View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: Simple question |
|
|
What do Loss Shares tell us? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jkubatko
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 603 Location: Columbus, OH
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:24 am Post subject: Re: Simple question |
|
|
94by50 wrote: | What do Loss Shares tell us? |
This may be a simple question, but I don't know that it is an easy question to answer. I think they are necessary in order to give context to Win Shares. Suppose you have two teams, the Pips and the Squeaks, and I tell you that both teams have won 20 games. Would we automatically assume that the two teams are of roughly the same quality? No, because we would want to know how many games each team has played. If we find out that the Pips are 20-2 while the Squeaks are 20-22, that tells us a lot more about the relative strengths of the two teams. The same idea applies to Win Shares.
(Aside: Please, let's not make this another thread about whether or not Loss Shares "exist." There seems to two camps on this, neither wishing to budge, so let's stay off that well-trodden path.) _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Then I suppose here's the follow-up: do either Win Shares or Loss Shares mean anything without the other? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jkubatko
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 603 Location: Columbus, OH
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
94by50 wrote: | Then I suppose here's the follow-up: do either Win Shares or Loss Shares mean anything without the other? |
Yes, but knowing both provides the full context. _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay. I ask this mainly because of one player: Dwyane Wade. What do we say about a player whose WS-LS data runs 41-5 one year, to 25-6, to 6-24? Absent any other data, it looks like one of the best players in the league becomes one of the worst within two years. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jkubatko
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 603 Location: Columbus, OH
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
94by50 wrote: | Okay. I ask this mainly because of one player: Dwyane Wade. What do we say about a player whose WS-LS data runs 41-5 one year, to 25-6, to 6-24? Absent any other data, it looks like one of the best players in the league becomes one of the worst within two years. |
Just forget about best and worst. The player with the most Win Shares may not be the best in the league, while the player with the most Loss Shares is probably never going to be the worst player in the league.
As for Wade, he's just having a bad year. Consider:
* He's second in the league in usage percentage, but his Offensive Rating is almost 4 points below the league average.
* His field goal percentage and free throw percentage are almost equal to his career lows.
* His turnover rate is the worst since his rookie season.
* His Defensive Rating is by far the worst of his career.
* His rebound, block, and steal percentages have dropped to career or almost-career lows.
* The Heat as a team are one of the poorer defensive teams in the league.
* The Heat have the worst record in the NBA. _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 639 Location: Toronto
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wade: Start with the fact that his team has 11 wins and 47 losses. Let us spread those wins and losses among the Miami players. How do we do that? We know that Miami's offense has gone through X_off possessions this season, and we know that their defense has gone through the same number, X_def = X_off. Therefore 11 wins + 47 losses = X_off + X_def possessions. We know that Wade has used x_wade.off possessions on offense, and we can estimate that his opposing matchup has used up x_wade.def. So Wade's contribution to Miami's output this season is
(x_wade.off + x_wade.def)/(X_off + X_def) = something like 10%.
(I'm making up numbers, but they should be in the ballpark.)
10% of 58 Miami games is 5.8 -- that is Wade's "player games".
From another calcuation, we know that his offensive rating is 103, and his defensive rating is 109. That gives us a Pythagorean win% = 31%, which, multiplied by 5.8 gives us 1.8 - 4.0 win-loss record for Wade.
Wait -- that wasn't your question. You were asking about Loss Shares. I'm not sure, but I assume those are the same as the win-loss things above some replacement level. _________________ ed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
jkubatko wrote: | Just forget about best and worst. The player with the most Win Shares may not be the best in the league, while the player with the most Loss Shares is probably never going to be the worst player in the league.
As for Wade, he's just having a bad year. |
Oh, I agree with all this (plus the rest of your post). No question Wade is having an awful year. But what does it mean exactly if he does lead his team in Loss Shares?
I accept that Win Shares and Loss Shares don't mean "best" and "worst". Thinking that or treating them that way would be the wrong way of using them. But I'm trying to figure out what they do mean, what they can tell us by themselves. If in Wade's case, this means a good player having an awful season (for him) on a bad team - well, where in WS-LS do we see that Wade really is a good player? (I use Wade merely as an example. The same questions apply to, say, Kevin Durant. Or Al Jefferson.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1794 Location: Delphi, Indiana
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another question the interested fan may ask: Does Wade's play help make the Heat bad, or does the team help bring down Wade's individual numbers?
Here are the Miami WS-LS 'leaders' :
Code: | Wade 6 - 24
Haslem 5 - 13
Wright 4 - 6
JWill 3 - 13
Shaq 3 - 10
RDavis 2 - 24
Blount 2 - 10
Cook 1 - 10
etc
|
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIA/2008.html
Dividing by 3, it would seem DWade has accounted for 2 wins and 8 losses for the Heat. This is a 20% personal win rate; hardly better than the team W% (.190), and less than their Pythagorean (.258). _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike G wrote: | Dividing by 3, it would seem DWade has accounted for 2 wins and 8 losses for the Heat. This is a 20% personal win rate; hardly better than the team W% (.190), and less than their Pythagorean (.258). |
If I remember my BoP, that 20% win rate is about what we should expect if the team is around 20%. Under the idea that a team's best player will have a personal W-L record of about the same quality as his team's... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jemagee
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 97
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wade is still injured and shouldn't be playing and probably is suffering from a little motivational issue with the team stinking to high heaven and trading away shaq.
Shutting him down is probably the best move the heat could make, especially with the fact that wade won't be resting much this summer |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 972 Location: Durham, NC
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jkubatko wrote: | The Heat have the worst record in the NBA. |
Seems like this is the clincher right here. If Wade were putting up identical numbers but the team was fighting for a home playoff berth, his WS-LS would be rather different, no? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gabefarkas wrote: | jkubatko wrote: | The Heat have the worst record in the NBA. |
Seems like this is the clincher right here. If Wade were putting up identical numbers but the team was fighting for a home playoff berth, his WS-LS would be rather different, no? |
If this is true - and I think it is - then it's a problem. Part of the benefit of Win Shares as James conceived them is that a player's performance could generally be expected to earn him a similar number of Win Shares regardless of his team's record. It appears that Win Shares as we use them in basketball are still too dependent on the W-L record of a player's team. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mountain
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 438
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
D. Wade's loss share change is the product of a double whammy- the decline in his marginal offense and the change in marginal defense reflecting the sharp drop from 8th best team defensive efficiency to 26th.
It is probably fairly rare to see either change so much in one season and very rare to see both change that much.
In baseball I assume the defensive component of James' Win Shares is based on personal stats and is not generic to the team as a whole as the case with basketball given the predominant view of defense being regularly and more heavily a team product and the lack of acceptable FG defense data? And is the spread between good and bad defense for fielders also smaller and less volatile at individual level in baseball than at team level in basketball? These factors give me the impression that player Shares will be more volatile in basketball than baseball (at least for fielders).
Last edited by Mountain on Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mountain wrote: | In baseball I assume the defensive component of James' Win Shares is personal not generic to the team as the case here with basketball given the lack of acceptable FG defense data? |
That's right, and that's a good point. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|