The group that has the two highest single season win shares totals--which is to say the group with the higher peaks--won more championships.

Do you have a season-by-season break down? How many championships did the "peaky" group win in season 1? And how many did the "consistent" group? etc.

I would think you'd see a non-linear relationship: the years where a player has 7 win shares would win more than twice as many championships as the years with a player with 3.5 win shares.

It's been a long time since I read Politics of Glory, but I remember James's point as basically being that you have to be exceptionally good to win a championship, and that--in terms of championships--it's no big difference if you're a little above average or if you suck: in both cases you don't win the ring. That's kind of what you say in the last paragraph about needing a player playing at an insanely high level to win a ring.

]]>*kidding* Neil you're the man eff tha haterz

]]>It might be worth trying to experiment with invented numbers. How many titles is a player who gets 10 WS a year for 10 years likely to win in comparison with one who gets 5 WS a year for 20 years. Or different variations of that.

]]>