Comments on: Trading David Lee for Kobe Bryant Straight-Up: Shrewd Sabermetrics or Laugh Test Flunkie?

By: JChan

JChan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:56:27 +0000

“If the goal is to win games, and David Lee contributes more to winning per minute than Kobe, why would you not trade Kobe for Lee? Refusing to trade Kobe for Lee seems to imply that on the whole you believe he contributes more to winning than Lee, in spite of what the WoW stats might say. Or at the least, that there is some qualification involved in the interpretation of what it means to contribute to winning in the WoW system.”

Why would I not trade Kobe for Lee?

1. Any GM that did that trade would be run out of town.

2. Lee only has two years in the league, we cannot say for sure yet if his fantastic year this last year is going to be indicative of future success (although it is likely).

3. I understand the difference between a star and a complimentary player. You cannot compose your entire roster with complimentary players. It is highly likely that if Lee was asked to take 25 shots a game, that his efficiency would go down.

4. DBerri says himself that the Wins Produced formula does not absolutely answer all questions, but that it should be used as a starting point to make proper evaluations. He has never said, “Take the top 5 in WP48, that’s your perfect team”. Instead, take the formula and what it tells you about each player and how they are helping their team to win games. Then use your basketball knowledge to try to build the team that will win the most. And that means that you find yourself a star or two who are efficient and can score, like Duncan or Nowitzki or Kobe or Yao. And you avoid those who score but are inefficient, like Iverson and Joe Johnson, Zach Randolph or Ben Gorden. Then you surround your stars with guys like David Lee. Guys that hustle, guys that do more good things than bad.

Anyway, I always say more than I mean to. I love this discussion.

By: Ted Nelson

Ted Nelson — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:51:57 +0000

I think it’s absolutely fair to bash Portland for trading JO for Dale Davis.
Even if they understood the short-term/long-term trade off they were making I would say they made the wrong choice (unless you look long-term enough to say they ended up with Greg Oden, LMA, and Roy 7 seasons later). They didn’t even improve in the short-term (obviously not due entirely to this trade): they won 59 games in JO’s last season there, then didn’t top 50 in the next 3 seasons before falling out of the playoffs for the past 4 seasons.
Every move made by evey GM has an explanation, having a justifiable reason for making a mistake doesn’t excuse making that mistake.

By: Dan W.

Dan W. — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:53:49 +0000

This quick combined ranking suggests a 20/10 guy on the block is very valuable. Maybe the most valuable player type over wing scorer or top passer or top defender. I have been disposed to think that already looking at most championships teams since Jordan (which means Shaq and Duncan and Hakeem).

What about Lee? Could he be close to a 20/10 guy on right team? Depending on what the Knicks want to spend and how Randolph works into the mix we might found out if a team grabs him away and gives him a bigger role. Give him 6 more possessions and 5 more minutes on the court could he have per game pts/rebs close to Dwight Howard? Maybe 6 more possessions is too much and his ceiling will be exposed. He has only taken 10+ shots in 8 NBA games and the max is 13 so the record doesnt answer this yet. And his college role doesnt really answer it that well either. Lee might split the difference and be able to step up half the distance, half way between Bogut and Howard.

By: Dan W.

Dan W. — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:03:23 +0000

Looking just at top 15 on PER and the guys in top 5 on WP not in top15 on PER,

and averaging the relative performance on these two metrics within this group,

the 50/50 approach puts two from PER top 5 on the combined top 5 (Duncan and Nowitski), two from WP top 5 (Lee and Boozer) and one who was on neither (Garnett). Is this top 5 any better? That is up to the reader.

Marion would get 5th place if the 50/50 rating was based on PER and PAWS/min and Camby 6th, both because of very strong PAWS/min rating; just as Lee’s performance in combined is because of the exceptionally high WP mark.

By: dave crockett

dave crockett — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:33:29 +0000

“Basketball is almost like football in that sometimes it?s the RB (Barry Sanders), sometimes it?s the OL (Denver). In basketball it?s hard to distinguish the player from his teammates & the system they play in.”
—
That should come on surgeon general style warning label for every basketball (and football) stat.
—
I find myself in general agreement with Brian M’s comments about WoW’s underlying intuition. I think WoW is onto something by challenging the conventional thinking that equates usage with quality. Usage may be correlated with quality but that correlation may be quite low. What I struggle with is that WoW *seems* to argue that usage and quality are orthogonal, not related at all. I have a very difficult time accepting that. As Brian M implies, the thinking behind an analytical device that rewards players for creating possessions but then punishes players for using them seems bizarre to me.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:03:43 +0000

Neither Hollinger or Berri seems likely in near term to fundamentally reassess formula and make changes so I am not really up for engaging in that too much today but I will say why not blend the two ratings 50/50 (using z-scores to standardize the level on the different scales) and see the top 5-10 of that? Still won’t be perfect but might be worth seeing.
I might try it later but can’t today.

By: Brian M

Brian M — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:10:51 +0000

“I believe WP48 does not tell us who is the better basketball player. But I believe it does tell us who contributes more per minute to their team winning. If I were Mitch Kupchak, would I trade Kobe straight up for David Lee? No. But do I think he contributed more to winning per minute he was out on the floor last year than Kobe did? Yes.”

If the goal is to win games, and David Lee contributes more to winning per minute than Kobe, why would you not trade Kobe for Lee? Refusing to trade Kobe for Lee seems to imply that on the whole you believe he contributes more to winning than Lee, in spite of what the WoW stats might say. Or at the least, that there is some qualification involved in the interpretation of what it means to contribute to winning in the WoW system.

By: ASG

ASG — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:52:39 +0000

I think it’s important to note that the year Iverson had success, he was surrounded by low turnover, defensive rebounding types that consistently rank high according to WoW. Something to consider, though: if you stick his 4 teammates during that year (Mutombo, Snow, McKie, Lynch) with an average guy replacing Iverson, what’s going to happen? Someone has to score and handle the ball, which is something none of those guys can do consistently. You can grab all the rebounds in the world, and shoot with the highest efficiency, but if you can’t generate a shot and can’t bring the ball upcourt you’re not playing basketball. This is what I think that Hollinger’s Usage Rate is trying to compensate for, even if it is overweighted in his system. In an end of game situation, giving the ball to Allen Iverson may be a better option than giving it to Dikembe Mutombo, shooting percentages be damned, because Mutombo may not even be able to get a shot up in the air. 50% shooting * no shot = 0 points, whereas 40% shooting * 2 pointer = sometimes, you’ll win.

So is Lee more productive per minute than Kobe? Maybe, the stats seem to back it up. But can Lee ever be the focal point of his team’s offense, or realistically, even *A* focal point of his team’s offense? I don’t think so, and at the end of the day, you still need to score more points than the other team. Lee is a complementary player (and a damn fine one), and perhaps what WoW shows us is that a great complementary player can be even more important than a superstar to a team’s wins.

By: JChan

JChan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:29:31 +0000

Not sure who is still reading the comments down to here, but just wanted to drop a few things here for the record. On my Win Score Stats site I am using DBerri’s Win Score formula. Then I take my own interpretation of a position adjustment (I use 82games as a reference, if you’re interested), and use that to calculate a position-adjusted Win Score. Then I use that number to calculate an approximate Wins Produced / 48 minutes, using a shortcut calculation that DBerri provided.

This leaves me two steps apart from the official Wages of Wins calculations for WP48. Over this offseason I’m working on a revamp of the site, and one of my goals is to work with Dave to try to better represent his formulas. But as of now, my stats are in no way the “official” Wins Produced stats. Hopefully in the future they will be and we can use them for more in depth discussions.

I really like the debates going on here, and hope they keep going. As for my take on the subject, I believe WP48 does not tell us who is the better basketball player. But I believe it does tell us who contributes more per minute to their team winning. If I were Mitch Kupchak, would I trade Kobe straight up for David Lee? No. But do I think he contributed more to winning per minute he was out on the floor last year than Kobe did? Yes. And would I try like mad to get David Lee on my team to compliment Kobe? Yes.

Those who think rebounding is so overrated in Dberri’s system should try something. Watch a basketball game, but try to ignore who is shooting the ball. Focus on the rebounding. There are players who just grab the ball if it comes to them. And then there are players who consistently position themselves correctly, box out and put a full effort into getting every possible rebound. Yeah, Eddy Curry can get 7 rebounds a game by being tall. But those that really work at it affect the game immensely. Whether they are taking away the other team’s chance at another shot, or giving their own team’s shooters a mulligan, rebounding is a key part of the game, and one that is just as important as shooting. Everybody wants to score, but not everybody wants to rebound. And that’s what makes those that put in the real effort so important to a winning team.

By: Felix

Felix — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:41:08 +0000

As a HS basketball coach, i can say there there isnt any one single formula, statistic that can rank players into one figure. There are too many complexities. Basketball is a sport where you can be effective at one aspect without being effiecient in others. scoring, rebounding, perimeter D, man to man D, steals, blocks, charges, fouls etc.
There are simply too many facets of the game to determine one player better than the other.
Attempting to determine a player’s effeiciency rate is highly flawed becuase that one players initial effeciency rate is dependant on his teamates. (Ron Artest is a good defender but his team wasnt)
Its easier to break it down position by position. Or by category, scoring, blocks, etc
Most formulas mix a bunch of these facets but still leaves other out.
I love D. Lee but it is upsurd that he would be better than kobe, Kobe and Duncan are the two best 2 way players in this league, niether has weaknesses in the different facets of the game.
Lee still is not a top scorer, top defender. while Kobe is.
Kobe is still a good rebounder given that he takes about 30+ shots a game. Kobe still averages the same amount of assists as when he won 3 champoinship rings with SHAQ.
Lee IMO (and this yr stats do give me some merit) is an elite rebounder. (kobe isnt an elite rebounder, just good)
Lee is a good passer. Kobe is a very good passer.(when he choses to pass. lol)
As a coach i always look to a player’s weaknesses to determine how good he is, not his strengths. A good scorer is a good scorer, how good is another debate. but can that good scorer be a good defender, rebounder, team player etc.