brad: wages of wins: Not sure about your joke about the Wages of Wins here (Rodman being better than Jordan.) But you don't have to read their book to know they don't argue that--check out their blog.

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/06/03/a-clarification-on-rodman-and-jordan/

Only if you don't read your book will you think they don't argue that. They can backpedal all they want on their blog, but the funny thing about a book is it's in black and white. It's permanent. And it's in my hands.

Page 144, talking about their Wins Produced formula and the record-setting '95-96 Bulls:

"Not surprisingly, Michael Jordan led the team, producing nearly 25 victories. For his efforts, he was also named league MVP by the sport writers. What may be a surprise, though, is the contribution of Dennis Rodman. The addition of Rodman appeared to transform a team that was probably expected to contend for a title into the greatest team in league history. In only 2,088 minutes, Rodman produced 18.1 wins. Per 48 minutes played, Rodman's productivity even eclipsed Jordan. Rodman's WP48 of .0.415 was four times the production offered by an average player in the NBA, and even surpassed the 0.386 WP48 posted by Jordan. Of course when one looks at standard deviations above the average, Jordan was still more productive than Rodman."

Emphasis mine. The part after the boldface means that Jordan was farther above average for his position than Rodman was for his. Rodman was a PF, Jordan a SF, and PF are, on average, more productive.

So yes, they qualify it, but they say quite explicitly that on a per-minute basis, Rodman was a more productive player than Jordan. The exact wording, again, is: "Per 48 minutes played, Rodman's productivity even eclipsed Jordan." I've given you the context. It's not out of context.

The "Wages of Wins" authors argue that rebounds are undervalued. I'm not sure, but I don't think I agree. But in trying to fix that, they vastly overvalue rebounds and undervalue participation in the offense. Voila, Rodman becomes more valuable than Jordan, who is marked down for all those shots he missed, which he missed while being double-teamed (by Rodman's defender) in a 4-on-5 offense in which Rodman refused to participate.

btdenver: 2. "lucky about something to a historic degree"

So Javy Lopez had no part in the Braves winning their division all those years? He was just lucky enough to be along for the ride?

This has already been addressed by others, but: Yes.

Is Javier Lopez a better player than Ivan Rodriguez (4 playoffs), or Ernie Banks for that matter (0 playoffs)? Of course not. He's a good player who had a couple of very good years. But mainly he just got lucky that he ended up on a team that made a historic playoff run. Of course he contributed to that playoff run, but he could just as well have contributed the exact same level of production to years 3-11 of the Pirates' run of missing the playoffs. Many great players have had many great years without sniffing the playoffs. Travis Hafner, Ryan Howard, Vernon Wells and Lance Berkman are a few examples from this year. Roy Oswalt, Scott Kasmir, Carlos Zambrano.

I didn't argue that Lopez was not a good player. Are you arguing he carried the Braves all those years? Of course he was lucky to have more playoff appearances than almost everybody else in baseball history.

foaming at the mouth. I'm just typing a lot.

KStone: A typo? Wasn't Jordan a SG not an SF? Pippen was the SF.

Yes, typo. Sorry. They put those letters so closetoeachother!

brad: The first thing to note is that they are saying, given the amount of time each played, Jordan was more valuable. Closers often put up better ERAs than starters, but we usually understand that starters are more valuable because of the number of innings they pitch (and when they pitch them.)

Right, they make it clear that, in overall value, Jordan was more productive. I get that. But I don't think the ERA analogy quite works.

Starting pitchers are not only more valuable because they pitch more innings, but because starting is more difficult than relieving. You have to pace yourself, face the same hitters three times or more, etc. The same pitcher, moved from the starting rotation to the bullpen, will generally see his ERA go down. (There are exceptions due to guys pouting or not being able to adjust or something, but generally.) But there are many examples of failed starters becoming great relievers, and very few going the other way.

John Hollinger and (I think) others have shown that the same doesn't apply in basketball. Hollinger has found that players' raw numbers go up when their playing time increases, but their rate stats don't increase. If a guy is good for 20 points per 48 minutes coming off the bench for 10 minutes a game, he'll be good for 20 points per 48 as a 35-minute-a-game starter too.

Given that, the authors of "Wages" would have to believe that, if only Phil Jackson were smart enough to give Dennis Rodman as much playing time as Michael Jordan, Rodman would have been the overall more productive player. Either that or they'd have to show that, with increased playing time, his productivity would have gone down. The first is ridiculous. The second they didn't bother with, though if they had I think they'd have had to get pretty fancy, because I just don't think it's true.

It also sounds like they're specifically comparing stats in a single year rather than making a more general statement about their careers. So ultimately, they're saying that in this particular year, if you take Jordan's and Rodman's numbers per minute and ignore how much the two actually played, Rodman was more valuable, theoretically, in that year.

Yeah, that's what they're saying. It's nuts. If the numbers are saying that, the numbers are wrong. There's an error in the formula.