2012 Hawksquawk Summer Dynasty Draft - Post-season Review

[Admin]

I'm not even going to do mine since my number 1 pick got hurt mid way through the year, I just know I wouldnt win

Go cry someplace else Mr I get LeBron or Durant in this years draft!!

[jy23]

Go cry someplace else Mr I get LeBron or Durant in this years draft!!

Lol

[coachx]

Win Shares is severely flawed here unless we find some type of standard to modify them by.For example on my team Monroe had a much better season than Splitter but because the Spurs won 58 games vs the Pistons winning 29, which made it appear like Splitter had the better season due to there being a lot more win shares to split up. So maybe there should be some type of standard, whatever you math guys call it, to where you multiply the teams wins by a number to give them 82 wins and then you take that number and multiply the players win shares by that amount. That way each team has 82 wins and player win shares are increased proportionately. Does that type of thing make sense to do?

I was saying this during the last review. WS also favors good role players on good teams and hurts good players on poor teams. I don't believe it should be the end all, be all of anything. There is something to be said for how players strengths and weakness will blend with a team from a chemistry standpoint. Just b/c player X is very successful under 1 system does not mean he will have the same success under a different system with different teammates around them. None the less I will post my rosters win share. I think I got great value based on where I selected in the draft. The Perfect Balance II: Starters:pick 49. Steph Curry - 11.2 WSpick 16. James Harden - 12.8 WSpick 48. Luol Deng - 6.3 WSpick 17. LaMarcus Aldridge - 7.2 WSpick 80. D. Jordan - 6.2 WS Bench:pick 208. Jamal Crawford - 5.4 WSpick 144 Thabo Sefolsha 6.8 WSpick 145 Andre Miller - 5.4 WSpick 113 Spencer Hawes - 4.5 WSpick 112 Harrison Barnes - 2.8 WSpick 209 Festus Ezeli - 1.5 WSpick 177 B. Biyombo - 1.4 WSpick 81 Brandon Knight - 1.1 WS pick 176 Head Coach Pat Riley Total Win Share = 72.6 I see this team having a very good blend of perimeter shooting, slashing, inside scoring, rebounding, and defense. Curry proved he can lead a team to 50 wins this year as a PG with a lethal perimeter shot. Deng proved that without Rose he can be the #1 option for a playoff team and advance to the 2nd round. We already we know what he can do in a supporting role. He can slash, shoot and defend. James Harden proved he is a top 10 player and one of the top 5 scorers in the league. This team has 2 wings who can spread the floor with their shooting, slash to the rim, and are very good defenders. Combined with Steph Curry's shooting and they can rival anyPG and wing trio in this league. Curry and Harden are just entering the prime of their careers and Deng is right in the middle if his prime. To mix with them is LaMarcus Aldridge at PF. A highly skilled, long versatile player who can score with his back to the basket and can spread the floor with a good mid range shot. He is a solid inside scoring option to keep defenses honest. Couple him with one of the most athletic centers in the game, DeAndre Jordan. Jordan excels at protecting the rim on defense and finishing above the rim on offense. He can run the floor as good as any center in the league and is an excellent offensive rebounder. Both players are just now entering the prime of their careers. They are supported by a talented bench with a veteran scoring specialist in Jamal Crawford and veteran wing defender to counter balance him in Thabo Sefalosha, who has an NBA All Defensive team on his resume. Then there is the ultra savy floor general Andre Miller who proved this year he still has some gas in the tank. Spencer Hawes is skilled 7 footer off the bench. Then there are young athletic rim protectors in Ezeli and Biyombo. Last but not least is one of the best rookies of 2012 in SF, Harrison Barnes. Barnes showed he is a star in the making during the playoffs this past season. Beyond statistics this team has an excellent balance of basketball skills with veteran leadership and longterm upside; with allstar players just entering the primes of their careers. Pat Riley can get the most out of his talent. This team should have been in the mix last season and for years to come. Edited June 23, 2013 by coachx

[AHF]

Win shares are definitely not the definitive be-all / end-all stat. There is no such stat for any sport and especially for basketball where defense has been so difficult to quantify.

I was just pointing out with Monroe that it was more his drop in play than the fact that his team was so bad given his team's improved record and his drop in the numbers.

[Admin]

Win shares are definitely not the definitive be-all / end-all stat. There is no such stat for any sport and especially for basketball where defense has been so difficult to quantify.

I was just pointing out with Monroe that it was more his drop in play than the fact that his team was so bad given his team's improved record and his drop in the numbers.

I still don't see that Splitter should have had so much higher of a WS than Monroe and I am pretty sure that the Pistons 29 wins vs the Spurs 58 wins plays a big part in that. Am I wrong in believing that each players win shares relates to the total amount of wins the team had?

[coachx]

I still don't see that Splitter should have had so much higher of a WS than Monroe and I am pretty sure that the Pistons 29 wins vs the Spurs 58 wins plays a big part in that. Am I wrong in believing that each players win shares relates to the total amount of wins the team had?

Let Splitter and Monroe swap teams and I guarantee you would see a big difference in their efficiency across the board. Based on my understanding of WS it is a direct correlation of team success.........penalizing good players on poor teams and rewarding role players on good teams.

[Admin]

Let Splitter and Monroe swap teams and I guarantee you would see a big difference in their efficiency across the board. Based on my understanding of WS it is a direct correlation of team success.........penalizing good players on poor teams and rewarding role players on good teams.

That's how I thought it was as well but there's nothing in the Basketball-Reference breakdown that refers to the teams wins. It is pretty complex though.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Edit - I was mistaken and missed the following:

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.

[Buzzard]

That's how I thought it was as well but there's nothing in the Basketball-Reference breakdown that refers to the teams wins. It is pretty complex though.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

From Wikipedia as it concerns baseball.

"A win share represents one-third of a team win, by definition. If a team wins 80 games in a season, then its players will share 240 win shares."

I don't see how it could not be a stat that favors players on winning teams.

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_shares

[Admin]

From Wikipedia as it concerns baseball.

"A win share represents one-third of a team win, by definition. If a team wins 80 games in a season, then its players will share 240 win shares."

I don't see how it could not be a stat that favors players on winning teams.

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_shares

Ahhh I see that I missed the part at the description of the Basketball-Reference link as I skipped past it once it mentioned James' system as I figured that line was strictly about baseball. although it doesn't mention this in the formulation later.

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.

[coachx]

So this finally settles it. Win-Share is simply a conversation piece.......not an accurate measuring stick for these fantasy leagues.

[Mutombolievable]

Russell Westbrook - 11.6

Isiah Thomas - 5

Monta Ellis - 4.6

Iman Shumpert - 1.9

Wilson Chandler - 3.1

Marvin - 2.3

Smoove - 4.2

Anderson Varejao - 3.3

Brook Lopez - 9

Omer Asik - 5.5

Ed Davis - 5.4

Greivis Vasquez - 3.8

Al Farouq Aminu - 3.1

Total - 62.8 win shares

[Admin]

Not bad, I'm surprised that Lopez had that many so good job picking him in the 4th round!

[AHF]

So we are stating that Monroe's win shares/48 dropping in a season where his team won more games is somehow related to his team winning more games than the prior season and not the drop in his scoring efficiency and increase in TOs? I guess I am the one not following. I could understand if his numbers were the same and the team won the same number of games but his WS/48 should have improved in a season where his team won more games. The fact that his WS/48 dropped so far seems to mean that not only did his performance significantly dropped but it dropped even further than you would think year over year since it dropped while his team improved.

By way of comparison, Andre Drummond had almost the same total WSs as Monroe despite playing less than 1/2 of Monroe's minutes. Had Drummond simply doubled his minutes and kept everything else the same (same TS%, points per minute, rebounds per minute, etc.), he would have had 9 WSs despite playing fewer minutes than Monroe.

So again, while WSs are not the be-all/end-all number, there is no reason to think that Monroe's regression last season wasn't a major factor in his WS/48 number -- and frankly in his team's record.

Edited June 27, 2013 by AHF

[Admin]

So we are stating that Monroe's win shares/48 dropping in a season where his team won more games is somehow related to his team winning more games than the prior season and not the drop in his scoring efficiency and increase in TOs? I guess I am the one not following. I could understand if his numbers were the same and the team won the same number of games but his WS/48 should have improved in a season where his team won more games. The fact that his WS/48 dropped so far seems to mean that not only did his performance significantly dropped but it dropped even further than you would think year over year since it dropped while his team improved.

It's not about comparing Monroe (2012) to Monroe (2013). It's Monroe (2013) vs Splitter (2013) and in 2013 Monroe was a better player than Splitter and yet if I remember right he was nearly 2 points behind Splitter in Win Shares, mainly due to the fact that the Spurs won twice as many games. That was a theory of mine until we found out for sure that real team wins are figured into Win Shares. That means that equal players will have different Win Shares based on the record of their team.

[coachx]

It's not about comparing Monroe (2012) to Monroe (2013). It's Monroe (2013) vs Splitter (2013) and in 2013 Monroe was a better player than Splitter and yet if I remember right he was nearly 2 points behind Splitter in Win Shares, mainly due to the fact that the Spurs won twice as many games. That was a theory of mine until we found out for sure that real team wins are figured into Win Shares. That means that equal players will have different Win Shares based on the record of their team.

I'm with you on this one. Stat heads kill me when their sole argument is one stat. Stats are meant as a conversation piece. Not the deciding factor in a debate.Just watch the games, The Spurs would have been much better with Monroe,in place of Splitter. Win Share is one more of the more flawed stats out there for obvious reasons.Yet 1/2 the board thinks its the end all be all of debate.

[Admin]

I'm with you on this one. Stat heads kill me when their sole argument is one stat. Stats are meant as a conversation piece. Not the deciding factor in a debate.Just watch the games, The Spurs would have been much better with Monroe,in place of Splitter. Win Share is one more of the more flawed stats out there for obvious reasons.Yet 1/2 the board thinks its the end all be all of debate.

If they would make it a Win Shares / XX number of wins then that would change a lot and make it a great stat. For example, make it an even 82 wins for the XX number and figure out the formula from there.

Actual Totals

Splitter had 8.2 WS with 58 wins

Monroe had 5.9 WS with 29 wins

Modified Formula

Splitter

8.2 WS * (82 / 58) = 11.59 WS per 82 team wins

Monroe

5.9 WS * (82 / 29) = 16.68 WS per 82 team wins

So by that formula it would turn out that Monroe is 5.09 WS better than Splitter, which seems to fit in a lot better with the reality how much better Monroe is compared to Splitter. There may need to be some type of extra variable thrown in there as I don't think they're that far apart but it's a lot more accurate than Splitter looking like a much better player.

[capstone21]

One thing things like PER and win share can't show is chemistry...you need the right combination of players (stars and role)...guys who play d and guys who can score...passers and versatility. You can have a bunch of guys who put up great numbers but it doesn't mean that it would translate into wins.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If they would make it a Win Shares / XX number of wins then that would change a lot and make it a great stat. For example, make it an even 82 wins for the XX number and figure out the formula from there.

Actual Totals

Splitter had 8.2 WS with 58 wins

Monroe had 5.9 WS with 29 wins

Modified Formula

Splitter

8.2 WS * (82 / 58) = 11.59 WS per 82 team wins

Monroe

5.9 WS * (82 / 29) = 16.68 WS per 82 team wins

So by that formula it would turn out that Monroe is 5.09 WS better than Splitter, which seems to fit in a lot better with the reality how much better Monroe is compared to Splitter. There may need to be some type of extra variable thrown in there as I don't think they're that far apart but it's a lot more accurate than Splitter looking like a much better player.

See . . . creating your own stat, when it makes perfect sense to you, is a good thing.

Call this the "Dolfan-Win Share per 82 games" stat . . . . or DWS-82 for short

Now you can say something like . . .

Al Jefferson had a WS of 7.7 and his team won 43 games

7.7 * ( 82 / 43 ) = 14.68 WS per 82 team wins

While Nikola Pekovic had a 6.7 WS and his team won 31 games

6.7 * ( 82 / 31 ) = 17.72 WS per 82 team wins

And Dwight Howard had a 7.6 WS and his team won 45 games

7.6 * ( 82 / 45 ) = 13.85 WS per 82 team wins

Pekovic > Jefferson > Howard

And no matter how much people disagree with your assessment, you STAND BY YOUR STAT, and tell them that the DWS-82 does not lie.

[Admin]

See . . . creating your own stat, when it makes perfect sense to you, is a good thing.

Call this the "Dolfan-Win Share per 82 games" stat . . . . or DWS-82 for short

Now you can say something like . . .

Al Jefferson had a WS of 7.7 and his team won 43 games

7.7 * ( 82 / 43 ) = 14.68 WS per 82 team wins

While Nikola Pekovic had a 6.7 WS and his team won 31 games

6.7 * ( 82 / 31 ) = 17.72 WS per 82 team wins

And Dwight Howard had a 7.6 WS and his team won 45 games

7.6 * ( 82 / 45 ) = 13.85 WS per 82 team wins

Pekovic > Jefferson > Howard

And no matter how much people disagree with your assessment, you STAND BY YOUR STAT, and tell them that the DWS-82 does not lie.

Haha that's only the 1st draft and there needs to be some type of variable that the final number is multiplied by to get a league average and balance it out, but I think it's better than just pure WS.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Haha that's only the 1st draft and there needs to be some type of variable that the final number is multiplied by to get a league average and balance it out, but I think it's better than just pure WS.

Keep working with it until it looks right. I had to work with the NJSI for a bit, until I perfected it. You keep working with that DWS-82.

If all of these other guys can come up with stats, why can't you? Your explanation actually makes a little sense.