I'm guessing this is the article you're to which you refer:
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/01/06/put-em-in-coach-theyre-ready-to-play/
It's a good read.
Yup. Which reminds me of another problem with the guys over at wages of wins: they REFUSE to account for the competition.
The sixers have been posting up big wins produced because they've been playing against scrubbish teams, period, end of story.
Yet for some reason the wages of wins guys have this near-religious belief that their system is always an accurate representation of a player or team's ability no matter what. I guarantee if you asked them to project Philly's wins for the rest of the season based on this stretch, they'd say "well, it's a small sample size" as opposed to the real reason: it's just a crappy sample against inferior competition.
edit: the poster above me is also right in the sense that wages of wins (or any box score-derived advances stat) fails to account for strong man-to-man defense. Sure, rebounding, blocks, and steals are part of defense, but it leads to a pretty big underestimation of guys who play stellar on-ball defense like Rondo (when he's motivated).
That said, I still think wages of wins is the best advanced stat, and is extremely reliable so long as you account for defense independently, and recognize when a player is having an abnormally good or bad season that he's unlikely to repeat (also, sample size).