The love I lost

[BonesJones]

not that there aren't other factors but if you go by winshares:

Jusuf Nurkić 7.8
Al-Farouq Aminu 5.8
Maurice Harkless 3.4
Jake Layman 3.1
Meyers Leonard 3.0
Seth Curry 2.4
Enes Kanter 2.1
Evan Turner 2.0

That's 29.5 of Portland's 53 wins....56%. Based on winshares, Blazers will be missing 5 of their top-7 and 8 of their top-11 guys when the season starts tomorrow night

obviously, other players are going to accumulate winshares as they fill the minutes of the missing players. Can they match what those missing players did?

career winshare/48:

Whiteside .198
Kanter .147
Nurkic .111
Meyers .106
Curry .097
Hood .088
Harkless .084
Aminu .078
Layman .075
Zach .072
Turner .053
Bazemore .052
Hezonja .022

Theres so much wrong with using career win shares...

 

[wizenheimer]

Theres so much wrong with using career win shares...

I tend to agree, that's why I didn't use them

 

[Propagandist]

Search playoff Aminu on this board.
This is wrong. As he only disappeared in last years playoffs. Before that? Search the board.

Google the playoff stats. Playoff Chief was no joke.

 

[Paine Tablet]

I tend to agree, that's why I didn't use them

Winshares is a problem because it directly correlates to team wins, which might tell how you integral a player is to a winning team, it doesn't compare very well with performance from a player on a losing team. Hezonja as an example is really hurt here because he was on some really crappy teams. Of course, part of that could be his fault, but then there is whole rest of the team that factors in. Devin Booker has a lower winshare/48 for his career than Layman had last season. Notice the disparity in their contracts. Not saying Booker is deserving, just the perception across the league of their value resembles nothing from what might be perceived from winshares/48.

 

[wizenheimer]

Winshares is a problem because it directly correlates to team wins, which might tell how you integral a player is to a winning team, it doesn't compare very well with performance from a player on a losing team. Hezonja as an example is really hurt here because he was on some really crappy teams. Of course, part of that could be his fault, but then there is whole rest of the team that factors in. Devin Booker has a lower winshare/48 for his career than Layman had last season. Notice the disparity in their contracts. Not saying Booker is deserving, just the perception across the league of their value resembles nothing from what might be perceived from winshares/48.

yeah, I know. It's why I didn't list career winshares. it's also a cumulative stat; the more games and more years you play, the higher the winshares. That's why I just listed winshares for Portland last year, and it was to show what Portland was losing from last year's squad

I then listed winshares/48. While winshares is a measure of cumulative production, winshares/48 is a measure of production rates. Obviously, that can still be skewed by team success. Two players can have about equal production and efficiency; if one is on a 25 win team while the other is on a 50 win team, the 2nd guy is going to have about twice the winshare/48. More win to go around

but looking at the players I listed, there may only be about 2 players that has much skew. Hezonja and Bazemore. But Bazemore, in 7 seasons, has played on teams that won 47, 51 (2/3 of a season), 60, 48, & 43 games. It's only the last two years (and 23 games with Lakers) that he's played on crappy teams. So I don't think there's a lot of skew with him. In Hezonja's case, he's played on crappy teams for sure; but he's also posted some pretty crappy numbers

I think people are underrating what Portland lost in players that left. Now, maybe the new guys can offset the losses and more, but I thought it was worth noting that when the season starts, the Blazers have lost: 7 of their top 10 players in PER, Winshares, winshares/48, box plus/minus, & value over replacement. Defensively, they've lost 7 of their 10 best in defensive winshares, and 8 of their 10 best in defensive box plus/minus. The 'new' guys have a lot of make up for

 

[BonesJones]

I tend to agree, that's why I didn't use them

not that there aren't other factors but if you go by winshares:

Jusuf Nurkić 7.8
Al-Farouq Aminu 5.8
Maurice Harkless 3.4
Jake Layman 3.1
Meyers Leonard 3.0
Seth Curry 2.4
Enes Kanter 2.1
Evan Turner 2.0

That's 29.5 of Portland's 53 wins....56%. Based on winshares, Blazers will be missing 5 of their top-7 and 8 of their top-11 guys when the season starts tomorrow night

obviously, other players are going to accumulate winshares as they fill the minutes of the missing players. Can they match what those missing players did?

career winshare/48:

Whiteside .198
Kanter .147
Nurkic .111
Meyers .106
Curry .097
Hood .088
Harkless .084
Aminu .078
Layman .075
Zach .072
Turner .053
Bazemore .052
Hezonja .022

 

[B-Roy]

I then listed winshares/48. While winshares is a measure of cumulative production, winshares/48 is a measure of production rates. Obviously, that can still be skewed by team success. Two players can have about equal production and efficiency; if one is on a 25 win team while the other is on a 50 win team, the 2nd guy is going to have about twice the winshare/48. More win to go around

but looking at the players I listed, there may only be about 2 players that has much skew. Hezonja and Bazemore. But Bazemore, in 7 seasons, has played on teams that won 47, 51 (2/3 of a season), 60, 48, & 43 games. It's only the last two years (and 23 games with Lakers) that he's played on crappy teams. So I don't think there's a lot of skew with him. In Hezonja's case, he's played on crappy teams for sure; but he's also posted some pretty crappy numbers

Winshares is such a poor stat, particularly for young players who are underutilized, have their roles jerked around, in a bad situation, or are still trying to find themselves in the league. Some examples off the top of my head: go look at ws/48 for Harkless, Napier and Nurkic before coming to Portland. Or guys who have had significant changes in their role.

 

[Scalma]

Winshares is such a poor stat, particularly for young players who are underutilized, have their roles jerked around, in a bad situation, or are still trying to find themselves in the league. Some examples off the top of my head: go look at ws/48 for Harkless, Napier and Nurkic before coming to Portland. Or guys who have had significant changes in their role.

Woah why am I quoted I didn’t say any of that your honor.

 

[wizenheimer]

........

there is a big difference between winshares and winshares/48. The first is a cumulative stat gauging total production over time. The 2nd is a gauge of production rate. I also have explained why I was using those numbers.

I said I didn't use career winshares, and that's the case

Winshares is such a poor stat, particularly for young players who are underutilized, have their roles jerked around, in a bad situation, or are still trying to find themselves in the league. Some examples off the top of my head: go look at ws/48 for Harkless, Napier and Nurkic before coming to Portland. Or guys who have had significant changes in their role.

you could say the same thing about any stat...the same criticism. I agree that players with limited minutes can have some skewed results.

do me a favor and point out where the numbers I used was a poor use of stats. Keep in mind my reason for using them. I'm not trying to be combative here. If I've made some bad assumption, let me know

 

[Ed O]

I really hope to be proven wrong, but... I see a series of downgrades over last year's roster. We have a couple of young guys who should improve, and that's awesome, but the OP asked if (setting aside money issues) would I rather have last year's roster or this year's, and last year's is much better IMO, since the young guys would still be able to improve and our team would just be better/deeper for it.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[hoopsjock]

I really hope to be proven wrong, but... I see a series of downgrades over last year's roster. We have a couple of young guys who should improve, and that's awesome, but the OP asked if (setting aside money issues) would I rather have last year's roster or this year's, and last year's is much better IMO, since the young guys would still be able to improve and our team would just be better/deeper for it.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

Don't worry, you're wrong!

 

[Dougnsalem]

Don't worry, you're wrong!

Damn. Beat me to it. Lol

 

[Blazers1977]

Turner = Bazemore...? What...?

turner career stats:

10 ppg
5rpg
3.5 apg
27 mpg

bazemore career stats:

8.7 ppg
3 rpg
2 apg
21 mpg

what am I missing?

 

[hoopsjock]

turner career stats:

10 ppg
5rpg
3.5 apg
27 mpg

bazemore career stats:

8.7 ppg
3 rpg
2 apg
21 mpg

what am I missing?

Career stats of a #2 pick getting minutes immediately versus an undrafted player who had to fight to make rosters his first couple years in the league.

 

[Blazers1977]

Career stats of a #2 pick getting minutes immediately versus an undrafted player who had to fight to make rosters his first couple years in the league.

good point. But still, all things considered, they seem roughly equal.

I’m genuinely wondering what people think we can expect out of Bazemore this year. My assumption was roughly 12 ppg, decent defense, and decent 3 pt shooting. That doesn’t seem dramatically better than Turner to me, who was probably a better passer. I haven’t watched Bazemore much, though.

 

[B-Roy]

you could say the same thing about any stat...the same criticism. I agree that players with limited minutes can have some skewed results.

do me a favor and point out where the numbers I used was a poor use of stats. Keep in mind my reason for using them. I'm not trying to be combative here. If I've made some bad assumption, let me know

Sure. Even by your standards, I don't see the discrepancy.

Whiteside has the highest career ws/48, by far. And he's replacing the three immediately after him (all centers). Hood is in the same range as the forwards. Three rotation guys are stepping into significant roles (Zach, Hezonja, Simons) and you agreed using ws/48 for these young players is not very useful. Bazemore is a wash compared to the player he's replacing (Turner).

I understand the skepticism, I don't agree with what you're using to justify it.

 

[bobf]

I and our WL record will miss (Nurk) Aminu, Curry, Harkless in that order. It’s not really right to compare this year to last year since this year will benefit from a much improved Zach Collins which we would have had anyway and Simons which we would have had anyway. Whiteside will partly offset, but we will have a significantly worse record than last year.

 

[hoopsjock]

I and our WL record will miss (Nurk) Aminu, Curry, Harkless in that order. It’s not really right to compare this year to last year since this year will benefit from a much improved Zach Collins which we would have had anyway and Simons which we would have had anyway. Whiteside will partly offset, but we will have a significantly worse record than last year.

In order for Collins and Simons to grow, they need to learn on the floor. With Curry and Aminu still here they wouldn't play as much. Sure, that might make things worse short term but it will benefit the team later this season.

 

[BonesJones]

there is a big difference between winshares and winshares/48. The first is a cumulative stat gauging total production over time. The 2nd is a gauge of production rate. I also have explained why I was using those numbers.

I said I didn't use career winshares, and that's the case



you could say the same thing about any stat...the same criticism. I agree that players with limited minutes can have some skewed results.

do me a favor and point out where the numbers I used was a poor use of stats. Keep in mind my reason for using them. I'm not trying to be combative here. If I've made some bad assumption, let me know

You're pointing out stuff I already know, and youre failing to dispute my overall point.

 

[wizenheimer]

You're pointing out stuff I already know, and youre failing to dispute my overall point.

I might have missed it but I haven't seen you make an "overall point"

I've just seen you express the opinion that 'career win shares are wrong', and left it there. As I pointed out, I didn't use career winshares, and, I was only using one season of Blazer winshares to illustrate what Portland lost in departing players. I then used winshares/48 as a gauge of how likely the new guys were to replace lost production. It was a fairly narrow point

 

[Paine Tablet]

yeah, I know. It's why I didn't list career winshares. it's also a cumulative stat; the more games and more years you play, the higher the winshares. That's why I just listed winshares for Portland last year, and it was to show what Portland was losing from last year's squad

I then listed winshares/48. While winshares is a measure of cumulative production, winshares/48 is a measure of production rates. Obviously, that can still be skewed by team success. Two players can have about equal production and efficiency; if one is on a 25 win team while the other is on a 50 win team, the 2nd guy is going to have about twice the winshare/48. More win to go around

but looking at the players I listed, there may only be about 2 players that has much skew. Hezonja and Bazemore. But Bazemore, in 7 seasons, has played on teams that won 47, 51 (2/3 of a season), 60, 48, & 43 games. It's only the last two years (and 23 games with Lakers) that he's played on crappy teams. So I don't think there's a lot of skew with him. In Hezonja's case, he's played on crappy teams for sure; but he's also posted some pretty crappy numbers

I think people are underrating what Portland lost in players that left. Now, maybe the new guys can offset the losses and more, but I thought it was worth noting that when the season starts, the Blazers have lost: 7 of their top 10 players in PER, Winshares, winshares/48, box plus/minus, & value over replacement. Defensively, they've lost 7 of their 10 best in defensive winshares, and 8 of their 10 best in defensive box plus/minus. The 'new' guys have a lot of make up for

I thought it was pretty clear I understood you were talking about winshares/48 and I that I know what it is. I refer you to this quote: "Devin Booker has a lower winshare/48 for his career than Layman had last season."


I was trying to point out to you why it's a foolish stat to use because even as a production rate it relies on a team winning. The Hezonja example is perfect. You state he has a bad winshare/48 and you admit it's because he's on a losing team, but then you say he also hasn't played well. Well, even if he had played well, he'd still have a dramatically lower winshare/48 and it would be hard to tell the difference. To me this is like looking at wins/inning pitched and thinking it tells you anything about how good a pitcher really is.

Yes, I agree it's useful in determining how much was lost from the team in terms of producing wins. It's not useful to predict incoming production as it relates to wins. It's a good data point to contrast players within an organization, it's not useful for contrasting with players outside of the organization.

 

[wizenheimer]

The Hezonja example is perfect. You state he has a bad winshare/48 and you admit it's because he's on a losing team, but then you say he also hasn't played well. Well, even if he had played well, he'd still have a dramatically lower winshare/48 and it would be hard to tell the difference. .

really? he played on the Knicks last year. Yeah, they were a crappy team. But here is a ranking of their winshare/48 marks:

Mitchell Robinson .217 DeAndre Jordan .181 Isaiah Hicks .153 Enes Kanter .143 Kadeem Allen .111 Noah Vonleh .090 Courtney Lee .087 Luke Kornet .083 Henry Ellenson .070 Tim Hardaway .048 Trey Burke .044 Damyean Dotson .037 Allonzo Trier .030 John Jenkins .024 Emmanuel Mudiay .023 Lance Thomas .004 Ron Baker .002 Mario Hezonja -0.003

I disagree. If he had played well, there was plenty enough wins to go around to get his mark well above a negative number. I mean, we're all familiar with Vonleh's game and it's limitations. He was able to post a 0.90 mark on a crappy team, and he's younger than Hezonja

but I'll give it to you....Hezonja is an outlier (although he didn't look it last night). Is Hood? is Bazemore? is Tolliver? Are Harkless and Aminu? Some of the departing Blazers spent years on crappy teams too. Harkless was in Orlando for 3 seasons when they averaged 23 wins a year. Aminu played 3 years for the Pels when they averaged 27 wins. Kanter was on the Knicks last year just like Hezonja

you're making some valid general arguments about the predictive value of winshare/48 for young players. I tend to agree with those arguments...to an extent. But here's the list of the guys I listed and their ages:

Whiteside 30
Kanter 27
Nurkic 25
Meyers 27
Curry 29
Hood 27
Harkless 26
Aminu 29
Layman 25
Zach 21
Turner 31
Bazemore 30
Hezonja 24

Zach is the youngest, by far, and he's played on teams that have won 49 and 53 games

what I'm saying is that the argument you're making may only apply to Hezonja, and that's debatable. And again, the point I was making was a narrow one about what was lost and if what replaced it was likely to match or not. If it helps, disregard the winshare/48 stuff

 

[blazerfan11]

How about the Perimeter defense? Better or worse?

 

[tester551]

I was trying to point out to you why it's a foolish stat to use because even as a production rate it relies on a team winning. The Hezonja example is perfect. You state he has a bad winshare/48 and you admit it's because he's on a losing team, but then you say he also hasn't played well.

Yes, I agree it's useful in determining how much was lost from the team in terms of producing wins. It's not useful to predict incoming production as it relates to wins. It's a good data point to contrast players within an organization, it's not useful for contrasting with players outside of the organization.

I'm not buying what you are selling here.

If being on a good wining team impacts WS/48, then you should see a big swing when a player changes teams. More often then not, the WS/48 is fairly steady.

I'm struggling trying to think of a player who's swapped good/bad teams. But here are two examples...

Ed Davis:
Lakers '14-'15: 21 wins with 0.164 WS/48
Blazers '15-'16: 44 wins with 0.192 WS/48
Blazers '16-'17: 41 wins with 0.104 WS/48
Blazers '17-'18: 49 wins with 0.164 WS/48

Courtney Lee:
14-15 Memphis: 55 wins with 0.099 WS/48
15-16 Memphis/Charlotte: ~45 wins with 0.80 WS/48
16-17 Knicks: 31 wins with 0.081 WS/48
17-18 Knicks: 29 wins wtih 0.082 WS/48

The big takeaway for me, is the individual player's contributions have a much higher impact on WS/48 than the team's record does....
I'm really struggling to see much correlation between the team's record and WS/48.

 

[Paine Tablet]

I'm not buying what you are selling here.

If being on a good wining team impacts WS/48, then you should see a big swing when a player changes teams. More often then not, the WS/48 is fairly steady.

I'm struggling trying to think of a player who's swapped good/bad teams. But here are two examples...

Ed Davis:
Lakers '14-'15: 21 wins with 0.164 WS/48
Blazers '15-'16: 44 wins with 0.192 WS/48
Blazers '16-'17: 41 wins with 0.104 WS/48
Blazers '17-'18: 49 wins with 0.164 WS/48

Courtney Lee:
14-15 Memphis: 55 wins with 0.099 WS/48
15-16 Memphis/Charlotte: ~45 wins with 0.80 WS/48
16-17 Knicks: 31 wins with 0.081 WS/48
17-18 Knicks: 29 wins wtih 0.082 WS/48

The big takeaway for me, is the individual player's contributions have a much higher impact on WS/48 than the team's record does....
I'm really struggling to see much correlation between the team's record and WS/48.

That's funny you aren't seeing a correlation between WS/48 and team success. In your example, Ed Davis had a better season statistically playing for the Lakers in '14-'15 as his usage rate, PER, and overall production were higher than the following season, yet because he played on a terrible team, his WS/48 of .164 is significantly lower than the .192 he produced the following season with lesser statistics playing on a winning team.

 

[Blazers1977]

In order for Collins and Simons to grow, they need to learn on the floor. With Curry and Aminu still here they wouldn't play as much. Sure, that might make things worse short term but it will benefit the team later this season.

Very Good point.