Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lowryky01.html

Lowry's winshares went from 11.7 to 5.4 from last year to this, and most would say he's having a career best year and Toronto is a great. Hows that?

because he's played 1/3 the total games
WS48 is adjusted for playing time. Total win shares is not.

ahh.. so WS is cumulative? So if he doesnt play another game his WS will stay at 5.4? Fair enough...

Yes, total win shares is an estimate of how many wins you have uniquely contributed to your team's total. WS 48 is an estimate of how many wins per game (per 48 min) you contribute. The average WS48 is .100. There are ten players on the court and each one on average is contributing one-tenth of a win. A player with a WS48 of .227 like Lowry is contributing almost a quarter of a win per game even though he's only one of the ten players on the court. Then, if you're WS48 is .227 and you play 10 games, you've contributed 2.27 total win shares. So that's the difference between total and per 48 #s.

So the metrics knock on Melo is his WS48 of .160-.180 is pretty good as a Knick, but not $25mm a year good?

If I remember right, you've asked what Melo is doing differently than a few years ago when we had the 54 win team. A lot of the difference is that we don't have the good supporting cast we had then. But you can see a decline in WS48 from .184 to .101. That decline is probably due to lower scoring efficiency (which is from a decline in 3s and FTs) and a significant decline in his defensive #s.

but that pretty much was my point... that Melo is Melo but the talent level around him has really taken a nosedive.

How is that # derived? Looking at Melo the difference between last year and the year before is minimal, yet one team won 37 vs. 54 the year before. I think most agree Melo was a better player 2 years ago.

Sorry for the dweeb comment. #hugs

It basically takes into account total production and efficiency on offense and then it tracks the performance (scoring, rbs, etc.) of the man he's guarding on defense. I would never say that win shares is perfect, but it's one of the main sources I'd use to place players into rough categories (like super star, star, etc.). If you want the exact calculation, it's here but it's complicated!
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

You're saying his performance wasn't that different when the team was .700 vs. .450. I agree. But that basically means he's not a main driving force behind his team's success and isn't the kind of player you want to give a huge salary to. I think nearly all the indicators of performance would point to the same conclusion.

35% of the cap space is just too much to give up on him. We can get more total win production from that much salary.

well that is where we differ, but not by as much as you think. "Impact" players or "stars" (lets avoid a classify Melo thread) are usually going to be overpaid. Some of it is marketplace. Some of it is timing. As they say you only need one GM to love you and the market is set.

Knicks overpaid for a scorer. I dont have a huge problem with that and I still think it makes sense for this team looking at the roster and prospects etc.

Rosters are very rarely a perfect balance between salary and production. The balance will come if and when Phil executes on this draft pick. If OK4 is there and we get him we are looking at 5+ years of production well below market or WS48 value.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lowryky01.html

Lowry's winshares went from 11.7 to 5.4 from last year to this, and most would say he's having a career best year and Toronto is a great. Hows that?

because he's played 1/3 the total games
WS48 is adjusted for playing time. Total win shares is not.

ahh.. so WS is cumulative? So if he doesnt play another game his WS will stay at 5.4? Fair enough...

Yes, total win shares is an estimate of how many wins you have uniquely contributed to your team's total. WS 48 is an estimate of how many wins per game (per 48 min) you contribute. The average WS48 is .100. There are ten players on the court and each one on average is contributing one-tenth of a win. A player with a WS48 of .227 like Lowry is contributing almost a quarter of a win per game even though he's only one of the ten players on the court. Then, if you're WS48 is .227 and you play 10 games, you've contributed 2.27 total win shares. So that's the difference between total and per 48 #s.

So the metrics knock on Melo is his WS48 of .160-.180 is pretty good as a Knick, but not $25mm a year good?

If I remember right, you've asked what Melo is doing differently than a few years ago when we had the 54 win team. A lot of the difference is that we don't have the good supporting cast we had then. But you can see a decline in WS48 from .184 to .101. That decline is probably due to lower scoring efficiency (which is from a decline in 3s and FTs) and a significant decline in his defensive #s.

but that pretty much was my point... that Melo is Melo but the talent level around him has really taken a nosedive.

How is that # derived? Looking at Melo the difference between last year and the year before is minimal, yet one team won 37 vs. 54 the year before. I think most agree Melo was a better player 2 years ago.

Sorry for the dweeb comment. #hugs

It basically takes into account total production and efficiency on offense and then it tracks the performance (scoring, rbs, etc.) of the man he's guarding on defense. I would never say that win shares is perfect, but it's one of the main sources I'd use to place players into rough categories (like super star, star, etc.). If you want the exact calculation, it's here but it's complicated!
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

You're saying his performance wasn't that different when the team was .700 vs. .450. I agree. But that basically means he's not a main driving force behind his team's success and isn't the kind of player you want to give a huge salary to. I think nearly all the indicators of performance would point to the same conclusion.

35% of the cap space is just too much to give up on him. We can get more total win production from that much salary.

well that is where we differ, but not by as much as you think. "Impact" players or "stars" (lets avoid a classify Melo thread) are usually going to be overpaid. Some of it is marketplace. Some of it is timing. As they say you only need one GM to love you and the market is set.

Knicks overpaid for a scorer. I dont have a huge problem with that and I still think it makes sense for this team looking at the roster and prospects etc.

Rosters are very rarely a perfect balance between salary and production. The balance will come if and when Phil executes on this draft pick. If OK4 is there and we get him we are looking at 5+ years of production well below market or WS48 value.

Fair enough. I don't mind a respectful disagreement, and I didn't expect to change your view. Still I'd rather have Okafor and the extra 25 mil. I wouldn't vastly overpay a player just because I hope a draft pick will later cancel the player out. I'd rather have the pick and flexibility to spend the money well. There will be competing teams with very good players on rookie contracts AND great use of the rest of their cap space. Or you might have a situation like last years Spurs where 3 hall-of-famers together were only making a little more than Melo. (You don't have to vastly overpay stars.)
I also think it's a stretch to call Melo an "impact" player unless you just mean a fairly good player. If you track how he and his teams do both with and without him, sure he does have a positive impact but not enough IMO to mean what people usually mean when they use the phrase "impact player"