Comments on: PI Finds: Decade-by-Decade NBA Win Shares Leaders

By: bob

bob — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:02:46 +0000

wheres melo

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:33:04 +0000

to 17,

I know, but my point is that the #1 player for a decade should have at least distinguished himself at times on BOTH ends of the court. The statistics do a poor job of analyzing a player's performance and impact if they fail to bear that out. My point is that there is something basically wrong with win shares if we are going to use it to determine who the best players are (who contributes the most to wins).

By: Joe Krupnick

Joe Krupnick — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:55:53 +0000

Slow down and slow up, Nice. p.s. I meant to say "categorical" and "uncategorical" (not anti). Forgive the other typos, too.

By: Jeff J.

Jeff J. — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:58:14 +0000

@19 "Viz, its primary meaning, "anything whatever", is the opposite of its secondary meaning, "nothing at all". Some Middle English-speaker must have gotten confused somehow between "nought" and "aught" and assigned them the same meaning (much the same way words like "categorical" and "anti-categorical" are being conflated today)." I couldn't decide whether I should slow down to read this . . . . . . or slow up.

By: Joe Krupnick

Joe Krupnick — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:11:44 +0000

"Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes." I'll have to defer to your (and Roger Murdoch's) judgment on this, although I do feel like I have early memories of Kareem in the mid/late '80's often being very late to arrive on defense and then kind of standing awkwardly just outside the painted area like staring into outer space or adjusting his goggles. But, Neil, you do have to admit that Kareem's '71-'74 winshare numbers are just on the high side. If I'm not mistaken, the formula doesn't have an "ABA corrector", which according to Mike G's post, might be quite big. Especially when you consider the centers Jabbar WASN'T competing against, like Artis Gilmore and Dan Issel, etc. Fine, just Artis Gilmore.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:18:17 +0000

Re: #19 "Wasn't Kareem always somewhat of a liability on defense?" I don't think so. Kareem was named All-Defense 11 times (5x 1st-team) at the most important defensive position, and statistically was a good shot-blocker (40th in career Blk%, top five 6x). Granted, he didn't make the list of 100 players who played for the best defenses, and there was that line from Airplane! about him "not working hard enough on defense", but I think there's a lot of evidence that Kareem was a very good defender during his prime years.

By: Joe Krupnick

Joe Krupnick — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:09:19 +0000

"Aught" should stay in there, simply because it is one of the few pronoun contranym. Viz, its primary meaning, "anything whatever", is the opposite of its secondary meaning, "nothing at all". Some Middle English-speaker must have gotten confused somehow between "nought" and "aught" and assigned them the same meaning (much the same way words like "categorical" and "anti-categorical" are being conflated today). p.s. I've always thought Kareem's winshare numbers seemed inflated. He has those huge full-decade numbers and also the highest single season marks (like 25 winshares in 72 and three years in a row above MJ's best season). In fact, taking all into account, wasn't Kareem always somewhat of a liability on defense?

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:43:27 +0000

Raising my objection to using the term "Aughts". It should be "Zeroes". "Aughts" is a word Monty Burns would use for the first decade of his life. Otherwise, excellent post.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:06:16 +0000

"Amazed that Dirk can be #1 for a decade when he's never made an All-Defensive Team." No one is going to confuse Dirk as a lock-down defender but he isn't worthless on defense. He isn't a "all-offense/no-defense" player like Steve Nash is for example. All-Defense teams can sometimes have dubious selections by the way.

By: Jason J

Jason J — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:50:47 +0000

Joe - It's interesting to actually look in five year groupings to see how radically different the league can be across a decade statistically. 2000-04 Shaq, Duncan, and Garnett are heads and shoulders above the rest in WS. 2005-09 LeBron and Dirk are out in front by a lot. That's why when the decade ended and there was that vote (can't remember if it was ESPN or TNT or where it took place) Kobe was overwhelmingly voted in by fans with LeBron in second while Timmy and Shaq were only remembered by "experts." Their best seasons of the decade might as well have come in the '80s as far as casual fans could recall.