PDA

View Full Version : Your own Win Shares?



Ebbs
09-07-2011, 01:02 PM
I was thinking to me personally the biggest indicator of an MVP is how much better/worse the team is with and without him.

Take away the math and based solely on your opinion how many wins do you think superstars are responsible for? I mean I think it's alot higher than 8 or 10 or whatever.....

For example if you take Dwight away from Orlando I don't think the team wins 30 games.

So that's like a 22 game difference.

I'm kind of ranting but I was just thinking the NBA more than any other sport lives or dies on the play of their best player. I don't think that's properly accounted for in any advanced statistic.

Hawkeye15
09-07-2011, 01:19 PM
Take Chris Paul off the Hornets, and they win 20 games. 26 wins Paul probably provided the Hornets.

This thread won't actually indicate who the best players are. It will only indicate which great players play with the least amount of help. For instance, Kevin Love is probably worth more wins to the Wolves than Kobe is to the Lakers. Does that make Love a better player than Kobe? Absolutely not.

Sadds The Gr8
09-07-2011, 01:22 PM
Take Chris Paul off the Hornets, and they win 20 games. 26 wins Paul probably provided the Hornets.

This thread won't actually indicate who the best players are. It will only indicate which great players play with the least amount of help. For instance, Kevin Love is probably worth more wins to the Wolves than Kobe is to the Lakers. Does that make Love a better player than Kobe? Absolutely not.

here come the Kobe stans...

Ebbs
09-07-2011, 01:24 PM
Yea but again I think a WS stat like that wpuld be more valuable to an MVP argument than a best player argument.

Hawkeye15
09-07-2011, 01:29 PM
here come the Kobe stans...

its the same for any star on a stacked team. How many wins do they really individually provide for their team? Sure they are the biggest part of the engine, but there are players like Chris Paul or Dwight Howard who contribute more wins than LeBron (this year), Wade, Durant, Dirk, Kobe, and a few other huge names, due to their lesser roster strength.

Ebbs
09-07-2011, 01:38 PM
I think Dwight + Dirk + CP3 were the 3 most valuable players in this sense. As none of their teams would sniff the playoffs without them.

Pierzynski4Prez
09-07-2011, 01:56 PM
What hawkeye is saying.

This fully depends on the team around you.

The heat without Wade would still probably win 50 games, so D-Wade would have smaller win shares than other players like Love and so on. Doesn't make them better players necessarily. Argument is flawed.

Ebbs
09-07-2011, 02:02 PM
Yea but don't you think it counts for something? I mean people undervalue true franchise players. Honestly I think there are only 9 in the NBA.

Dirk
Wade
LeBron
Deron
Paul
Rose
Dwight
Kobe
Durant

so maybe my question is take away those players from their current teams how many wins do they get?

Chronz
09-07-2011, 02:15 PM
Good thread should be interesting to see what people think about the players replacement value.

If you could estimate the teams offensive/defensive ranking it will make your opinion more credible.

Sadds The Gr8
09-07-2011, 02:44 PM
Blazers were 48-34 this season. w/o Lamarcus I'd say they're around 35 wins and miss the playoffs. So he accounted for about 12-16 wins IMO.

Ebbs
09-07-2011, 03:02 PM
Ok so Lamarcusless blazers win 12 less games. I say T-Wolves without Love win 7-10 games. If you swap the two players would they account for a similar amount of wins withinh the 1 or 2 we agree they worth last year?

rapjuicer06
09-07-2011, 03:10 PM
Best thread I've seen in quite awhile! Although it's almost impossible to judge, they should try finding a way to do it. Instead of the MVP going to the best player on the team with the most wins, it should go to the player who is actually the most VALUABLE player. Like i've been saying for awhile, with out Rose I think the Bulls are still a fringe playoff team. The Mavs with out Dirk, the Magic with out Dwight, the Hornets with out Paul don't sniff the playoffs

Sadds The Gr8
09-07-2011, 03:11 PM
Ok so Lamarcusless blazers win 12 less games. I say T-Wolves without Love win 7-10 games. If you swap the two players would they account for a similar amount of wins withinh the 1 or 2 we agree they worth last year?

I don't think either makes the same impact. Lamarcus needs the Blazers' slow pace to set up his pick/pop mid-range game and improving post game. Faster paced teams like the T'Wolves wouldn't suit his game. And for Love, I think the Blazers slower pace has an impact on his stats and slashes it to around 17 & 12. The change of styles would hamper both players and i don't think they'd have the same impact as they did with their current teams

Sadds The Gr8
09-07-2011, 03:14 PM
Another one.

Knicks went 42-40. w/o Amare I'd say they're about a 25 win team and possibly a mid-lottery team, making them a non-playoff team. so Amare accounted for about 13-17 wins IMO.

Ebbs
09-07-2011, 03:41 PM
I don't think either makes the same impact. Lamarcus needs the Blazers' slow pace to set up his pick/pop mid-range game and improving post game. Faster paced teams like the T'Wolves wouldn't suit his game. And for Love, I think the Blazers slower pace has an impact on his stats and slashes it to around 17 & 12. The change of styles would hamper both players and i don't think they'd have the same impact as they did with their current teams

Didn't lamarcus lead the league in alley oop dunks though. The guy cuts to the rim and you'd think a transition offense where he got more opportunites before the defense set might make him scarier offensively.

Swashcuff
09-07-2011, 03:43 PM
IMO in terms of an individual's value to his team my top 2 would be

1. Dwight Howard

Where would the Magic be without Dwight? Well just say their defense was 3rd in the league last season, 3rd in 2010, 1st in 2009 and 6th in 2008. The best defensive players other than Dwight during that time span on the Magic was Trevor Ariza (only played 11 games), Marcin Gortat (who spent the entirety of his career as a Magic as Dwight's backup) and Adonal Foyle (who was an absolutely fragile shell of his former self).

So to say that Dwight anchors his team's D may even be somewhat of an understatement. The Magic's D is the main reason why they won 50+ games for 4 consecutive season and that is all because of Dwight Howard. Orlando's perimeter defenders aren't asked to play great man D and keep their man in front of them (quite frankly they are not that good) but rather are asked to channel them into Dwight's path. That alone should speak volumes to what Dwight means to his team.

2. Chris Paul

The offensive engine that drives New Orleans. Last season they faced a plethora of injuries, I mean when the loss of Aaron Gray is seen as a huge loss to your team you know you've been hit with a severe injury bug. However early in the season when the Hornets go off to one of the best records in the game it was Chris Paul who was credited for his ability o raise the play of teammates better than that of any PG in the NBA (Steve Nash deserves to be in this argument).

The Hornets rely greatly on Paul's play making ability (especially their leading scorer David West) for their offensive production. Paul accounted for 39.4% of his team's offense as well last season while running at the 2nd slowest pace in the entire league. It's uncountable as to he burden in which he has to carry running that point.

bholly
09-07-2011, 04:14 PM
I haven't had time to think this through properly, but I think one of the interesting differences between a stat like this and actual win-shares is the way it deals with complementarity of players. In regular win-shares, the win-shares of each player should sum up to about the total wins of the team (using the basketball-reference formula), and in the case of some calculations (like the original baseball formula) sum to an exact amount - a team has a certain amount of wins and they're shared out amongst the team proportionally to each players' contribution.

With this stat, though, you could have teams where the sum of the players' win-shares is much higher or lower than the number of wins the team has. For example, you could have an unbalanced team with two stars who rely on each other a lot and a bunch of scrubs - so neither star could win nearly as much without the other. If the team wins 50 games when they're together, but would win only 20 if either player goes down, then each of the two players has a 30 win-share - so their combined win-share is 60, which is more than the team total.
On the other hand, you could have a highly balanced team with no real standouts where each player has a replacement that is just about as good. Any individual player going down might not affect the number of wins all that much, but the team as a whole could win much more than the sum of the win-shares.

I don't know, I just think that's interesting. I wonder what current teams that will be the case for?

The_Jamal
09-07-2011, 04:14 PM
Cavs w/o LeBron might be the best example in NBA history of what you're talking about. Going from a 60 win team to a 20 win team is pretty drastic and i'm pretty darn sure LeBron didn't average 40 WS with the Cavs