetting.Maybe you need to read the thread first? I am so tired of people jumping to conclusions. Right now I am trying to understand why Anji thinks Win Shares is a bad statistic.
That brings me to the best forward on the Knicks this season - at least the data supports it. Yeah I am talking about Novak. The Melo lovers will be irate no doubt...ask me if I care
Novak has been instrumental in bringing this team back when down by double digits time after time. THIS IS WHAT STARS GET PAID TO DO. Now be honest and ask yourself. When th eteam's down 15 like in the Raptors game - who are you rooting for to bring us back? Amare? Melo? or Novak? Here is role player who is putting up numbers consistently on the offensive side, on defense he is nothing great but neither are the other two. Their defensive effciencies (points allowed per 100 possessions) are almost exactly the same. On offense there is no question who is having he most efficient scoring season. So that makes him the best forward on the team.
Because he's the best at doing what he DO.
Bonn1997 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Anji wrote:"If basketball had a definitive value system like Homerun/4bases to strikeout, then it would be great. But the Three ball isn't a Home run and there isn't 27 outs to position these plays against."This is my argument, and this thread is my point. Novacks win share is totally inflated because the 3 ball basically carries all his stats like he hits 2 homers a game, it's the only thing he does at a high level and it tells me nothing about him as a player.
Can you define "definitive value system"? I don't have any idea what you mean.
If you make a shot behind the arc, you get 3 points. In front of the arc, 2 points. The point value is definite in basketball. That's why I don't understand your claim about "definitive value systems"
I say baseball has that system because it is easier to assign a points system to throw into the machine and compare against any other player. 4base is the greatest value on offense and giving up 1 out is the worst defensively. So it doesn't matter if you hit a home run or can hit a triple and steal home, sum total is 4 bases. A single and steal, a walk and steal, and a double always can be graded out the exact same way.
How does that work in basketball, is a three point shooter at 50% worth the same as a player who shoots 44% and gets to the line 5 times a game??? How about 7 assists verse 4 offensive rebounds??? How about 4 offensive rebounds verse 50% from three??? You can't uniformly attach a number system to the many ways that players help there teams Win.
Depending on the team those same players W/S goes up and down depending on too many factors. What you consider bad can be great in the right fit in basketball for the right team and ability of the player. While hitting .220 for the Yankees is still hitting .220 on every team, there is no right fit for not hitting the assumed statistical bench marks in baseball. But shooting 42% can make you Ben Gordon or it can make you Allen Iverson in basketball. That's why say W/s is bullshit, because the players success isn't totally adherent to a number system in basketball because of all of the many ways they effect the game and there teammates.
How does that work in basketball, is a three point shooter at 50% worth the same as a player who shoots 44% and gets to the line 5 times a game??? How about 7 assists verse 4 offensive rebounds??? How about 4 offensive rebounds verse 50% from three??? You can't uniformly attach a number system to the many ways that players help there teams Win.
You still haven't indicated why that is the case. WS gives different weights to these factors precisely because they have differing values and the weights are not arbitrarily determined in the fashion that most fans' weigh each factor. Rather, they're based on validation studies. There's no way that your claims about baseball are right, though. If you make the throw that leads to the assist in baseball, you get no credit. Or is a walk just as good as a single if no one was on base? The walk required the pitcher to throw more pitches and get tired, though. What if you fouled off 11 pitches first and then hit a single. Is that better than hitting a single on the first pitch? We could go on and on but your claim that everything is recorded in baseball is simply wrong.
Even if any of your objections were correct, the appropriate conclusion would merely be that WS is imperfect. You have not presented any evidence that it is actually wrong or "bullshit."
1)There is no equation in sports that ever takes in player fatigued, so I don't see the point of bring that up at all. We get told games played or minutes logged, but never if the player is tired or not.
2)There is a difference between not being recorded and not being credited as a value in the equation. I can find out from any game from the log how many pitches a player fouls off or if a play is assisted, because it's all recorded in baseball. They just don't give those plays any value. And more to the point, baseball is so much a sport were everything can be graded, they have a value for plays a player should make and do not for what ever reason.
Can you tell me how make shots Tyson Chandler almost blocked last night??? How many Offensive rebounds did he fight for and another teammate got??? Who's recording that? How many blocks and rebounds should he have gotten and got an E for not making those plays??? This something that can "go on and on".
3)If you see that a Three pointer, a offensive rebound and a assists can be giving a uniform value like a single, a walk and a steal, I think you're wrong. And that is why you can think a player like Novack, who does nothing but hit threes, is your best forward and not a marginal bench player.
W/S will never take off of in basketball.........because it's bullshit.