Letters to the Editor

King Kaufman's Sports Daily "The dog ate my homework" vs. "There is an agenda here." Floyd Landis' drug-test results are a question of faith. [2006-08-08]

• Wages of Wins and luck

  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.

  -- King Kaufman
  [Read King Kaufman's other letters]
  Permalink Flag Tuesday, August 8, 2006 12:57 PM
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel