The 10 Win Shares Rule

[PhoSita]

One guy cannot win it all.

This is obviously true.  It is a team game.  Most of the champions I listed above had 2-3 other players who had 7+ Win Shares as well.

But the list above shows that virtually every team that wins a championship is built around at least one player that stands head and shoulders above the rest and carries a disproportionate share of the load.

  Since the 2000 season 75 different players have had 10+ win share seasons, over 30 have done it 3 or more times. Getting such a player is obviously desirable but doesn't exactly guarantee success.

I made no claims as to causation.

Getting a player who can carry that load doesn't guarantee a championship by any means.

But it does appear that winning a title requires you to have such a player.  It is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for contention.

  Sure, you need great players to win titles. But I think there's kind of a "make the data fit the pattern" aspect of this. You had to bring your (arbitrary) cutoff point low enough to insure that all of the teams fit your pattern that you end up with some (relatively) mediocre players meeting your criteria.

That the cutoff was that low was actually one thing I found interesting.  Although I don't know if you can call these players "mediocre" considering that in an average season there'll be a pretty limited set of players reaching that cutoff point.

Also interesting that Gasol and Laimbeer were considered the top contributors for those teams (WS is known to give extra credit to big men for grabbing so many rebounds).


The cutoff point is arbitrary, I guess.  But I just found it interesting that you can set a bright line like that and see that nearly every single champion has a player who falls above that line, and most are comfortably above it.

[BballTim]

One guy cannot win it all.

This is obviously true.  It is a team game.  Most of the champions I listed above had 2-3 other players who had 7+ Win Shares as well.

But the list above shows that virtually every team that wins a championship is built around at least one player that stands head and shoulders above the rest and carries a disproportionate share of the load.

  Since the 2000 season 75 different players have had 10+ win share seasons, over 30 have done it 3 or more times. Getting such a player is obviously desirable but doesn't exactly guarantee success.

I made no claims as to causation.

Getting a player who can carry that load doesn't guarantee a championship by any means.

But it does appear that winning a title requires you to have such a player.  It is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for contention.

  Sure, you need great players to win titles. But I think there's kind of a "make the data fit the pattern" aspect of this. You had to bring your (arbitrary) cutoff point low enough to insure that all of the teams fit your pattern that you end up with some (relatively) mediocre players meeting your criteria.

That the cutoff was that low was actually one thing I found interesting.  Although I don't know if you can call these players "mediocre" considering that in an average season there'll be a pretty limited set of players reaching that cutoff point.

Also interesting that Gasol and Laimbeer were considered the top contributors for those teams (WS is known to give extra credit to big men for grabbing so many rebounds).


The cutoff point is arbitrary, I guess.  But I just found it interesting that you can set a bright line like that and see that nearly every single champion has a player who falls above that line, and most are comfortably above it.

  I meant mediocre in terms of "carries a disproportionate size of the load". In terms of the "bright line", all you're doing is finding the low point for most title teams and setting the line there. That's the point I was getting at, because the large majority of players who hit that line, even the majority of players that hit it (IIRC) 3 or more times are never top players on title teams.

[PhoSita]

That's the point I was getting at, because the large majority of players who hit that line, even the majority of players that hit it (IIRC) 3 or more times are never top players on title teams.

Sure.  That's definitely a fair point.

This is similar to when people point out that the vast majority of teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning a title with that player.  It's a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate the original observation about the value of a top 5 pick.

A 10 Win Shares player appears to be a necessary condition for winning a title.  That's far from saying that having a player like that is a sufficient condition.  So take it for what it's worth, which maybe isn't much.  I just thought it was interesting.

[D.o.s.]

Interestingly, I also went back and looked at the data. The hard numbers. Nothing but the raw facts.


Not one NBA team has ever succeeded in the playoffs while wearing one of the sleeved jerseys.


A winning team must not wear sleeved jerseys in the playoffs.

[BballTim]

Interestingly, I also went back and looked at the data. The hard numbers. Nothing but the raw facts.


Not one NBA team has ever succeeded in the playoffs while wearing one of the sleeved jerseys.


A winning team must not wear sleeved jerseys in the playoffs.

  Haha. Not talking about PhoSita, but if someone said that most title teams had left-handed point guards there would be a constant stream of "bring back Delonte" threads here.

[Snakehead]

  Haha. Not talking about PhoSita, but if someone said that most title teams had left-handed point guards there would be a constant stream of "bring back Delonte" threads here.

Bound to get one of those soon anyways.

[fairweatherfan]

Interestingly, I also went back and looked at the data. The hard numbers. Nothing but the raw facts.


Not one NBA team has ever succeeded in the playoffs while wearing one of the sleeved jerseys.


A winning team must not wear sleeved jerseys in the playoffs.

If we had just stuck with it...

[D.o.s.]

If there's one thing I can give New York over Boston, it's their dedication to sleevelessness.

[BballTim]

That's the point I was getting at, because the large majority of players who hit that line, even the majority of players that hit it (IIRC) 3 or more times are never top players on title teams.

Sure.  That's definitely a fair point.

This is similar to when people point out that the vast majority of teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning a title with that player.  It's a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate the original observation about the value of a top 5 pick.

A 10 Win Shares player appears to be a necessary condition for winning a title.  That's far from saying that having a player like that is a sufficient condition.  So take it for what it's worth, which maybe isn't much.  I just thought it was interesting.

  Clearly I felt it was interesting enough to join into the conversation. I'm personally more interested in "what top teams have that other teams don't" than "what many/most teams, including title teams, have". Even then, though, it's a chicken and egg thing. PP was 2nd team all-nba in 2009 (21/6/4) but not in 2006 (27/7/5). If someone said you generally needed 2 players that were 1st or 2nd team all-nba to win a title, would PP be seen as that level of a player before KG came to town?

[guava_wrench]

I'm not even going to pretend that I know what "win shares" is or are. it seems like someone created this fancy new stat category so they didn't have to judge talent w/ their eyes.

which leads me to this question. do GM's use this stat when judging collegiate talent when drafting players? because this is where I see this stat category falling apart as we've seen plenty of highly successful college players that just flat out couldn't play in the NBA.

This has been the case since long before teams thought much about stats.

The reality is college players aren't very good. How many college players are good their rookie season? Of those, how many are starter quality? After the draft, there are still years of development that have to happen. There is no magic formula to let you know for sure how that development will pan out.

[guava_wrench]

If there's one thing I can give New York over Boston, it's their dedication to sleevelessness.

The carry over between the 2 pics? Belts.

[PhoSita]

That's the point I was getting at, because the large majority of players who hit that line, even the majority of players that hit it (IIRC) 3 or more times are never top players on title teams.

Sure.  That's definitely a fair point.

This is similar to when people point out that the vast majority of teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning a title with that player.  It's a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate the original observation about the value of a top 5 pick.

A 10 Win Shares player appears to be a necessary condition for winning a title.  That's far from saying that having a player like that is a sufficient condition.  So take it for what it's worth, which maybe isn't much.  I just thought it was interesting.

  Clearly I felt it was interesting enough to join into the conversation. I'm personally more interested in "what top teams have that other teams don't" than "what many/most teams, including title teams, have". Even then, though, it's a chicken and egg thing. PP was 2nd team all-nba in 2009 (21/6/4) but not in 2006 (27/7/5). If someone said you generally needed 2 players that were 1st or 2nd team all-nba to win a title, would PP be seen as that level of a player before KG came to town?

I think you'd have to look at Pierce's defensive numbers (advanced) to answer that question.  Did Pierce's defense improve a lot once he started playing next to KG?

[incoherent]

Good job looking up this information. I appreciate being able to see the list you compiled. TP for you.

I personally do feel this information is relevant. I also think most teams do as well.  Teams are out there doing whatever it takes to get that one franchise player like everyone on this list. Teams bend over backwards and trade away entire rosters to get players like these.

[BballTim]

That's the point I was getting at, because the large majority of players who hit that line, even the majority of players that hit it (IIRC) 3 or more times are never top players on title teams.

Sure.  That's definitely a fair point.

This is similar to when people point out that the vast majority of teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning a title with that player.  It's a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate the original observation about the value of a top 5 pick.

A 10 Win Shares player appears to be a necessary condition for winning a title.  That's far from saying that having a player like that is a sufficient condition.  So take it for what it's worth, which maybe isn't much.  I just thought it was interesting.

  Clearly I felt it was interesting enough to join into the conversation. I'm personally more interested in "what top teams have that other teams don't" than "what many/most teams, including title teams, have". Even then, though, it's a chicken and egg thing. PP was 2nd team all-nba in 2009 (21/6/4) but not in 2006 (27/7/5). If someone said you generally needed 2 players that were 1st or 2nd team all-nba to win a title, would PP be seen as that level of a player before KG came to town?

I think you'd have to look at Pierce's defensive numbers (advanced) to answer that question.  Did Pierce's defense improve a lot once he started playing next to KG?

  Pierce was always a good defender. His defense probably picked up somewhat due to his not having to carry the offense single-handledly, but not by a ton.

[yoursweatersux]

That's the point I was getting at, because the large majority of players who hit that line, even the majority of players that hit it (IIRC) 3 or more times are never top players on title teams.

Sure.  That's definitely a fair point.

This is similar to when people point out that the vast majority of teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning a title with that player.  It's a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate the original observation about the value of a top 5 pick.

A 10 Win Shares player appears to be a necessary condition for winning a title.  That's far from saying that having a player like that is a sufficient condition.  So take it for what it's worth, which maybe isn't much.  I just thought it was interesting.

  Clearly I felt it was interesting enough to join into the conversation. I'm personally more interested in "what top teams have that other teams don't" than "what many/most teams, including title teams, have". Even then, though, it's a chicken and egg thing. PP was 2nd team all-nba in 2009 (21/6/4) but not in 2006 (27/7/5). If someone said you generally needed 2 players that were 1st or 2nd team all-nba to win a title, would PP be seen as that level of a player before KG came to town?

That's not a chicken or the egg thing - that's just a really bad measurement. 1st/2nd team selections are really idiotic for the most part, completely subjective (and thus prone to error), and 100% unscientific. They also tend to be rewards for team success even if that player isn't so great.

It's not a chicken-or-the-egg fact to state that just about every team in the last 20 years that has won a championship has had a top 10 offense and a top 10 defense (with one or two exceptions, I think the Pistons had an epic defense that made up for an 11th ranked offense or something). Yeah, in theory you could make a championship team with a #1 offense and a #15 defense (a la the Nash-led Suns) but you're just making it hard on yourself. It feels obvious to state that the "10 win share rule" PhoSita has come up with isn't really a "rule" so much as it is a guideline. That guideline is basically this: you need to have a handful of very, very good players to win, unless you put together a completely stacked team like the Spurs, where everybody that gets minutes is better than average.