The 10 Win Shares Rule

[PhoSita]

On a whim, I decided to take a look at the Win Shares totals during the regular season of players on championship teams in recent seasons.  I noticed a trend, and as I continued going back further in time, the trend kept going.

The following is a list of the regular season WS leaders for each of the NBA champion teams since the 1979-1980 season (Magic's rookie season).  This is a sample that spans over 30 seasons.

2013: LeBron -- 19.3 WS
2012: LeBron -- 14.5 WS
2011: Dirk Nowitzki -- 11.1 WS
2010: Pau Gasol -- 11.0 WS
2009: Pau Gasol -- 13.9 WS
2008: Kevin Garnett -- 12.9 WS
2007: Tim Duncan -- 13.0 WS
2006: Dwyane Wade -- 14.4 WS
2005: Tim Duncan -- 11.2 WS
2004: Chauncey Billups -- 11.3 WS
2003: Tim Duncan -- 16.5 WS
2002: Shaquille O'Neal -- 13.2 WS
2001: Shaquille O'Neal -- 14.9 WS
2000: Shaquille O'Neal -- 18.6 WS
1999: Tim Duncan -- 8.7 WS*
1998: Michael Jordan -- 15.8 WS
1997: Michael Jordan -- 18.3 WS
1996: Michael Jordan -- 20.4 WS
1995: Hakeem Olajuwon -- 10.7 WS
1994: Hakeem Olajuwon -- 14.3 WS
1993: Michael Jordan -- 17.2 WS
1992: Michael Jordan -- 17.7 WS
1991: Michael Jordan -- 20.3 WS
1990: Bill Laimbeer -- 10.1 WS
1989: Bill Laimbeer -- 9.0 WS
1988: Magic Johnson -- 10.9 WS
1987: Magic Johnson -- 15.9 WS
1986: Larry Bird -- 15.8 WS
1985: Magic Johnson -- 12.7 WS
1984: Larry Bird -- 13.6 WS
1983: Moses Malone -- 15.1 WS
1982: Magic Johnson -- 12.9 WS
1981: Cedric Maxwell -- 11.0 WS
1980: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar -- 14.8 WS

*(over 50 games --> 14.27 WS per 82 games)

Do you see what I see? 

With one exception, every NBA champion since 1980 has had at least one player that earned 10 win shares or more (in 1999, the season was shortened to 50 games, but Tim Duncan as on a 14+ WS pace).  That one exception came in 1989, when Bill Laimbeer was the Win Shares leader of the Detroit Pistons with only 9 Win Shares.

Make of this what you will.  The Win Shares stat is not perfect, and what's more, I can't profess to know exactly how it is calculated.  I do know that it is to some extent dependent on team-wide success, so that a team that wins a lot of games will typically have a couple players with a lot of Win Shares, but a very good player on a weak team might not have that many. 

In any case, I thought this was an interesting trend that could add to the oft-rehashed debate over the need for a superstar (or three) to win a championship.

Based on this "rule," it's fair to assert that, perhaps, a condition for a player being a "franchise" player is their ability to be a 10+ Win Shares player, assuming they are on a team talented enough to win a decent number of games.

If you believe this "rule" has any efficacy, then the following question must be asked: if the Celtics are to win another championship, who will the player be who gets the 10 Win Shares, and how will the Celtics acquire that player?

Is he already on the team?
Will they draft that player?
Will they sign that player in free agency?
Will they trade for that player?


Points of interest:

- In 2008-2009, Rajon Rondo had a career-best 9.9 Win Shares (3rd on the team --> Garnett had 7.6 WS through 57 games).  Really shows you how talented that 2008-2009 team was.

- The following season, Rondo had 9.6 Win Shares.  He has never gained more than 7.2 Win Shares in any of his other seasons.

- Jeff Green's career best Win Shares total is 6.6. 

- Jordan Crawford leads the Celtics this season with 2.6 Win Shares; he is on pace for 8.9 Win Shares.

- Last season, 10 players earned 10 WS or more: LeBron, Durant, Paul, Harden, Westbrook, Marc Gasol, Curry, Kobe, Deron, and Griffin.

- Those players, in order, were acquired in the following ways: Free Agency, Draft (#2), Trade, Trade, Draft (#4), Trade (as unsigned 2nd round pick), Draft (#7), Draft-Trade (#13), Trade, Draft (#1).

- Had Ray Allen's desperation 3 at the end of Game 6 not gone in and the Spurs had won the 2012-2013 NBA title, the Spurs would have become just the second team in the sample listed above to win without a 10 Win Shares earner.  Tony Parker was the Spurs' regular season Win Shares earner with 9.3 WS.

[pokeKingCurtis]

Have been trying to find this thread.

I'm not a big stats guy - because I'm not great at it. I may be completely off base here:

In a nutshell Basketball-reference's win share calculations (which seems to be the one you're using) is the total of offensive and defensive win shares.

Offensive and defensive win shares are calculated with the player's offensive and defensive ratings (points (allowed) per 100 possession).

This is compared to league average points per possession to get a marginal number.

Finally, wins are distributed proportionally to each player.



The allusion here is that you need a good player(s) to win. I can't disagree with that. Naturally a great player will generate a higher ORtg and DRtg (and wins**).

But interestingly, I've come to another conclusion (a reaffirmation of a popular belief) as I'm typing this...

Obviously, since win shares are a function of the team's wins: the better the team, the more wins and the more win shares.

Offensive and defensive ratings can be inflated by other players. The Pacers this year is a very nice case in point. Guys like Scola and CJ Watson getting fantastic numbers thanks to Hibbert, Mahinmi, and the Pacers' culture and philosophy.

One guy cannot win it all.



As such I think Ainge has done a splendid job hiring Brad Stevens. Whether he tanks or not, you need the hardware and the software, and BS is looking like very good software and an awesome asset for years to come.

Getting our 5 shooting guards, 2 small forwards and 4 power forwards (!!!!) to fit and be (semi-) competitive is impressive. I cannot wait until BS gets a better roster.

For reference:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

[GreenWarrior]

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.

[PhoSita]

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.

The college game is different enough that the statistics use to measure players at the different levels typically don't line up.

The guys who evaluate college players for a living are well aware of that and know ways of adjusting the stats to get a rough estimate of how effective players will be at the next level, but its far from an exact science.

[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.

[GreenWarrior]

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.

The college game is different enough that the statistics use to measure players at the different levels typically don't line up.

The guys who evaluate college players for a living are well aware of that and know ways of adjusting the stats to get a rough estimate of how effective players will be at the next level, but its far from an exact science.

I had my suspicions. which is another reason why I don't put much merit into this stat.

[PhoSita]

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.

The college game is different enough that the statistics use to measure players at the different levels typically don't line up.

The guys who evaluate college players for a living are well aware of that and know ways of adjusting the stats to get a rough estimate of how effective players will be at the next level, but its far from an exact science.

I had my suspicions. which is another reason why I don't put much merit into this stat.

I guess I don't really understand your point.  This thread has nothing to do with college players, or evaluating college players.

It has everything to do with how winning teams are constructed.

[Evantime34]

Let me make sure I get the point of this thread correct. You are saying that to win a title you need an elite player.

The question is how do we acquire such a player? Tank and hope one of the top 7 can be such a player? Trade picks for one? Improve the ancillary pieces to hope that it allows our best players like Rondo to improve.

Last year there were only 10 players with 10 or more win shares, I think it's unlikely we acquire one via trade (Marc Gasol is the only one not currently on a winning team).

Logically it makes sense to tank and try to get an elite player that way, but I am way too much of instant gratification person to root for the C's to lose.

[PhoSita]

Let me make sure I get the point of this thread correct. You are saying that to win a title you need an elite player.

I'm trying to avoid drawing any wide sweeping conclusions, mainly just pointing out this trend that I found and seeing what other people make of it.

But yeah, I think that's the common sense conclusion to make of this.  No, it's not an earth-shattering revelation, but considering how often there has been debate over whether a team actually needs a superstar (or regular season success) to win a championship, I think this helps inform that debate a bit.

[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.

[ManUp]

I don't know much about advance stats, but the stats seems to agree with a few thing I consider to be true.

1.) Gasol has been more vital to the Lakers success than Kobe during their contention.

2.) Garnett and Pierce were pretty much equals in terms of importance to team success in 08.

3.) Chris Paul was the true MVP of the 2007-8 season and not Kobe.

4.) Carmelo is a bit overrated.

[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.

[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.

[GreenWarrior]

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.

The college game is different enough that the statistics use to measure players at the different levels typically don't line up.

The guys who evaluate college players for a living are well aware of that and know ways of adjusting the stats to get a rough estimate of how effective players will be at the next level, but its far from an exact science.

I had my suspicions. which is another reason why I don't put much merit into this stat.

I guess I don't really understand your point.  This thread has nothing to do with college players, or evaluating college players.

It has everything to do with how winning teams are constructed.

well, it just seems like that formula is telling me something I already know. for example like a previous poster(going by the list you provided) had said "Carmelo Anthony is a little overrated", is something I've believed for a long time.

I understood it wasn't about college players and that it was about how winning teams are constructed. I just figured that maybe this formula would be more informative(in general) &  as to which players will transition better to the pro's. other than that it's really not telling me anything I don't already know. I mean I get it Lebron is good.

[yoursweatersux]

I don't know much about advance stats, but the stats seems to agree with a few thing I consider to be true.

1.) Gasol has been more vital to the Lakers success than Kobe during their contention.

2.) Garnett and Pierce were pretty much equals in terms of importance to team success in 08.

3.) Chris Paul was the true MVP of the 2007-8 season and not Kobe.

4.) Carmelo is a bit overrated.

As a matter of fact, pretty much every advanced stat leads to these conclusions, so I'd say it's pretty likely that they're all true.

The sole "advanced" stat that says otherwise is PER, which is just a crap stat that I wish would die. I've posted numerous times that I hate it but I feel like I should explain why...

PER rewards high volume, low efficiency shooters like Carmelo Anthony by increasing as that player increases shot attempts - even if those shots tend not to go in. To steal from David Berri's criticism:

"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

So you can see that simply by jacking up shots PER will evaluate you highly, even if you're killing your team. That's why PER has some absolutely comical results... for example, according to PER the Knicks should be pretty good right now thanks to Carmelo's 23.9 rating, Bargnani's 17.2 rating, and everybody else putting up close-to-average ratings. The reality is that their offensive rating is 18th in the league, and why? Because the two Knicks players with the most attempts have TS%'s of 54% and 52%. If we compare that to, say, the Rockets, we see that Harden has a TS% of 59%, Dwight is at 59%, and Parsons is at 60%.For comparison, the Rockets' offense is ranked 3rd in the league. So Carmelo Anthony and Bargnani, these two supposedly "great" offensive players, are leading their teams to completely inept offensive performances at the hands of their low-efficiency, high-volume scoring, and PER is idiotically telling us that Bargnani is quite good and that Carmelo is a superstar. What a joke.