Matthew Yglesias (July 10, 2007) - Rashard Lewis Revisited (Sports)

Imagine the plight of the Indiana Pacers coach. Everyone sucks, any position you play them at is not their optimum position, and using them in a second position results in it raining toads and blood from the sky.

Posted by steve duncan | July 10, 2007 1:36 PM

It's true that teams employing Lewis do well to remember that he's much more effective as a small forward than as a power forward (assuming that's true) but it's also true that it's better -- more useful to your coach and GM -- to be able to "play out of position" with a modicum of success than to be totally useless.

I think you're misunderstanding each other. The point is that Lewis would produce less rebounds than you would expect from a replacement player in the power forward spot. In this analysis, Lewis has more value as a 3 than a 4 not because of an inability to play the 4 but because his statistical contributions compare favorably with other 3s, but not with other 4s. The question is whether Lewis can match benchmarks set by the other players who play his positions.

It's a bizarre way of looking at it, of course. It says more about the talent distribution among positions in the NBA than anything else. It's a system where a players value is entirely dependent on statistical output relative to replacement players at his position, rather than to a independent concept of what a power forward should provide to your basketball team.

Posted by Freddie | July 10, 2007 1:53 PM

a independent concept of what a power forward should provide to your basketball team

which depends on the team and the system and the coach, of course. While I've felt for a long time that the traditional monikers (point guard, shooting guard, etc.) are poor categories for catching the different kinds of players there are, "player types" also don't really correspond to the "number" system except vaguely. There's this weird tautological thing where the most meaningful definition of a "4" is that he can defend other "4"s. I think Berri's missing Matt's point more than Matt's missing Berri's, though. Or, to be as I generally am uncharitable towards WoW, Berri looks to me like he's arguing within the contraints of his method, such that his concept of a player's value is identical with what of that value is captured by his system.

Posted by Quarterican | July 10, 2007 2:01 PM

We would all do well to remember that Berri knows next to nothing about actual basketball. He has some familiarity with basketball statistics, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Posted by Pooh | July 10, 2007 2:18 PM

I think this amount of analysis of Rashard Lewis is odd. He's a very good but not great scorer who rebounds poorly for his size and plays no defense. If you put Kobe and KG at the top of the pyramid and guys like Paul Pierce and Tracy McGrady in the level below, Rashard clearly fits into the level below that at best.

Adding Lewis to the Magic will make them a better team, but not that much better. Two years from now when they need to make another move to improve the team and are hamstrung by Lewis' stupid deal, the Magic will learn not to overpay for the best available player during free agency.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 10, 2007 2:33 PM

Rewis puts up Lewis' exact same numbers, but if his coach tries to insert him as a power forward he refuses to play. Which player is better to sign -- Lewis or Rewis? Berri says it's Rewis -- Rewis will have a better position-adjusted Wins Produced number. I say -- and basic common sense says -- it's Lewis.

More to the point, say Rewis is so unbelievably awful at the 4 that his coach would never even think of asking him to play there. According to Berri, that would make him better than Lewis as well.

Posted by JP | July 10, 2007 2:37 PM

I pointed this out on Matthew's original Lewis thread, but I'll repeat it here: Matthew and Berri are talking about two different things. Matthew is talking about a player's inherent ability as a basketball player. Berri, however, is talking about the player's actual output on the floor. These two things don't have to match each other. The player's output on the floor is significantly affected by a factor besides his inherent ability: the coach. And if the coach puts the player in a position in which he will not play up to his ability, they player will perform worse on the floor, no matter how good a player he is. To take an extreme example: if the coach plays Duncan at PG, he is going to perform poorly. He can dribble and pass, but he won't be a good PG. Now, Matthew comes along and says: look, this shows that Duncan is even more valuable than we thought - he can even play PG, even if poorly. But Duncan's actual performance will suffer, and Berri will say he's a worse player because, well, he didn't play as well. They are both right, and the only thing this shows is that the coach is most likely an idiot for playing Duncan at the PG (or the GM is an idiot for not having a better PG on the roster).

Posted by Al | July 10, 2007 2:38 PM

Every time you write "Lewis" I think you're talking about Lewis Scooter Libby. I'm confused. Perhaps you need a second blog to talk basketball?

Posted by Jim | July 10, 2007 2:39 PM

or a second blog to talk politics.

Posted by too many steves | July 10, 2007 2:43 PM

MBunge -

That depends - I'm not going to do the research right now, but what top flight free agent wings are due to come on the market in the next few years? There was a lot of speculation that Carter would be wooed by the Magic, but he stuck in NJ. Personally, I was convinced that at least *one* of the premiere wings from the 2003 draft (LeBron, Wade, Carmelo) would opt not to sign lucrative extensions in order to at least test the free agent waters when Orlando was positioned to make a big move, given that Orlando's budding nucleus at the time looked a lot more promising to me than the non-Bron/Wade/Melo nuclei of their respective teams. But I was wrong about that.

Posted by Quarterican | July 10, 2007 2:43 PM

Matthew is talking about a player's inherent ability as a basketball player. Berri, however, is talking about the player's actual output on the floor. These two things don't have to match each other.

True, but it's the former, not the latter, you should be interested in when signing free agents, no? And what good is fancy statistical analysis if it doesn't help you Moneyball the league, that is, beat the free agent market?

In this analysis, Lewis has more value as a 3 than a 4 not because of an inability to play the 4 but because his statistical contributions compare favorably with other 3s, but not with other 4s. The question is whether Lewis can match benchmarks set by the other players who play his positions.

Similarly, why do we need statistical analysis for this? So you should sign Lewis if you need a 3 but not if you have a good 3 and a hole at 4. Well, duh. And not really a useful thing to know, anyway. What you want to know is how valuable is Lewis compared to all other free agents I could be spending money on, and how much more or less valuable--at all positions. You have X dollars to spend on your whole team, not on each position.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 10, 2007 2:43 PM

I'm a little more amenable to what Berri is saying than it seems most people here are. But I do think the whole "value over replacement player" system of metrics create some really weird ways of looking at things. For instance, Berri believes that Lewis becomes a worse player when playing the 4 than the 3, not because he would play the position worse, but because his stats would compare less favorably to others at his position. So suppose that, when calculating the averages of the average power forward, instead of considering Tim Duncan a 4, you consider him a 5. And instead of considering Dirk Nowitzki a 4, you consider him a 3; and consider Garnett a 5, and Zach Randolph a 3. All of a sudden, the average numbers for a power forward in the NBA drop, and Lewis's numbers improve relative to the average. So without Rashard Lewis's game changing at all, he's become a more valuable player. Which is kind of strange.

Posted by Freddie | July 10, 2007 2:52 PM

I don't think you are looking at it correctly, Antid Oto. You are not signing the player based on his inherent talent as a basketball player (which is how Matthew is looking at it), you are signing him for his production on the floor. Again taking my absurd exaggeration to show the point: I would not sign Duncan to a max deal to play PG for my team, because his production there will be low, no matter how talented he is. Similarly, Lewis is not a max player if you play him at the PF position. And Berri makes a compelling case that Orlando will play Lewis at the PF a lot. The trick is to have the talent play at the position where they will be most productive. If ORL finds a way to play Lewis at the SF exclusively, then it is a good deal. But Lewis's ability to play the PF mediocrely is not much of an asset, since all the time he plays at PF reduces the time he would otherwise play at SF, where he is effective.

Posted by Al | July 10, 2007 3:16 PM

The point is that Lewis would produce less rebounds than you would expect from a replacement player in the power forward spot... The question is whether Lewis can match benchmarks set by the other players who play his positions.

I haven't looked at the actual numbers, but Berri argues that Lewis is an "average" power forward. If he is better than half of the players at that position (I know this isn't the technical definition of average, but it's probably a close enough estimation) there are many teams that would be happy to have him as their backup power forward. And even if he is only better than a few true power forwards, this still makes him more valuable than if he couldn't play power forward at all. If you lose all your regular power forwards to injury, it's probably better to have Lewis step in than someone who can't compete at the position at all. Not necessarily since you would be weakening two spots (3 and 4) rather than just one, but the choice would be there.

Where I think the communication problem may be (although I'm not going to go back and read everthing to make sure), is that Matt says playing two positions competently is better than one, even if you are only average at the second one, which is obviously true; Berri is saying (at least in the current post), that even though (a) Lewis is an excellent player, and (b) he can play power forward, it doesn't follow that he should get paid for being an excellent power forward. He should get paid for being an excellent small forward, with maybe a bonus for his power forward skills, which would still be less than for an excellent power forward. So his argument in this case is that Lewis is not as valuable as an excellent power forward, not that he is not as valuable as an excellent small forward who can't play power forward. I can't weigh in on the truth of this, but it is logical if you think power forwards are significantly more valuable than small forwards. And considering Orlando will be paying a premium, you would think it would represent his ability to play a premium position well. Instead, it only represents his ability to play well at one postion and play competently at a premium position.

Of course, this still leaves the problem of a rating system that says in fact Lewis is not as valuable as that small forward, let alone the power forward. Common sense tells us this is false. And IIRC this is what Matt's original complaint specifically addressed, not how brilliant he thought Orlando was for signing a two-position player. I'm not sure if Berri deliberately avoids this point or if he really just didn't get Matt's argument.

Posted by ibid | July 10, 2007 3:44 PM

Is it better that Lewis can play a little PF? Maybe, but only in that it gives you some flexibility in how you construct your roster. The point is, if Lewis plays PF, then someone else has to play SF, somebody not as good as Lewis the SF. Given that Lewis is an average PF, Lewis(PF version) plus JoeSchmoe(SF) doesn't provide the same production as Lewis(SF)+JimSchmoe(PF). I'm pretty sure that's what Berri's saying here, with the caveat that I'm assuming his stats actually measure Lewis' performance at the two positions accurately, which I gather is a point of substantial question.

In fact, Lashard Rewis might BE a better player, since your coach may be better off keeping him at SF and inserting the backup PF rather than be tempted to do something stupid and play Rewis (average PF) combined with a backup SF. It all depends on the relative merits of the players sitting on Orlando's bench available to play. I'm not sure there's any reason to increase Lewis' value just because you can now be flexible on who you sign at backup PF and SF.

Posted by Larry | July 10, 2007 4:12 PM

You are not signing the player based on his inherent talent as a basketball player (which is how Matthew is looking at it), you are signing him for his production on the floor. Again taking my absurd exaggeration to show the point: I would not sign Duncan to a max deal to play PG for my team, because his production there will be low, no matter how talented he is.

No, no team signs a player for his production on the floor, except for the lower-level, average or below guys they get to plug holes. These are two different classes of free agents we're talking about. One where the team is saying "crap, we need to get someone to play PG" and one where the team is saying "okay, where do I spent my money to improve the team as much as possible?" The second question is always (or should always) be answered first, which is why Berri's system can only be useful in marginal cases involving low-level, hole-filling players. Would you sign Tim Duncan to play PG? No, of course not. But if your hole is at PG, you already have a pretty good but not great PF, and you have the chance to sign Tim Duncan for max money, is there any chance you don't do it? No, because you look at the totality of the team. Nobody goes out and shops specifically by position. It just doesn't happen. That's why performance on the floor at a given position is not that helpful, especially if you suspect somebody else's coach has been playing a guy out of position and you don't plan to.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 10, 2007 4:19 PM

Al, I think Matt is looking at the numbers, he just disagrees with the system that punishes someone for playing a second position. The basis for saying Lewis is better is that he is competitive at two positions according to the statistics, not in spite of them. In fact, he even cites Lewis' and Rewis' numbers to present them as equals -- he doesn't say they are equally talented. His never argues that Lewis is better than Berri says because he is just a great player. He argues that Lewis is better than Berri says because Berri's system is flawed. Arguing that this specific method is flawed suggests that he thinks statistics can be useful when used properly.

I also think both ability and numbers are used to some extent. If a player put up great numbers but is getting older, he won't get a contract commensurate with a younger player with the same numbers. Similarly, even for his position, Oden was not picked for his numbers but for his potential. This how I interpreted Antid Oto's comment -- the point isn't that great players who don't produce are valued as much as less talented players who do put up the numbers, it's that ultimately you need to make decisions based on what will happen in the future, and there are many reasons to expect a player will be better or worse in the future that go beyond his numbers.

I don't disagree that Orlando may be handling things poorly, but that doesn't mean that Lewis is less valuable (or at least, less valuable potentially), just that he isn't being utilized properly, just as a team using Duncan as a point guard would not make him less valuable to a smarter team that knew how to use his abilities.

Posted by ibid | July 10, 2007 4:36 PM

I'd go a step further. If you have the chance to sign one of the premier players in the game, you do it. You figure out how to fit the team around him. Of course you wouldn't play Duncan at the PG, but you could ship off your decent but not great PF for a decent but not great PG and have improved the team.

Lewis isn't in this class of player.

The other thing to remember about Orlando's position is what they already have. Howard is a wonderful rebounder and will likely improve the next few seasons. So it is more tolerable to have a poor rebounding PF for the Magic, than, say, for the Lakers, where the center's rebounding is suspect at best.

All in all, I think this was a decent signing. I don't think it changes the landscape of the league, or anything silly like that.

Posted by Curtis | July 10, 2007 4:52 PM

And Berri makes a compelling case that Orlando will play Lewis at the PF a lot.

I have yet to see this compelling case. Lewis is a SF, always has been and always will. Seattle tried him at PF and were not impressed. The stats generated which put him at the PF recently come from times when Seattle was running a small ball offense to take advantage of matchups. No one signing Lewis as a free agent would expect to use him at PF for significant minutes. That he could fill in there for short spurts is just a little bonus which I think was Matt's point.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | July 10, 2007 4:55 PM

Lewis isn't in this class of player.

See, that's really the question you want answered. I agree, Lewis isn't in that class of player. But what you want your Moneyball-type statistical system to answer is who is in that class relative to who you already have on the team overall. Position limitation is not helpful in answering.

Put it another way: Magic Johnson is remembered for having played all five positions on the floor. He wasn't as good a center as, say, Patrick Ewing, but he was a better player. That's the kind of information you need, except you need help making those judgments at the middling-star level where Rashard Lewis is. At the top the decisions make themselves.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 10, 2007 5:15 PM

Ibid, I think we are on the same page for the most part. The issue is not with the player, but rather with how the coach uses the player. As mentioned above, I think Berri makes a compelling case that ORL's coach will use Lewis stupidly, just as SEAs coach did.

That said, I don't think Matthew's Lewis/Rewis example is helpful. The choice isn't between Lewis playing 30 minutes at SF and 10 minutes at PF and Rewis playing 30 minutes at SF and 10 minutes pouting on the bench. Rewis would simply play 40 minutes at SF. And, since the example is that Lewis and Rewis are equally adept at SF, that means that Rewis IS ACTUALLY a better player on the floor for the 40 minutes that they both play.

Posted by Al | July 10, 2007 5:29 PM

I like Al at 238's post. But I do believe the WoW authors assert that their model has predictive power. The debate since they made that assertion is over how much such power, both absolutely and relative to other models offered. The jury is still out, I submit. The Iverson trade provided an experiment that, I think, supports the WoW model. That's why we talk about the Lewis move, it's another experiment. Lewis may prove to be the best 3 and the best backup 4 on the Magic and if so he has justification to be paid the value of both. (He still may be overpaid - I think backup 4's tend to get low figure salaries.)

I agree with Al that coaching decisions and quality of personnel affect the performance of a player. It's not something that any model captures and it may be uncapturable, if that's a word. (Please note: I am familiar with Dave Berri's WoW analysis that KG's teammates are the reason he has not been on a winner and this is a different argument. I am saying that a player's teammates and coach affect the individual's performance, because the coach and the things one's teammates affect the tasks the individual is called on to perform and thus indirectly affect the performance delivered.)

Matt and others make the point, with which I also agree, that versatility of an individual player has value to a team and that, to the extent the WoW model claims a predictive power as to an individual's future productivity, it does not necessarily capture (or weight properly) the value of any versatility (VoV?) he may have that a new coach or complement of teammates may take advantage of. Again, I don't know if that is a flaw unique to WoW. Hopefully WoW will be refined, or other models will develop, to capture "VoV." Of course, it's easy to see versatility when a team uses a player in a versatile manner (e.g. a Don Nelson system), but then there are plenty of other teams where it's hard to know if it's the players' lack of versatility, the coach's or gm's focus on other traits, or a distribution of talents that renders the versatility of any one player unnecessary.

Posted by MT | July 10, 2007 5:59 PM

Matt's last point is his best. Almost all of these statistical measures ignore defense, when defense is the single most important thing that players do on the court. Bill Russell proved this 40 years ago-- it's the way he won 11 NBA titles-- and it isn't any less true today.

If you can't stop the guy or zone you are supposed to be guarding from scoring, your team can't keep up with that except on rare days when it shoots an extraordinarily high field goal percentage.

Just about everything that people get wrong about basketball, they get wrong because they ignore defense. If it hadn't been for defense, Jordan couldn't have scored 28 points a game and won championships. If it hadn't been for defense, the Pistons of 1989 and of 2004 could have never beaten the Lakers. If it hadn't been for defense, Willis Reed's heroics would have made no difference. If it hadn't been for defense, Wilt Chamberlain would have retired without an NBA title.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 10, 2007 6:20 PM

"Matt's last point is his best. Almost all of these statistical measures ignore defense, when defense is the single most important thing that players do on the court. Bill Russell proved this 40 years ago-- it's the way he won 11 NBA titles-- and it isn't any less true today."

Rebounding in these statistical measures is a proxy for defense.

It's not a particularly good proxy, but it is a proxy nonetheless.

Steals and blocks are more obviously defensive statistical measures.

-----

More generally...

Berri : Basketball :: Jonah Goldberg : Foreign Policy

There's little point in quibbling with Berri's details because he's such an idiot on the broad strokes of basketball.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 6:45 PM

I'm getting into this conversation late, but I really feel the need to say something. First of all, I can't believe we're actually talking about Berri again. The guy has things totally wrong to begin with and when he engages someone who disagrees he does it in the most dishonest fashion possible.

Berri makes no case whatsoever the Lewis will be playing at PF. He observes that if Darko leaves, they might be more inclined to do it. That's hardly a strong case. Nor is it really relevant to the argument MY was making about how good Lewis is (as opposed to whether the Orlando signing was a good one based on need).

Lets look at a couple of Berri's claims:

1) We should not give players credit for playing alternative positions.

This is obviously wrong. He brings up AI: we should not give him credit for taking so many shots if he misses a lot of them. First of all this is debatable if we don't start of by assuming WoW is a complete explanation of basketball talent. But, secondly, it misses the point. Being able to sub in at a different position is valuable even if the level of play you offer is below average. Sometimes a team can't even field a 'replacement level' player at that spot on the floor. Thus you are adding value if that guy can fill in for you during a tight spot. The important thing to recognize is that the minimum a player brings is his ability to play his best position.

2) Players are asked to play positions they aren't good at all the time.

The first problem with this claim is the example he gives: Eddy Curry. How is this even an argument? Does he think NY has a better solution at center? Secondly, this is supposed to imply that teams play players at the wrong positions... but only based on WoW analysis. Maybe, just maybe, Berri's system is broken and some of the people paid to coach the game know more about it than he does.

I don't think MY is missing Berri's point at all. We are all very clear on the point Berri is making- Lewis is not a great PF. Nobody here is claiming that Orlando's needs at that position don't factor into the evaluation of that signing. What we are saying is that if Berri thinks Lewis is a great SF but a below average PF, then he must be a jack-ass to suppose that if Lewis had not logged any minutes at PF last year this would make him an overall more valuable player.

One of the obviously stupid things about Berri's system is that ironically, b/c of the limited stats it looks at, it can't take into account a player's ability to play a specific position in a team context. Because his system values rebounding and scoring efficiency, based on his system, we should just field 5 PF and C and have a great team. But this is obviously wrong for the reasons MY outlines (defense for starters). The only interesting question to fall out of all of this is: are Lewis' better than average rebounding stats (for a SF) exaggerated b/c he was asked to play some PF last season?

Posted by mpowell | July 10, 2007 6:47 PM

"First of all, I can't believe we're actually talking about Berri again. The guy has things totally wrong to begin with and when he engages someone who disagrees he does it in the most dishonest fashion possible."

Yup.

That pretty much sums things up. Berri is both an idiot and intellectually dishonest. As mentioned above, he's the Jonah Goldberg of basketball.

-----

Off topic, but I read a wonderful summary of Z-Bo's game today (no link since I can't post links):

"He is a black hole," the executive said. "I was watching a tape last season where he caught the ball in the post and spun around twice. He did a 720! I had to call everybody into the room to show them. But I tell you what, when he shot the ball it went in. He's just never going to pass."

Dude may have a one-dimensional game, but he's really good at that one dimension.

I'm actually getting semi-amped about watching the Knicks this year. They're going to be one weird team.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 7:09 PM

First off, Al has this one right: Obviously, Lewis is a better all-around talent if he can play more than one position. However, the opportunity cost of playing him at PF (a small increase in productivity at the PF position (over the average player) versus a large drop in productivity at the SF position) makes it counter-productive to take advantage of the average PF skill set. That's all Berri says in his post, not that Lewis is in anyway a worse player. His commentary is only about how his game translates into wins, and playing him exclusively at SF will maximize this.

Second, whatever his intellectual dishonesty may be, his model (which incorporates defensive efficiency which over the course of a season should act as a decent indicator of defensive prowess per player) seems to work exceptionally well at predicting wins. Nobody, in discrediting him in their comments, has addressed that seemingly glaring inconsistency.

Posted by Jake | July 10, 2007 7:54 PM

The most important number in terms of Lewis is his max contract, which by any estimation is wildly overpaying for a good but not great player. And considering that he's replacing Grant Hill, who is still a pretty good ballplayer, Lewis' addition doesn't really seem to offer a marked improvement for the Magic over where they were last season.

But if you're talking Lewis as a 3 vs. a 4 you also have to take into consideration the fact that Lewis is leaving the power forward strong West and going to the East where his numbers at the 4 would likely be hugely improved, as the competition at the position will be much worse.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | July 10, 2007 8:03 PM

"Second, whatever his intellectual dishonesty may be"

Someone really ought to write a FAQ. Berri has been thoroughly discredited by hoops stats community.

-----

"his model (which incorporates defensive efficiency which over the course of a season should act as a decent indicator of defensive prowess per player)"

Say what?

"his model ... seems to work exceptionally well at predicting wins."

Say whaaaaaaaaaat?

Dude, while I understand that meth can seem fun at first, it really ends up rotting your brain.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 8:30 PM

"And considering that he's replacing Grant Hill, who is still a pretty good ballplayer, Lewis' addition doesn't really seem to offer a marked improvement for the Magic over where they were last season."

Well, no.

Judging both by stats, as well as by common hoops sense, Rashard is a sizable upgrade over Grant.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 8:39 PM

Jake -

I don't remember the details of how this worked at the moment, and to be honest I'm not going to look it up, but a bunch of the other bigwig basketball statheads at apbrmetrics kept trying to engage Berri in some discussion/debate about WoW and finally got frustrated, from what I recall. Dan Rosenbaum in particular worked out that you could do, I think, anything you wanted with the weights in WoW and as long as you applied Berri's Team Adjustment mojo (which is what I don't recall in any detail) the predictive power would remain basically unchanged.

"If you wanted Ron Artest to have a low rating, you could add in a coefficient of -1000 for jersey number and your metric would predict team wins just as well as Wins Produced."

There's more on the stats front, but I don't recall the details, I just remember being more persuaded by, oh, the array of guys arguing contra Berri than I was by Berri. And that's part of the problem: Berri's a bad spokesperson for his method, because he's reclusive, defensive, condescending, insulting, argues tautologically all the time, and continually says things that indicate he doesn't have a deep understanding of basketball or even why you'd want to do statistical analysis of basketball. At some point he said he wasn't interested in doing large-scale predictions of an upcoming season (perhaps I'm misremembering the context, but we're coming to the important part) because otherwise why play/watch the games if you knew who was going to win in advance?

Posted by Quarterican | July 10, 2007 8:44 PM

"argues tautologically all the time"

That's a big part of my problem with him.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 8:57 PM

And good work on the FAQ, Quarterican.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 8:59 PM

I don't know anything about Berri other than what I read in the posts Matthew links to, so I am not going to take a side in this argument. But. I do feel as though his analysis, often which is counterintuitive, has some predictive value. He cites the Iverson trade, which I think is a good example. He was more right about than anyone - MUCH more right than Petey, BTW. Denver was worse with Iverson than they were with Miller, and the Sixers were better with Miller than with Iverson (and that's true even eliminating the games that Melo was suspended). I am not aware of anyone else who viewed the trade that way.

Posted by Al | July 10, 2007 9:25 PM

"I do feel as though his analysis, often which is counterintuitive, has some predictive value."

You ought to look at what Berri is actually doing. He's got a rather simplistic model that does a few things differently than all the other models.

- He wildly overvalues rebounds, which produces such results as saying that Rodman "produced more wins" than Jordan.

- He weights for team wins, which has some advantages, but also has some significant disadvantages.

- He incorporates his weird static positional structure, which leads to massively weird conversations like the current one trying to determine if Lewis is a '3' or a '4'.

He then takes this odd model and says a variety of things which the model doesn't even vaguely support, all the while citing the model as his basis. And when challenged, he changes the subject.

Read the fucking FAQ.

-----

"Denver was worse with Iverson than they were with Miller, and the Sixers were better with Miller than with Iverson"

Huh. I could've sworn the Sixers won more games in '05-'06 than in '06-'07, and that the Nuggets won more games in '06-'07 than in '05-'06. Damn internets are lying to me again.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 9:52 PM

"MUCH more right than Petey"

And FWIW, I think I'm clearly on record in these virtual pages at the time of the trade as saying it would be disastrous for the 76ers to hold onto Miller because having a solid '1' to run a team of young wings would result in winning enough games to take them out of the Oden-stakes.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 10:01 PM

Petey:

Rebounds, blocks, and steals are terrible proxies for defense. (Rebounding position, and coming off your man for blocks and steals, can actually come at the expense of good defense.) Ideally, you'd want to come up with a measure like "points scored against" or "field goal percentage of assigned man", though it would be really tough with zone defenses. There isn't a good statistic.

Which means you have to actually watch film to determine who the best defenders are, and what matchups favor them. That makes it almost impossible to do unless you spend a lot more time than your average basketball fan on the internet can afford to or would desire to spend.

But that's what matters. We have overplayed statistics because they are available, but only actual observation of gameplay will lead you to the best players in the league.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 11, 2007 1:16 AM

"Rebounds, blocks, and steals are terrible proxies for defense ... Which means you have to actually watch film to determine who the best defenders are"

No doubt.

In addition, the various available stats are semi-terrible proxies even for offense.

This is why the assertions Berri makes for his model are ludicrous.

"only actual observation of gameplay will lead you to the best players in the league."

I think that you need both eyeballing gameplay as well as stats to make non-ludicrous evaluations of players. Eyeballing only is almost as bad as stats only. Both will lead you to some very erroneous judgments.

It's hard to eyeball the difference between a scorer with a 58% TS% and a scorer with a 54% TS%.

-----

Finally, I will note that for frontcourt players, rebounding is actually an underrated proxy for defense. That doesn't mean it has anywhere near perfect correlation, but you tend to find the best frontcourt defenders also having very high rebound rates.

It's no coincidence that Bill Russell averaged over 22RPG for his career.

The reasons for the correlation are worth thinking about, if you like to think about hoops stats. And the overweighting of rebounds in his model are one of the only things Berri has done that is actually worth pondering, (even though Berri took it to an absurd level.)

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 1:36 AM

Quaterican - "That depends - I'm not going to do the research right now, but what top flight free agent wings are due to come on the market in the next few years?"

That doesn't matter. What only matters is how good Rashard Lewis is. He's a good, not great, scorer who doesn't rebound much and plays no defense.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 11, 2007 10:13 AM

MBunge -

I misread you, I think. I took this:

Two years from now when they need to make another move to improve the team and are hamstrung by Lewis' stupid deal, the Magic will learn not to overpay for the best available player during free agency.

to mean "two years from now, when the Magic realize that Lewis isn't the guy to be their #1 wing scorer," and thought you weren't making any sense, because I don't think anybody clearly better (right now) is plausibly coming on the free agent market in the near future, and if they need to trade for an upgrade at the wing, Lewis' big contract will make matching salaries easier, if anything. I thought this because my perception of the Magic has been essentially that they're an elite wing scorer away from really competing (presuming they resign Darko / otherwise acquire a serviceable big to play w/Dwight Howard).

But now I think I misread you, and what you meant was something more along the lines of "what happens when the Magic realize they can't be a championship team without a better backup point and a defensive specialist / sixth man, but have no financial flexibility because Lewis eats up so much cap space," in which case presuming Orlando's management won't pay tax, you may be right.

Posted by Quarterican | July 11, 2007 10:21 AM

First time poster here, so take it easy on me.

Dave Berri's assertion is that Lewis' weak rebounding hurts his team while playing PF.

To make his point, Berri has taken Lewis’ stats, and compared them to his “average SF” and “average PF”. Looking solely at rebounds, Lewis’ 8.1 rbs/48 is higher than the average SF (7.6 rbs/48), but lower than the average PF (11.4 rbs/48).

The problem with this approach is that Lewis’ 8.1 rbs/48 is really the the combination of all the rebounds he grabbed while splitting time between SF and PF. By the way, using 82games data, it appears that Lewis played 1771 minutes at SF, and 576 minutes at PF.

So how did his rebounding stats look while playing those positions?

At SF, Lewis grabbed 7.2 rbs/48. At PF, he grabbed 10.3 rbs/48. This paints a somewhat different picture when comparing to the “average” players.

However, why stop there? Why should we compare Lewis’ stats against an average NBA SF or PF when we have data that shows how he performed against the player he was actually guarding?

For comparison, here are the rbs/48 for Lewis, his man, and Berri's average player:

At small forward:
Lewis 7.2
His man 5.7
Berri's average SF 7.6

At power forward:
Lewis 10.3
His man 10.5
Berri's average PF 11.4

At you can see, Lewis out-rebounds his man at SF, while holding his own versus PFs.

Based on this comparison, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Lewis’ rebounding (or perceived lack thereof) hurts his team.

Posted by Rasta | July 11, 2007 10:36 AM

"but have no financial flexibility because Lewis eats up so much cap space," in which case presuming Orlando's management won't pay tax, you may be right."

I think he's pretty clearly wrong over the next few years.

Orlando is only mildly overpaying for Lewis. And Lewis and Howard together are only going to be taking up a bit more than a third of Orlando's space under the tax threshold.

In short, I don't think he has the slightest clue of NBA salary math works. He's like the mouthbreathers who think the US is going bankrupt due to foreign aid and earmarks.

I will say that if Orlando does a sign & trade with Orlando, and thus gives Lewis a 6yr deal instead of a 5yr deal, I'll be a lot less impressed with the signing than I currently am. The problem with the Lewis contract lies in the out years, and the out years in a 6yr deal are going to be significantly worse than in a 5yr deal.

But if they can hold it to a 5yr deal, it's really a no-brainer. It's not easy to get elite talent in its prime.

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 10:43 AM

The internets aren't lying, Petey, you just don't know what you are doing. The Iverson trade didn't happen in the offseason - it happened midseason. Comparing the 2006 season to the 2007 season is thus completely inappropriate.

PHI: post trade was 29-28, pre trade was 6-19
DEN: post trade was 31-28, post Melo suspension was 25-20, pre trade was 14-9

Posted by Al | July 11, 2007 11:58 AM

"PHI: post trade was 29-28, pre trade was 6-19"

Of the 25 "pre-trade" games, Iverson played in 15. The Sixers lost 9 of the other 10.

Ugh, Al. Please don't bring your sophistical style of argument to hoops. Save it for defending Scooter Libby or other political topics.

Philly began the season with Andre Iguodala running the point, an experiment which, had it continued, would have led to a season seriously challenging Boston and Memphis for worst record in the league.

Post-trade, they replaced Iguodala with an above average '1', Andre Miller, running the point, and thus managed to put together a .500 record while playing against Eastern teams that were more interested in lottery position than in winning games.

Denver, on the other hand, didn't get their rotation and responsibilities worked out until late February, at which point they went 19 wins and 9 losses for the balance of the season.

You really ought to try watching the league, Al. It's fun stuff. I know you're getting up there in years, but I bet you can still get a feel for this stuff if you watch. On the other hand, if you like manipulating numbers, you ought to buy Berri's book instead.

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 12:28 PM

Petey - "Orlando is only mildly overpaying for Lewis. And Lewis and Howard together are only going to be taking up a bit more than a third of Orlando's space under the tax threshold.

In short, I don't think he has the slightest clue of NBA salary math works. He's like the mouthbreathers who think the US is going bankrupt due to foreign aid and earmarks.

I will say that if Orlando does a sign & trade with Orlando, and thus gives Lewis a 6yr deal instead of a 5yr deal, I'll be a lot less impressed with the signing than I currently am. The problem with the Lewis contract lies in the out years, and the out years in a 6yr deal are going to be significantly worse than in a 5yr deal."

Guess what, Petey. The deal that just came over the AP wire is a sign-and-trade that gets Lewis a 6 year deal for AT LEAST 110 million dollars. Combined with the contract extension they're going to give Howard, that will tie up over HALF (not a bit more than a third) of Orlando's salary cap in Lewis and Howard. As a practical matter, Orlando is giving Lewis two more years and at least 70 MILLION MORE DOLLARS than Detroit is giving Chauncy Billups.

You see, what separates mouthbreathers like you from guys like me is I understand the reality of the NBA marketplace, while you only concern yourself with theory. The reality of this situation is that the FA and his former team essentially conspire to get the the biggest contract possible out of the bidding team. Lewis wanted as much money as possible and the Sonics didn't want to let him go and get nothing in return, so they effectively bargain together against the Magic. Lewis gets an insane contract, Seattle gets a conditional second round pick and a 9 million dollar trade exception (which could very likely end up being part of a KG deal before the next trading deadline) and Orlando gets screwed.

Seattle didn't really want to pay Lewis 15 mil a year. No other team was really willing to pay him that. Yet, Orlando is going to be paying alot more than 15 million dollars a year for the next 5 years to an absolutely untradeable player, who was only the second best player on a crappy team last year. That's the REALITY of what happens when you get obsessed with grabbing the "best available talent".

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 11, 2007 1:26 PM

"Combined with the contract extension they're going to give Howard, that will tie up over HALF (not a bit more than a third) of Orlando's salary cap in Lewis and Howard."

As I wrote, and as you quoted me:

Lewis and Howard together are only going to be taking up a bit more than a third of Orlando's space under the tax threshold.

Do you actually find that confusing? Do you just not read the things you quote?

The cap is not particularly important. What is important is the tax threshold, since that actually constrains almost every team in the league.

And Lewis and Howard together will indeed take up a bit more than a third of Orlando's space under the tax threshold.

Compare and contrast with actually dire situations, like Philly's last year with two players taking over 60% of the tax space. Or New Jersey's this year, with three players taking almost 70% of the tax space.

You don't get the math, but you still have emphatic views of how you feel the numbers must add up. That's what makes for a mouthbreather.

"No other team was really willing to pay him that."

You, sir, are a dumbass.

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 2:11 PM

After reviewing all the comments above I have to agree with Al. His detractors (namely Petey) seem to resort primarily to name calling and condescension as debate tactics and the WoW model as a whole is much more convincing than the conventional (and subjective) wisdom espoused by Matthew and others.

Posted by Will | July 11, 2007 2:53 PM

Petey, ya got me. The argument that having two players taking up over 30% of a team's luxury tax space is a GOOD thing was so amazingly stupid that I couldn't really believe my eyes that someone was making it. I guess I hadn't quite accustomed myself to your level of stubborn dumbassery. My bad. By the way, Orlando says they still want to resign Darko and if they do, that'll likely be over 40% of luxury tax room tied up in 3 players - one of which was the second best player on a crappy team and the other might never be any better than Kwame Brown.

The salary cap, idiot, does in fact matter quite a bit. That's because once you get over it, which the Lewis and Howard deal will pretty much do to Orlando for the next 6 years, you're greatly constrained in your ability to add talent to your team. Who's going to trade or do a sign-and-trade for anyone else on Orlando's current roster, because that's the only way the Magic can add any more talent.

And where exactly did you find a list of teams willing to give Rashard Lewis a 5 year, 75 million dollar deal? I didn't see any of the other teams under the cap getting in line to do that, and the teams over the cap don't have anything Seattle would want in a trade so it doesn't matter what they want.

Orlando is giving Rashard Lewis a 6 year contract worth at least 110 million dollars. That's the reality, not your theory. Are you going to defend that, or are you going to chicken out like you previously indicated?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 11, 2007 3:09 PM

"His detractors (namely Petey) seem to resort primarily to name calling and condescension as debate tactics"

I actually find a bit of name calling and condescension are wonderful tactics when I know precisely what I'm talking about and someone else is clueless.

I tend to be far more polite when that particular dynamic isn't present.

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 3:22 PM

By the way, Petey, I just did some calculations and Lewis' 6 year, at least 110 million dollar deal and Howard's expected 5 year, 85 million dollar deal averages out to about 35 million a year for the two of them (a little less in the first few years, a bit more in the last few). So unless the NBA Luxury Tax Limit increases to well over 100 million dollars (over 40 million more than it was last season), those two deals will take up way more than a third of Orlando's luxury tax space as quickly as the season after next.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 11, 2007 3:25 PM

Petey - "I actually find a bit of name calling and condescension are wonderful tactics when I know precisely what I'm talking about and someone else is clueless."

You know, I respect a guy more if he's just as ass all the time. Being an ass only when you think you're right is not only counter-productive but it's a fairly weenie way to behave.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 11, 2007 3:28 PM

"Orlando is giving Rashard Lewis a 6 year contract worth at least 110 million dollars. That's the reality, not your theory. Are you going to defend that, or are you going to chicken out like you previously indicated?"

Chicken out? Are you 12 years old?

I thought I was pretty clear upthread. The 5yr deal seemed like a no-brainer to me from Orlando's perspective. The 6yr deal is a bit more troubling.

They're going to be paying $25m for a 35yo in that final year.

But, since they had competition willing to offer Lewis the 6yr deal, it was that or nothing. And if I were Otis Smith, I think I would've thought about it for 30 seconds, swallowed hard about the final year, and done the deal.

They'll definitely be overpaying in the last year or two, but that seems a reasonable tradeoff for what they're getting. In a lot of senses, Orlando didn't really have a choice here. Their future without signing Lewis simply wasn't very appetizing.

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 3:32 PM

"You know, I respect a guy more if he's just as ass all the time."

Jesus. You are 12 years old, aren't you.

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 3:34 PM

I have no problem with tying up a ton of money in just two players if they're worth it, but Rashard Lewis isn't. In fact, Petey, given how convinced you've been in the past that small forwards are rarely game-changers, I'm surprised to hear you defending the deal, even apart from the fact that Lewis simply isn't that great. Is Orlando going to contend for a title in the next two to three years because of Lewis? No, of course not. So why tie so much to him? Why not accept sucking for another year while Howard develops and then see what you can add through the draft, free agency, or trade next year, especially at point guard?

As to the arguments about Berri's "system," I'll just repeat what I said initially: statistics are useful to GMs insofar as they help you evaluate deals in the context of the whole team. Knowing that Lewis is a better small forward than power forward doesn't help you do that in any significant way.

Take the shift from considering batting average to OBP and slugging percentage as important indicators of offensive contribution. Does it make any difference to know how well a guy bats at various spots in the order? It shouldn't.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 11, 2007 3:50 PM

"Why not accept sucking for another year while Howard develops and then see what you can add through the draft, free agency, or trade next year, especially at point guard?"

When Howard's extension kicks into effect, their cap space will disappear.

The Magic are in a use it or lose it situation. This is their only summer to be able to grab an elite player.

And I'd rather pay Rashard $15m than Gerald Wallace $10m. It seems a far safer bet to me.

-------

"In fact, Petey, given how convinced you've been in the past that small forwards are rarely game-changers, I'm surprised to hear you defending the deal"

I hear you loud and clear.

But at the end of the day, I think this is Howard's team and they'll get as far as Howard will carry them. But Howard may not be a real scorer. So he needs a scoring running mate.

To get historical, I think the model here is Howard as Moses Malone and Lewis as Dr. J. That title winner was Malone's team, but since Moses had offensive limitations, having a guy like Erving could provide synergy.

(Lots of ways that's an imperfect model, but you get the point.)

A SF isn't the best guy to base your team around, but it's not a bad second star to have when your main guy is a bruiser inside.

And I think Lewis is a bit more elite than the consensus around here has it, as well.

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 5:01 PM

Petey, you expect me to believe that the fact that the Sixers went 5-10 prior to Iverson quitting somehow supports your view that the Sixers didn't improve by trading him for Miller? By any measure, the sixers were better with Miller than with Iverson. But, as we know, you are a member of the reality-based communty where up is down and 5-10 is better than 29-28. But you're right that the Sixers screwed up by gwetting the better player in Miller - they should have tanked the season to get Oden... Because we all see how well that worked for the Celtics.

Posted by Al | July 11, 2007 9:36 PM

Also, the rest of the NBA seems to agree with Lewis isn't that "elite", seeing as how he's only made a single all-star team. I can see that in an up-and-coming elite player who isn't known widely yet, but not a supposedly "elite" player who's been in the league for 9 years already.

Posted by Al | July 11, 2007 9:49 PM

This thread is probably dead, but I do want to recommend my own work here for possible inclusion in the anti-WoW FAQ.

It takes a little while for me to develop my argument but, ultimately, I argue that (1) WoW overvalues rebounds, even using it's own logic and (2) this fact can be seen with an example of two teams, one of which uses possessions more efficiently but, in the process, generates more defensive rebound opportunities for the opposing team, and the team that is less officient, but gives it's opponents fewer rebounding opportunities. The second team rates higher in WoW calculation despite being the less efficient team.

I still believe that there are good ideas worth salvaging from Wages of Wins, but once I figured out the above I feel completely conviced that it needs revision.

Posted by NickS | July 11, 2007 11:45 PM

NickS - As your correspondent on that thread, I have to add (to this possibly dead thread) that your arguments were somewhat unfounded. You failed to understand the distinction between Win Score and Wins Produced, which is why the numbers weren't coming out right for you, a point I made at the time. There is no discrepancy when he calculates his numbers using the full method. There may be valid criticisms of his method, but I don't think that specific post you linked to qualifies as such.

Interesting thread here with many insightful comments, especially before Petey got involved. Berri is being misunderstood I think, as frequently happens. It seems to me almost everyone here agrees Rashard Lewis, while a great player, doesn't deserve a max contract, which is Berri's main point. It also seems unlikely that this move will catapult the Magic into championship contention. And if it doesn't, the opportunity cost of Lewis will probably be a true superstar who could do so a few years down the line, if paired with Howard.

To me Ibid got it exactly right when he said:

"a) Lewis is an excellent player, and (b) he can play power forward, it doesn't follow that he should get paid for being an excellent power forward. He should get paid for being an excellent small forward, with maybe a bonus for his power forward skills, which would still be less than for an excellent power forward. So his argument in this case is that Lewis is not as valuable as an excellent power forward, not that he is not as valuable as an excellent small forward who can't play power forward. I can't weigh in on the truth of this, but it is logical if you think power forwards are significantly more valuable than small forwards."

And I would add that in Berri's system, power forwards and centers are in fact considered significantly more productive than small forwards and guards.

Posted by Flint | July 12, 2007 12:43 PM

"And I would add that in Berri's system, power forwards and centers are in fact considered significantly more productive than small forwards and guards."

This seems like a flaw in the system (or a symptom of the flaw, which is that he ridiculously overweights rebounds). Does anyone who's ever actually watched a basketball game think that power forward, in general, contribute a lot more than point guards?

Some stat dude whose name I can't remember did an analysis years ago to try to determine the most valuable positions. He looked at the correlation between having an elite player at a certain position, and team performance -- how many games did the teams with the best point guards win, as opposed to the best centers, etc? He found that good point guards and good centers were the most valuable, followed by small forwards, then shooting guards and power forwards. No, I can't find a link for this, nor can I even remember the magazine I read it in. I think it was back in the early 90s Jordan era, though, so things might have changed.

Posted by too many steves | July 12, 2007 12:52 PM

Too many steves: Not only would I agree that point guards and centers are most valuable, they are also scarcest. You can always overpay for a good center or point guard for both reasons. I would not agree that power forwards are less valuable than small forwards, but I think it's a much smaller difference in any event.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 12, 2007 1:14 PM

Flint, it's true that we never convinced each other. You say that the numbers work out properly when the more complicated Wins Produced metric is used rather than Win Score.

But in my May 20 5:20 post I tried doing the calculations using the Wins Produced weights and ended up with exactly the same results. I don't remember you ever finding a flaw with that, you just responded by saying "Clearly, Wins Produced is going to come out clean any way you slice it. There may be fatal flaws in his approach, but the numbers adding up is not going to be it. I dont think he gets the book published or an economics professorship without being able to get that right." which begs the question.

I never did respond to your point that it does work if you only include defensive rebounds and not offensive rebounds, but the whole point of my argument was that the sum of the weights that he gives to offensive and defensive rebounds is off, so that either weight could be correct in isolation, but that they can't both be correct.

Posted by NickS | July 12, 2007 1:17 PM

Apologies, for going somewhat off topic (and decending into minutia) in my last comment, but I happen to think it's interesting.

Posted by NickS | July 12, 2007 1:19 PM

NickS -

When calculating Win Score, one does not account for opponent 3 pt and 2 Pt field goals made. That is the source of the error you correctly identified in your posts. I actually hadn't really thought it through when we were posting. I thought Win Score should work out correctly. But it obviously doesn't. It was designed as a quick and dirty metric to capture a snapshot of performance in one real NBA game. And it does an excellent job at that. But you can create a hypothetical scenario where the numbers get wacky.

However, with Wins Produced, the numbers work out. Opponent Field goals made are deducted from the player's total. This happens at the team level in Berri's work. (the defensive adjustment people get worked up about.) In your scenario, which was 1-on-1, they should be deducted from the players total And if you do so, the numbers do work perfectly,

I think my May 20 post at 621 was my clearest response (i didn't have too many.) If you calculate the numbers in that fashion, i.e. with deductions for made field goals, they do work out correctly.

Hope that is a satisfactory response...

Posted by Flint | July 12, 2007 2:11 PM

I guess my challenge to you, is to get the numbers to work for my example. You got the numbers to work out by removing one element of the example (offensive rebounds) and that my point, made at 1:17 above, was that the numbers can work including either offensive rebounds or defensive rebounds but not both.

What I would say is that if you can get the numbers to work for that example using both offensive and defensive rebounds than you should post it in that APBRMetrics thread.

I would be quite pleased if you could get the numbers to work for my example.

Posted by NickS | July 12, 2007 2:19 PM

"Also, the rest of the NBA seems to agree with Lewis isn't that "elite"

So why were teams lining up to offer him a $110m deal then?

Posted by Petey | July 12, 2007 7:09 PM

"WoW overvalues rebounds, even using it's own logic"

I have no idea if you are correct about this or not, NickS, but even if you are wrong and WoW follows its own internal logic, I still the way it weights rebounds is plainly absurd.

Posted by Petey | July 12, 2007 7:12 PM

NickS - Honestly, getting into all those fractions and decimals doesn't really interest me. It was a very untidy, non real world example, and my math isn't that good. But if you do what i did in the comment I cited, the numbers will come out right.

As i said, there may be many problems with Wins Produced, but the numbers not adding up as you suggest they don't just isn't one of them. I can't remember accomplished statheads like Rosenbaum making that point either. The defensive adjustment may be a fudge factor, but it at least is one the makes the numbers square. Rebounds may be overvalued, but its not because of a numbers glitch.

Petey - Your answer. Because NBA GM's are morons. Rashard Lewis gets 110. Gerald Wallace gets 57. Orlando would have been much better off with Wallace. Berri had him at a .335 last year, and NBA Babble has him at a .245 this year. He is already a better player than Lewis. And he would have left them with money to acquire a third piece. You will say that Lewis is the perfect complement with his outside shooting range, unlike Wallace, but I don't think thats the case.

The Bobcats are looking good, Okafor, Wallace, and Richardson. Just imagine if they had taken Roy rather than Morrison...

Posted by Flint | July 12, 2007 10:21 PM

"Orlando would have been much better off with Wallace. Berri had him at a .335 last year"

But I think Berri's system is fundamentally flawed, and that his numbers are not a particularly good measure of player value.

"He is already a better player than Lewis."

Any system that massively overweights rebounds is going to undervalue a player like Lewis.

The Berri dittoheads don't have much grasp of how things actually work.

"And he would have left them with money to acquire a third piece."

If Orlando had wanted to sign Wallace, they'd have had to pay him quite a bit more than $57m, obviously. The real comparison isn't 110 vs 57, it's 110 vs 80. And no one with a higher IQ than Berri would take Wallace over Lewis in that situation.

Posted by Petey | July 12, 2007 10:42 PM

Petey -- Yes, I do think that my arguments are, largely, an attempt to add rigor to a relatively common sense critique. I also think it's ibteresting to delve into Wow a little bit to try to separate some of the ideas that I think are important and worth salvaging from some of the sloppiness.

Flint -- I do appreciate your willingness to be a guide through some of the details of WoW that I had forgotten, but I'm starting to get annoyed by the feeling that you aren't willing to engage my argument.

1) If I construct an example that I say reveals problems, it isn't a response to construct a different example and say, "it works in this case." That just raises the obvious question of why would it work in one case and not in another -- a question that I am quite interested in trying answer and which you don't seem to think it at all interesting.

The defensive adjustment may be a fudge factor, but it at least is one the makes the numbers square.

2) This may be true but is also not convincing. You seem to be accepting Rosenbaum's argument that a team adjustment can make any set of numbers add up on the team level, not matter how messed up the original numbers are. That is not a convincing argument for Wages of Wins.

3) Enough with the aguments from authority. It was annoying when you said, "I dont think he gets the book published or an economics professorship without being able to get that right." Which just argues, "because Berri has qualifications everything he says must chech out." But to argue, "I don't think your criticism is correct because it isn't a criticism that Rosenbaum has made" utterly fails to convince me of anything because I believe that I am making a new criticism. What's more, I don't think that Dan Rosnebaum has a monopoly on criticisms of David Berri.

Finally, Flint, I'll say again what I said in the APBRMetrics thread -- as far as I'm concerned you should be excited about the questions that I'm asking. If you think Wages of Wins is trying to do something interesting in explaing basketball, than me asking questions is just a way to make it better. If someone said to me that they found a problem in the way that DeanO calculated Ortg, I'd want to know. I use Ortg as a summary statistic all the time, and if it had a problem, and there was a way to make it better. I'd rather have a better Ortg than a flawed Ortg.

You seem more interested in defending the idea that Berri must be correct in what he's written than in actually working through the strengths and weaknesses of his approach.

Posted by NickS | July 12, 2007 11:40 PM

Rashard Lewis Revisited

Comments (112)