[ Not like it matters, but top 250 is basically "in the 8-9 man rotation" for all - every - NBA team. I'm pretty sure he's better than most teams 9th man.
After the All Star break last season, Green averaged around 22 PPG. Extrapolate that over a season, he would be top 25 in PPG. Overall, he was 62nd in PPG. Anyone who think he wasn't a "top 250 player" is clueless.
He was a rookie guard, they almost always suck when it comes to trying to win a championship. Do you think he would have been in any rotation of a team that was trying to win the title? Cade is no different, he was also a terrible nba player as a rookie. There probably aren’t 10 players in the nba I would trade green for, but that doesn’t mean he was a good player as a rookie
So, because you think he wouldn't have cracked the rotation of a title-contender, you don't think he was a "top 250" player? For one, I don't think that's true. I think he would have been a scoring-spark backup for many contenders, just not a starting player. In any event, do you even know how math works? A nine man rotation times 30 teams equals 270. So, you're basically saying that Green was, essentially, the 9th man for every team. Of course, you don't have any stats to back this up, because it's an absurd claim.
He was 356th in win shares, 171st in BPM, 577th in VORP (lots of players were at 0 though who barely played and he’s behind all of them since he was a negative), 247th in RAPTOR. This isn’t a criticism, he was a rookie guard who had no idea how to play nba basketball yet.
Win shares is a just plain stupid measure of players on tanking teams. It's derived from the amount of games a team wins. The team is literally designed to minimize win shares collectively!
What does this even mean? I want to say in not a dunce in math as I am a MechE but this stuff is just empty to me. These stats have probably too much noise and confounding factors that aren't eliminated where being in a **** team is going too strong of a confounding factor. With rookies on **** teams, there is no short cut to analyzing them. Eye test is the best way. Can you explain these advanced stats? Can you explain how they eliminate confounding factors?
go to basketballreference.com, they have all the explanations if you're actually curious, too lazy to copy/paste it all for you. RAPTOR you can check 538. There's lots of other metrics/stats as well if you're curious that you can look at it also. Basically all it means is that if your goal was to win games, having rookie jalen green on your team was not a good thing, as pretty much all young rookie guards are going to suck. If Jalen is ACTUALLY the 62nd best player in the nba this season, that would be absolutely incredible to me and would mean he made a huge leap.
Do you think we should just remove all subjective elements for player rankings and just do rankings based on some aggregation of winshares and RAPTOR? I asked a specific question also. In the math for these formulas, what are they doing to account and removing confounding factors?
OK dude, sure. https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html II. What is a Win Share? Bill James developed his system such that one win is equivalent to three Win Shares. My system deviates from James's system in three key ways: In James's system, one win is equivalent to three Win Shares. In my system, one win is equivalent to one Win Share. James made team Win Shares directly proportional to team wins. In his system, a baseball team that wins 80 games will have exactly 240 Win Shares, a baseball team that wins 90 games will have exactly 270 Win Shares, etc. In my system, a basketball team that wins 50 games will have about 50 Win Shares, give or take. Take your own advice next time man.
Basketball isn't QUITE at the level of baseball where in baseball they should actually stop voting for MVP and just give it to the player with the highest war, but the numbers still give you a good idea (also why it's good to look at a bunch of different ones). For your 2nd question, i gave you the websites so you're welcome to read through it if you're interested.
But it isn’t because the calculations are made by knowing that the team won 50 games. It’s that his formula has been tweaked to very accurately “calculate” how many a games a team should win with the statistics each individual player produced. Franz Wagner had impressive win share stats for a rookie on a tanking 22 win team. Because win shares doesn’t use how many wins his team in the calculation.
Win Shares Rankings: Robert Williams at #7, highest on Celtics Jarrett Allen #13 Mitchell Robinson #14 Clint Capela #16 Dwight Powell #17 YOU READY? Explain this: Steph Curry #19 Luka Doncic #21 Lebron James #25 Jrue Holiday #38 Ja Morant #43 Since our dude loves this formula so much, maybe he can explain what's causing this severe distortion? Maybe not. After all, no context necessary for him to explain Green's ranking. Why would we need context for these other guys? I guess Robert Williams would win you more games than Lebron James if all else was equal huh?
The forumula is intentionally indexed to produce a number that is aligned with team win totals! It also incorporates point differential on offense and defense - this is absolutely linked to team win totals. It's absolutely the case that teams with more wins will have better point differentials and more win shares to throw around and teams that are intentionally losing will have fewer. Yes, it's "impressive" because "a rookie on a tanking 22 win team" is inherently disadvantaged by a metric like win shares which is indexed to the amount of wins a team gets, so Franz Wagner's win shares (116th in the league, but not as good as teammate Mo Bamba, since win shares tends to overweight big men stats like rebounds and blocks) aren't too bad. The indexing to winning has some very silly effects. By win shares, poor Ja Morant - since he was injured during a Grizzlies win streak - finishes worse than Mike Conley Jr..
There's only ~300 or so regular rotation players in the NBA - so this dude is bascially claiming Jalen Green is not only not Corey Brewer level - but not even an NBA player for all intents and purposes. OK! please join @Bobbythegreat and @CXbby in the special sub-forum that we have for you.
Im not here to defend win shares as THE over riding best all in one number to rank players. But there is no such thing as “more win shares to throw around because a team has more wins.” Teams with more players producing stats that win shares recognizes as additive to “expected” wins in his formula will produce more “actual” wins. An actual win does not have to occur to accrue positive win shares. Check the league numbers after all of game 1s of the season, there will be players on teams who lost who will be near the league lead or outright lead the league in winshares if they were dominant individually even in a loss. Simply put it’s a formula where different variable are put in to spit out a result for each individual player. There is not an input into the formula that requires you enter how many wins the players team has to calculate their win shares.
There absolutely is. Winning teams have greater aggregate win shares than losing teams - and hence more to divide, because winshares is indexed to equate to team wins, "give or take" and specifically because team performance is factored into the equation. Then we calculate the Win Shares by dividing the sum of the player's marginal point production by his team's marginal points per win. In this way, we distribute a team's Win Shares in a way that sum to the team's actual win totals. That is why the Rockets had 22 win shares to allocate last year and the Phoenix Suns had 58, or why Kevon Looney posts a big number.
It's unfortunate that they call the metric "win shares" when it has nothing to do about "sharing" wins. It's just a misleading name. Win shares is actually more like PER that accrue individual production numbers into a weighted formula. PER (personal efficiency rating), btw, is also a misleading name as it has little to do with efficiency.
