NBA: NBA Win Share Leader of the last 19 champions

[spurraider21]

QB rating is the nfl equivalent of PER which essentially adds every box score stat with multipliers. It's decent for quick reference but pretty flawed if that's your end all be all evaluator. Like the 40 yard dash to decide whose a faster player

[ShowtimeFan]

Win Shares is one of the worst advanced stats, tbh..

However, as I've been saying for years, Kobe's success does not translate to advanced metrics for some reason, tbh..virtually every other top-10 or so guy's numbers translate to analytics, but not Kobe, for some odd reason..

I agree with ShowtimeFan that longevity is Kobe's best attribute in the all-time discussion..it's pretty crazy that he's still a top 5 player in the NBA and playing big minutes..

And speaking of being a top 5 player, Kobe's been a top 3-5 player for 15 years but already, Lebron has had more years as the unquestioned #1

[Brunodf]

lol at dumbasses comparing '11 Dirk to '03 Duncan
lol '08 KG WS higher than '11 Dirk WS

FkLA right again, as usual.

KG played on both ends tbh...

[TDMVPDPOY]

htf is kobe top5 if your blind by his volume statpadding?

[Killakobe81]

Using points per possession instead of just "points" seems to make a lot more sense. Since win shares includes points per possession allowed, instead of just "steals" do prove your defensive prowess, i'm going to assume its more indicative than simple stats. by traditional stats, bowen was a defender

But what did your eyes tell you I absolutely hate Bowen and his bowtie but when I watch him play defense its like watching a dirtier less athletic Michael Cooper. I don't care if numbers were to say Battier or LeBron are better defenders (if they did) cuz I know what I saw.

[spurraider21]

But what did your eyes tell you I absolutely hate Bowen and his bowtie but when I watch him play defense its like watching a dirtier less athletic Michael Cooper. I don't care if numbers were to say Battier or LeBron are better defenders (if they did) cuz I know what I saw.

using PPP rather than Steals/Blocks usually confirms what these eye tests show. they confirm bowen, battier are good defenders. this was just a response to somebody else saying standard stats are better than advanced metrics. something like PER > win shares. PER takes box score numbers like steals and blocks as the only indicators of good defense. stuff like true shooting %, usage rate, offensive/defensive rating are emerging as go-to stats. some of the findings revealed during the sloan conference were pretty awesome, and a lot of it confirms the eye test you mention, but by quantifying it, removes the bias that the eye test can be vulnerable to

[Arcadian]

1. Rings (Stars only)
2. Eye Test
3. Traditional stats
4. Advanced stats

Putting "eye test" above advanced stats

The problem is that human perception is highly prone to errors and biases. Psychological research has established that people see what they want to see, rather than seeing the truth. And it's easy to say, "But what about all the times the eye test has been right?" But that's called the confirmation bias: you remember the times when you were right, but you forget the times when you were wrong. Maybe a lot of advanced stats merely confirm what we already knew (or thought we knew), but they also point out a lot of subtlety that we otherwise wouldn't have known. That's why advanced stats exist. They see what we don't.

[Arcadian]

How so? He just admitted Kobe was the playoff leader in 2001 which collapses a WHOLE bunch of arguments on this forum for the past 4 years ...

I was just using the eye test. According to the eye test, three Laker fans immediately responded to this thread with defensive responses.

[DMC]

That's how we got to you holding the dirty of the 5-4 stick. You thought he'd launch from the top of that key. tee, hee,,,so did I.

Uh, uh.

Nah, you just hoped the 5>4 bus when Pau joined. You didn't make the ride.

[TD 21]

I agree with ShowtimeFan that longevity is Kobe's best attribute in the all-time discussion..it's pretty crazy that he's still a top 5 player in the NBA and playing big minutes..

Let me guess: James, Durant, Wade, Paul, Bryant?

Based on this season, Duncan and Parker easily trump him. And if we're talking a big picture approach and giving Howard and to a lesser extent, Rose, the benefit of the doubt injury wise, he's still not in the top five.

[Killakobe81]

Great topic of discussion and some interesting points made along the way. First off, it’s ridiculous to use WS alone to determine who was the better or most important player to a team. That said, I think we can draw some more broad conclusions from this data.

1. Basketball is a big man’s game. Jordan is the key outlier here and the fact that he dominated without dominant big men is what makes him by far the best 2 guard of all time and probably the GOAT. Billups’ Pistons and Wade’s Heat were flashes in the pan and we might as well consider Lebron a dominant big for this argument cause he can do it all.
2. Pau was immensely important to the Lakers latest le runs. While the eye test tells me it was still Kobe’s team, Gasol was the glue that made the whole team work being a fantastic offensive player and an underrated defender.
3. Regarding Kobe, the trouble with trying to rank him among all-time greats is that some like to use peak performance years while others prefer to see sustained excellence. I’ve always thought that any argument using peak performance as the basis leaves Kobe well out of the top 10 all time. This table in a way substantiates that. While I don’t think Pau was more important than Kobe for the latest le runs, I think this data at least suggests that Kobe wasn’t that much more important than Pau to the Lakers success.

For the record, my all time rankings have Jordan, Magic, Kareem, and Russell as the top 4 with each of them having at least some legitimate claim as GOAT. Next 6 for me includes Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron, and Bird in no particular order. Sure it’s fun to debate Kobe vs Duncan but neither of them have a legitimate claim as GOAT so that’s all that matters to me. Only Lebron of today’s current players has a chance once all is said and done.

Welcome to the forum, great post and I agree with most of what you said. Kobe's peak (numbers) co-incides with us losing so I can see why he is not in most peoples top 5 or 10. He is at the bottom of mine (5-6 range) but I dont rank players I never saw so my list is skewed. Part of why the "eye" test is important. I for the life of me just cant bring myself to rank players off box scores or grainy film which tends to show those players only at their very best (hardwood classics etc.). IF I was able to watch their careers (like Kobe and Duncan) I am able to see both their highs and lows. I used to coach at a high level and to me judging players that played decades before you even understand the game ... is like me scouting a AAU or HS game using box scores. I just dont trust that method. I get this is just an internet version of a barbershop or lockerroom debate, but I just refuse to capitulate on that front. My all-time starts in 1980. Modern era for me..

I also agree Lebron is the only players in the modern era that has a chance to surpass MJ ... looks doubtful today but he is the only one with a real shot.
Kobe and Duncan have virtually none.

[Killakobe81]

Let me guess: James, Durant, Wade, Paul, Bryant?

Based on this season, Duncan and Parker easily trump him. And if we're talking a big picture approach and giving Howard and to a lesser extent, Rose, the benefit of the doubt injury wise, he's still not in the top five.

[midnightpulp]

On a more serious note, that is my problem with advanced stats. AMb wont admit it, but he went in to that exercise with bias and to prove his point about Pau.
But when he was surprised by data he was sure to explain it away ...and that is a problem.

No I dont thnk eye test alone is sufficient you need a balance just like rangs alone is not good enough either you need a balance. But the only way I can completely trust advanced stats is if the person creating/compling that data is not a fan beforehand. IF you are a hoop fan and you create a system based on your own beliefs and bias (PER) then that data will support those beliefs.
I trust what I See. The stats, and the advanced ones mostly support what I see. If thay don't ... No need to explain away ... because in the end it's all opinions anyway. Hollinger or anyone else that did not play or coach in the league's opinion is no more valuable than mine. He is a fan with better access. And if we do go by stats, why are your or his stats better than mine ... because Hollinger or some other nerd says so? The spirit of a great debate can never be decided by numbers alone. Any number ... even rings. I just emphasize those over advanced stats because the goal is to win. I get trying to see how much someone contributed etc. And like I said before all of those factors should be considered, we just differ on what carries the most weight. For me:

1. Rings (Stars only)
2. Eye Test
3. Traditional stats
4. Advanced stats

But again Amb, we will have our day to make these arguments thanks for the afternoon diversion ....good stuff.

I don't see how you can take traditional stats that seriously when the production of them is highly, highly dependent on pace. Put Kevin Durant on Memphis, and he's probably not the scoring leader right now, but that doesn't mean he still wouldn't be the best scorer in the league.

[midnightpulp]

You're defeating your own argument right off the bat by citing a stat that's well known to be outdated and flawed.... the whole point of the analytics movement is to progress past the flawed stats of old and create new ones that more specifically represent a player's production and value in various situations.....


Firstly, you're assuming that everyone is as statistically ignorant as you are.... believe it or not, plenty of people actually take the time to understand the numbers before blurting them out.... in fact, most sports teams nowadays employ people whose job is to work with advanced stats to help make the most informed decisions possible when building the roster....

Secondly, you're assuming every advanced stat is ridiculously complicated, but it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that (for example) WHIP measures walks and hits per innings pitched....

Thirdly, the laziest form of analysis is the that ESPN puts out on the daily: analysis via cliches and storylines.... for instance, despite the fact that Kirby's shooting percentage in clutch situations is about league average, the media only hypes up the shots that go in, using those isolated outliers as "proof" that Kirby is "clutch," which they repeat ad nauseum until casual fans are convinced it's the truth... the same thing was done to LeBron in reverse: until last year's Finals, all of his failures were amplified and his successes ignored in an attempt to paint him as a "soft choke artist"...

This type of analysis is the worst, because not only does it fail to consider statistical fact, oftentimes, it's influenced by or related to uncontrollable factors that have nothing to do with the sport.... for instance, white players are usually portrayed as "scrappy, grinders, good teammates, hard workers" while black players are usually portrayed as athletic, volatile divas.... that's just lazy confirmation bias at its finest, but that's what passes for analysis in the mainstream media....

/end thread

Read carefully, Killa, Deuce, and other Kirby suckers who don't like advanced stats because they've never been favorable to their boy.

[Killakobe81]

/end thread

Read carefully, Killa, Deuce, and other Kirby suckers who don't like advanced stats because they've never been favorable to their boy.

LOL Like CN can close any fucen thread I want to keep going ... Amb is the only big fish on the other side of the argument worth my time tbh ...

[ambchang]

I guess I have to clarify before I get labeled as this WS crusader who looks at nothing else BUT WS.

I am not, but I think from a statistical standpoint, WS is the one with the least amount of exceptions out of all the available statistics.

At the end of the day, I still prefer the eye test over everything else, and I find that WS provides the least amount of exceptions when compared to the eye test.

The biggest problem with the eye test though, is the subconscious biases that we have built in. In a case of comparing players such as Kobe vs. Duncan, it’s obvious that Laker fans will choose Kobe, and Spurs fans will choose Duncan, so we have to go the next step, which is to compare statistics.

Regular stats are probably the worst out of all the stats. The reason is, as mentioned before, the lack of context. Scoring 25 ppg with the late 90s Cavs is very different from scoring 25 ppg with the mid 00 Suns. Pace, playing styles, teammates, systems, coaching, all comes into play. Also, how do you weigh the different statistics? Is scoring more important than rebounding, assists more important than steals? I can’t say, and neither could anyone. These are all situational stats, that, I felt, tells me nothing at the end of the day.

This takes us to PER. PER provides one neat number that is pretty much a aggregation of all regular stats. I hate calling it an advanced stat, because it really isn’t. It’s just multiplications and additions of existing regular stats. In other words, it’s regular stats presented another way. The advantage of PER over regular stats is that it takes into account pace, and it tries to provide relative weighting of importance to different aspects. My issue with PER is that it favours offense heavily, and penalize great defensive players who doesn’t put up Ben Wallace like numbers. Players like Bowen, or even Artest, Cooper, Battier and such do not get the recognition they deserve using PER. Also, the weighting is relatively out of thin air. If I was playing with Moses Malone, a missed shot isn’t as bad as a missed shot if I was playing for the 00 Spurs, who prefers to run back on defense than to crash the offensive boards, but they get weighted the same regardless of the situation. It also rewards volume shooters, and per minute superstars who really doesn’t play that many minutes. Calvin Booth was a prime example of this back in the day, and if you look at this season, we have Brook Lopez over Parker, Harden, Wade, Anthony, and Kobe. We just know that is untrue.

Finally, we come to WS. Is it bullet proof? no. A notable exception is that Bill Laimbeer led the Pistons in WS back in the day, and Thomas was usually 3rd or 4th in WS. However, we have to understand the context of the game. Laimbeer was a unique shooting big man who crashes the board, and provide stellar defense. As a predominantly defensive unit, Laimbeer provides immense value to the Pistons. In fact, you could not have found another player to replace him back in the day. Coupled with the era when mobile big men were few and far between, the ability of Laimbeer to shoot from outside, drawing the defender out to open up lanes for Thomas and Dumars was unbelievably important. However, I am not going to call this an exception, because Laimbeer DID provide that value to the Pistons. With him on the floor, the Pistons are much better. He was a system player, and he would not have been that successful if he was on any other team, but to the Pistons, he was vital. People put way too much emphasis on the guards of the Pistons because they created the offense, but what was really scary with the Pistons was their immense frontline that no other team could match up with. Jordan and Pippen was most definitely a better backcourt (Pippen is more backcourt than frontcourt) than Thomas and Dumars, and yet they were defeated by the Pistons because they couldn’t deal with their frontline. It is also nobody in their right minds would EVER rank Thomas as a top 10, or even top 15 player of all time, because, let’s face it, he had a loaded team and a fantastic coach who introduced the perfect system.

Ironically, the same could be said of Gasol, he was a system player, the triangle was perfect for him (and Odom), and the Lakers benefited greatly with that frontline. However, Kobe did not create the offense as much as Thomas and Dumars did for the Pistons, and anybody who watched the Lakers knew that the Lakers offense was inside out more than outside in. Gasol didn’t get the credit that he deserved, and got the blame that he didn’t deserve. At least people recognized the value of a Laimbeer, Rodman and Dumars back in the days. We all KNEW the Pistons were not Thomas and a bunch of scrubs. My problem is that Gasol has been reduced to a soft European puss, when he was extremely important to the Lakers, often times as much, or even more so, than Kobe.

[Killakobe81]

I guess I have to clarify before I get labeled as this WS crusader who looks at nothing else BUT WS.

I am not, but I think from a statistical standpoint, WS is the one with the least amount of exceptions out of all the available statistics.

At the end of the day, I still prefer the eye test over everything else, and I find that WS provides the least amount of exceptions when compared to the eye test.

The biggest problem with the eye test though, is the subconscious biases that we have built in. In a case of comparing players such as Kobe vs. Duncan, it’s obvious that Laker fans will choose Kobe, and Spurs fans will choose Duncan, so we have to go the next step, which is to compare statistics.

Regular stats are probably the worst out of all the stats. The reason is, as mentioned before, the lack of context. Scoring 25 ppg with the late 90s Cavs is very different from scoring 25 ppg with the mid 00 Suns. Pace, playing styles, teammates, systems, coaching, all comes into play. Also, how do you weigh the different statistics? Is scoring more important than rebounding, assists more important than steals? I can’t say, and neither could anyone. These are all situational stats, that, I felt, tells me nothing at the end of the day.

This takes us to PER. PER provides one neat number that is pretty much a aggregation of all regular stats. I hate calling it an advanced stat, because it really isn’t. It’s just multiplications and additions of existing regular stats. In other words, it’s regular stats presented another way. The advantage of PER over regular stats is that it takes into account pace, and it tries to provide relative weighting of importance to different aspects. My issue with PER is that it favours offense heavily, and penalize great defensive players who doesn’t put up Ben Wallace like numbers. Players like Bowen, or even Artest, Cooper, Battier and such do not get the recognition they deserve using PER. Also, the weighting is relatively out of thin air. If I was playing with Moses Malone, a missed shot isn’t as bad as a missed shot if I was playing for the 00 Spurs, who prefers to run back on defense than to crash the offensive boards, but they get weighted the same regardless of the situation. It also rewards volume shooters, and per minute superstars who really doesn’t play that many minutes. Calvin Booth was a prime example of this back in the day, and if you look at this season, we have Brook Lopez over Parker, Harden, Wade, Anthony, and Kobe. We just know that is untrue.

Finally, we come to WS. Is it bullet proof? no. A notable exception is that Bill Laimbeer led the Pistons in WS back in the day, and Thomas was usually 3rd or 4th in WS. However, we have to understand the context of the game. Laimbeer was a unique shooting big man who crashes the board, and provide stellar defense. As a predominantly defensive unit, Laimbeer provides immense value to the Pistons. In fact, you could not have found another player to replace him back in the day. Coupled with the era when mobile big men were few and far between, the ability of Laimbeer to shoot from outside, drawing the defender out to open up lanes for Thomas and Dumars was unbelievably important. However, I am not going to call this an exception, because Laimbeer DID provide that value to the Pistons. With him on the floor, the Pistons are much better. He was a system player, and he would not have been that successful if he was on any other team, but to the Pistons, he was vital. People put way too much emphasis on the guards of the Pistons because they created the offense, but what was really scary with the Pistons was their immense frontline that no other team could match up with. Jordan and Pippen was most definitely a better backcourt (Pippen is more backcourt than frontcourt) than Thomas and Dumars, and yet they were defeated by the Pistons because they couldn’t deal with their frontline. It is also nobody in their right minds would EVER rank Thomas as a top 10, or even top 15 player of all time, because, let’s face it, he had a loaded team and a fantastic coach who introduced the perfect system.

Ironically, the same could be said of Gasol, he was a system player, the triangle was perfect for him (and Odom), and the Lakers benefited greatly with that frontline. However, Kobe did not create the offense as much as Thomas and Dumars did for the Pistons, and anybody who watched the Lakers knew that the Lakers offense was inside out more than outside in. Gasol didn’t get the credit that he deserved, and got the blame that he didn’t deserve. At least people recognized the value of a Laimbeer, Rodman and Dumars back in the days. We all KNEW the Pistons were not Thomas and a bunch of scrubs. My problem is that Gasol has been reduced to a soft European puss, when he was extremely important to the Lakers, often times as much, or even more so, than Kobe.

Much better than the one in the other thread ...
Only a little bit of emotion and I liek the fact that you gave props to two players who are a underrated by some. I just dont like when yo overrate Pau. Like Bill Laimbeer both essential Finals players neither are superstars or leaders though.

[DMC]

Much better than the one in the other thread ...
Only a little bit of emotion and I liek the fact that you gave props to two players who are a underrated by some. I just dont like when yo overrate Pau. Like Bill Laimbeer both essential Finals players neither are superstars or leaders though.

But he brought you and the horde a callin'.

[Killakobe81]

But he brought you and the horde a callin'.

OH DMC you havent figured me out yet I like debate so I am easily trollable ..if that is someones thang. But do you see how long his posts are? He makes my rambling ass seem like the master of brevity. He is NOT trolling he also loves to debate.

Cant speak for teh folks who get all emotional about Kobe ... but I just was playing the huckleberry ...

[DMC]

OH DMC you havent figured me out yet I like debate so I am easily trollable ..if that is someones thang. But do you see how long his posts are? He makes my rambling ass seem like the master of brevity. He is NOT trolling he also loves to debate.

Cant speak for teh folks who get all emotional about Kobe ... but I just was playing the huckleberry ...

You're no Daisy, you're no Daisy at all.

[ambchang]

lol at dumbasses comparing '11 Dirk to '03 Duncan
lol '08 KG WS higher than '11 Dirk WS

FkLA right again, as usual.

Not sure how I missed this one, but when you actually look at their respective careers, Dirk led the lead in WS twice, with 17.7 and 16.3. He also had WS of 16.1 and 15.6. Garnett also led the league twice, but with 18.3 and 16.1, with other highs of 15.6 and 14.9.

In the playoffs, Dirk led the league in 06 with 5.4, also had other seasons of 3.6 and 2.6. Garnett led the league in 08 with 4.1, and had other seasons of 2.7, 2.4 and 2.3.

They are actually very similar players and is quite comparable (which is pretty much my stance), but I tend to give Dirk the advantage because he is just easier to build around.

[ambchang]

And for comparison's sake, Duncan also led the league in WS twice, with 17.8 and 16.5, and had 10 other seasons of double figure WS (12 seasons total). Garnett had 9 double digit WS seasons, while Dirk had 11. Duncan also led the league in DWS 5 times, something neither Dirk nor Garnett ever did.

To top it off, Duncan led the playoffs in WS twice, once with an insane 5.9, and the other time with 3.7. He also had a 3.5 and 3.3 playoff winshare seasons.

Duncan have similar, and slightly better RS WS numbers across his career than all other PFs, and his PO WS was just the icing on the cake. In fact, his 5.9 ws in the 03 PO is the highest in NBA history. Dirks run in 06 was 3rd best all time.

[AchillesHeel]

[Arnold Toht]

And he's still up 5-4 over Duncan.