Kobe Bryant Is An All Time Great, Unless You Do The Math: VICE

[Remote]

I came in here and addressed the article with evidence to back up why it's nonsense -

I addressed that directly.

I can't say the same for you -

If you knew how Wins Produced is formulated and its long list of shortcomings, you wouldn't be saying some generalized shyt like this. The only perception this metric shatters, is the person who created it.

All you did was say that the metric is stupid yet you pointed toward NO reason why it is.
The only thing you said was that it was silly to use one metric to rate a player.

Well no shyt, Sherlock. I've said the exact same thing SEVERAL times in this thread.

You're going in circles rather than making any argument as to why the stat is incorrect in its assessment of efficiency.

And the reason seems to be because you can't.

 

[Dominicansbelit]

You heard it here first folks, Deandre Jordan is a much better player than a prime Kobe.

scoring a lot of points at high efficiency..

 

[Trip]

Offensive and defensive rebounds have the exact same value in the formula, making your point null and void.

nah they adjusted that

Wins Produced comes back better and stronger! | The Wages of Wins Journal

Once this adjustment is made, though, we do need a new Win Score. Previously each defensive rebound had the same value as a point, steal, offensive rebound, etc… . Because we are taking into account how a player will take some defensive rebounds from teammates, the value of a defensive rebound will now be lower. To ascertain how much lower, a model was estimated where a player’s WP48 was regressed on the following per 48 minute statistics (adjusted for position played): Points, Offensive Rebounds, Defensive Rebounds, Steals, Blocked Shots, Assists, Turnovers, Personal Fouls, Field Goal Attempts, and Free Throw Attempts. From this regression we see that 98% of the variation in WP48 was explained by these statistics.** Furthermore, the estimated weights yield the following Win Score model.

Win Score = PTS + STL + ORB + 0.5*DRB + 0.5*AST + 0.5*BLK – TOV – FGA – 0.5*FTA – 0.5*PF

 

[Trip]

You must mean 2001 because he wasn't even top 10 in ORB% in 2000. That doesn't change the fact he's nowhere near peak Shaq's level or frankly any all-timer's level. The metric completely ignores several things, diminishing returns on increased usage being a big one.

I can't stress enough how important context is and this and several catch all metrics ignore context. In a ecosystem like a basketball game there's more to individual value than box score data and what a custom metric tells you. What people should care more about when evaluating players (and when evaluating life in general) is why it happens, not what happens.

I never said Mutombo was near Shaq's level. He wasnt...but his prime years he was probably underrated. And yeah I meant 2001.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

nah they adjusted that

Wins Produced comes back better and stronger! | The Wages of Wins Journal

Once this adjustment is made, though, we do need a new Win Score. Previously each defensive rebound had the same value as a point, steal, offensive rebound, etc… . Because we are taking into account how a player will take some defensive rebounds from teammates, the value of a defensive rebound will now be lower. To ascertain how much lower, a model was estimated where a player’s WP48 was regressed on the following per 48 minute statistics (adjusted for position played): Points, Offensive Rebounds, Defensive Rebounds, Steals, Blocked Shots, Assists, Turnovers, Personal Fouls, Field Goal Attempts, and Free Throw Attempts. From this regression we see that 98% of the variation in WP48 was explained by these statistics.** Furthermore, the estimated weights yield the following Win Score model.

Win Score = PTS + STL + ORB + 0.5*DRB + 0.5*AST + 0.5*BLK – TOV – FGA – 0.5*FTA – 0.5*PF

How to calculate Wins Produced | The Wages of Wins Journal

The only real adjustment made is how many defensive rebounds are lost to teammates - team defensive rebounds are multiplied by -0.504 per how many minutes the player plays - besides all the context that's void in this formula, the intrinsic value of a defensive and offensive rebound is all the same. Players that don't get as many defensive rebounds, their value increases - meaning offensive rebounds for a player are really lost in the noise and don't have any notable higher influence on one's Wins Produced (especially Mutumbo who wasnt even one of the best offensive rebounders that season).

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

All you did was say that the metric is stupid yet you pointed toward NO reason why it is.
The only thing you said was that it was silly to use one metric to rate a player.

Is a link that's detailing what's wrong with WP produced, not me pointing towards a reason for why it is -

David Berri doesn't know the meaning of "truth finding". He doesn't understand basketball and he doesn't understand context. Nobody in their right mind would use ONE metric (a heavily flawed one at that) to determine the value of a player.

How Wins Produced Fails in Being the Magical Assessor of Player Value - this pretty much goes into detail with what's wrong with "Wins Produced".

Can you not read/and or click on links?

Well no shyt, Sherlock. I've said the exact same thing SEVERAL times in this thread.

Now you're lying. The very first post you had in this thread was alluding to the fact you had credence in this metric.

You're going in circles rather than making any argument as to why the stat is incorrect in its assessment of efficiency.

And the reason seems to be because you can't.

Like I more or less said above - you have a hard time reading and/or clicking on links.

 

[Saint1]

lol u put kobe over magic.. hold dis L

you fool. Magic put Kobe over Magic.

 

[Dominicansbelit]

you fool. Magic put Kobe over Magic.

umm.. so?
michael jordan is the goat but the worse gm in history

 

[Shadow King]

Nonetheless they put the ball in the hoop better than kobe does.. learn about basketball breh.. kobe is great but not top 10

I know about basketball...as far as scoring 2 of 3 don't have 30,000 points and it's unrealistic expect a 6'6" jumpshooting guard to the same FG% as bigs who score around the rim. And as far as accomplishments 2 of 3 of them don't even have a ring to Kobe's 5. Winning and longevity also factor into Kobe's place in history.

He actually isn't solidified Top 10 really its arguable but I'm arguing over any of those 3

 

[The_Sheff]

scoring a lot of points at high efficiency..

Oh so now you have a qualifier to go with your FG% stat, its almost as if you are saying you cant simply use one stat to define how good a player is...............................almost exactly what everyone who has been going to town on this article has said.

 

[MoneyTron]

At this point, its really irrelevant.

Kobe is a top 10 all-time player, 2nd all-time SG, 5-time champion, 17x All-Star, 11x All-NBA 1st Team, 3rd leading scorer of all-time, arguably the greatest player of his generation, and has the respect of peers that played before and after him.

All the rest of this shyt...

 

[Sccit]

It's logical, it's just above some people.

DO U THINK KAREEM ABDUL JABBAR USED ANALYTICS?

 

[Sccit]

At this point, its really irrelevant.

Kobe is a top 10 all-time player, 2nd all-time SG, 5-time champion, 17x All-Star, 11x All-NBA 1st Team, 3rd leading scorer of all-time, arguably the greatest player of his generation, and has the respect of peers that played before and after him.

All the rest of this shyt...

AND ALL THIS RECENT BS HAS PEOPLE THINKING KOBE IS ONLY A TOP 10 WHEN PEOPLE WERE ARGUING KOBE VS JORDAN FOR GOAT WHEN HE WAS IN HIS PRIME .. IF HE AINT ON YOUR NBA MOUNT RUSHMORE AT THE VERY LEAST, THEN U TRIPPIN, BOTTOM LINE.

 

[Bilz]

DO U THINK KAREEM ABDUL JABBAR USED ANALYTICS?

Absolutely.

 

[Osmosis]

David Berri doesn't know the meaning of "truth finding". He doesn't understand basketball and he doesn't understand context. Nobody in their right mind would use ONE metric (a heavily flawed one at that) to determine the value of a player.

How Wins Produced Fails in Being the Magical Assessor of Player Value - this pretty much goes into detail with what's wrong with "Wins Produced".