No what I said was correct. There is a correlation, but the formula does not incorporate how many wins your team has in its calculation of the number. You could say that it is easier for a player to acquire more win shares on a more talented team, but being on a team with more wins doesn’t necessarily mean your win shares will be boosted. Jokic has far and away the most win shares this season and his team was not close to having the most wins. Because the only thing it takes in to account for calculating win shares is what I cited earlier. Harden in his last season with us, after 3 games on a 1-2 team led the league in win shares, because again, your actual record doesn’t factor in. Edit: Another example of how your teams record does not factor in. In 2018 PJ Tucker played all 82 games for our league leading 65 win team, he amassed 3.9 win shares, which is a very small number. Because again the number is calculated by using stats that do not actually include what your teams record is.
Making the All Rookie First Team is important since it allows players and their agents to negotiate for a super max contract (25-30%) on their designated rookie scale extension if they make an All NBA team (1st to 3rd). Making First Team is important since it gives players leverage in negotiations. Teams even have a specified pay scale they use in negotiations based on these designations (1st to 3rd) team. You earn more money making First Team basically. So in all good for the players and their families. But Teams have to dole out more cash lol.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Of course it's true that you aren't guaranteed high win shares by being on a good team and of course it's possible to have a high win share number on a bad team. Those things don't mean that they're not correlated. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. And of course it's true that they formula uses *other* stats (Dean Oliver's points produced) to determine a player's fractional contribution to a team's wins. It just seems like you are fighting the basic premise of the statistic, which is *LITERALLY* to divide a team's wins across its players. I mean, here's the quote from the author of the statistic: "In my system, a basketball team that wins 50 games will have about 50 Win Shares, give or take."
My point is this : Winshares are calculated with zero knowledge of how many actual wins the team has It correlates strongly to actual wins because the formula they came up with that assigns winning value to certain stats is just that, a very strong formula. There is no input into the formula that asks how many actual wins the player in question has. Wagner played on a 22 win team and acquired 4.0 win shares. Green played on a 20 win team and acquired 0.7 win shares. Extremely similar records, extremely similar traditional counting numbers, but win shares looks beyond these things to estimate how many wins you added. Offensive and defensive possession efficiency is king and whether your team actually wins or not means nothing to how your winshares are calculated. Another example : Brooklyn won 0 games this postseason, but when you add up each individual players win shares and total them you get 1.5 wins. Because the formula has assigned some winning value even when no actual wins occurred. Meaning the formula looks to identify winning value whether your team wins a lot or not. Edit: There are several posts in this thread that assume that a teams actual number of wins is used in the calculation of a players win share number. This is NOT accurate.
I'm pretty much done here, but can we just agree that the stat correlates positively with team wins? No the win shares won't add up *exactly* to a number of team wins, etc., but the fundamental point of the statistic is to tell you how many of a team's wins a player is responsible for.
You can be done if you want I’m just giving you the facts on how win shares are calculated. Fact 1 : When calculating an individual players win share number, how many actual wins the player has is irrelevant. Example : If you ask the question, how many win shares did Jalen Green accumulate this season? One thing that you do not have to know whatsoever in the calculation is that his team won 20 games. It’s not a factor. Fact 2 : Winshares correlates strongly with actual team wins because of the formula that was created. This formula has no idea how many actual wins a team has when estimating win shares, it takes certain numbers and assigns winning value to them and estimates wins based on those numbers. Example: When calculating each individual player on the Phoenix Suns win shares this year, there is never any part of the calculation that takes into account the fact that they won 67 games and the win share numbers need to come close to that. It works the other way around. The formula is so strong that when you give it the inputs necessary it will spit out numbers that closely match the actual win total. In this thread it seems like people have the idea that a teams actual number of wins has a lot to do with how win shares are calculated: These quotes are not accurate. Because like I said, the calculation of winshares NEVER takes into account the actual number of wins.
I'm honestly not sure what your angle is here, it feels like you're dissembling to avoid the obvious and analytically relevant point, which is that players on teams with more wins will, all other things being equal, have more win shares. No, the statistic does not actually use the team wins number *itself* to calculate win shares, but the *entire point* of the statistic is to distribute team wins across players. You just keep going on and on (and on and on and on) about how the actual number of wins isn't actually a variable, which just isn't the point. The point is that the statistic is meant to distribute an approximation of team wins. And you are confusing the fact that efficiency "is king" when determining how to allocate the wins across players with the idea that being on a winning team isn't relevant. I'm just not sure how you can still be on and on about this when the person who created the statistic is telling you that you are wrong. Once again, the person who made the freaking statistic: "In my system, a basketball team that wins 50 games will have about 50 Win Shares, give or take."
Interesting point. Were the other players better? I haven’t tracked Hylan or Ayo so I don’t know how good those guys are. There is a case for Sengun. Duarte deserves to be there but is Herb Jones that good? Why is there so much hype around him? I don’t know much about him but he starts and can’t even get 10 pts a game. Hopefully this is motivation for Sengun for next year.
I’m honestly not sure how you aren’t following. There are posts in this thread with the belief that you can’t compare winshares of these rookies because 1 player could be on a team that wins a lot and another player is on a team that doesn’t. There are then following posts that agree with this and say specifically that you can’t do it because the stat uses how many wins that players team has to then divide up those wins accordingly so essentially you automatically have a built in winshare boost by being on a team that wins a lot and an auto nerf playing on a team that loses a lot. We both agree that this is not true. Because we both agree that the calculation of a players win share number does not account for the number of wins his team has. There are unlimited examples of the Winshares formula recognizing players on a good team can have low win shares, a player on bad team can have high winshares. Players on teams with very similar records can have very different winshares. Players with big box score numbers can have low win shares and players with modest box score numbers can have very high winshares. It’s how the stat was made to work based on the variables he chose and how much winning value he assigned to them. Mainly, individual offensive and defensive possession efficiency. The simplest way I can put it for the last time is that there are people claiming/believing that the starting point for assigning win shares to individual players is actual team wins. I’m saying that a formula was created to assign winning value to certain statistics that most correlates to actual winning. It was made to closely correlate to actual wins by statistically recognizing play that leads to winning, regardless of whether your team is good or not. There are other numbers that I would agree make a player vs player comparison a lot harder because of varying team quality, but I don’t think winshares is really one of them.
Giddey if he played the full season would have made it over Green. There is an argument based on Herb Jones being a elite defender and on a team that made the Playoffs over Green. I would say Green deserved it, but some circumstances (mainly Giddey getting hurt) made Green all nba 1st team. To be honest I was thinking maybe if Green did not make the 1st team it would cause him to be even more motivated to succeed and prove the doubters wrong. Hopefully him not getting ROY is enough motivation for him.
