Ranking every Celtics player since 1977

David Berri over at the Wages of Wins ranks every Celtic since 1977 with respect to Wins Produced.

From Bird (1st) to Brian "Intangibles" Scalabrine (223rd).

over 2 years ago The Walker Wiggle 20 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"Wins produced" isn`t a viable tool to prove anything

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/what-wins-produced-says-and-what-it-does-not-say/

by Casperian on May 29, 2009 6:47 PM EDT reply actions

#2

But why does it not surprse me that Scal managed to end up last?

by Casperian on May 29, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions

and how is it possible that patrick o bryant is ranked ahead of scal?!

by Kevin Garnett on May 30, 2009 2:20 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't buy it...

As I said in the forums, “Wages of Wins” always comes up with wacky results. In this case, we have Parish over McHale and Rondo (3 seasons) over Reggie (6 seasons). I don’t buy it.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on May 29, 2009 6:48 PM EDT reply actions

Well

What about Rodman above Jordan?

Rondo, with his ability to rebound and steal the ball, his scoring efficiency and his relatively low usage rate has all the tools to be a WPs favourite.

by cordobes on May 29, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Right...

Which is why it means nothing to me.

Most productive Celtics per minute:

1. Kermit Washington
2. Larry Bird
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Danny Fortson

Also, I don’t believe that Walter McCarty’s 8 seasons were, cumulatively, less productive than, say, Bruno Sundov.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on May 29, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Certainly not the final word.

Tony Allen 28th!?! But I don’t dismiss Wins Produced entirely either. Some days I prefer it to PER.

Although maybe you can’t trust me; I will take any opportunity I can get to bring up names like Kevin Gamble (26th) Joe Klein (52nd) and Alaa Abdelnaby (156th)…

by The Walker Wiggle on May 29, 2009 6:59 PM EDT reply actions

Negative Wins Produced Numbers

Starbury ahead of Frank Brickowski? No way!!

They are both ahead of BBD, although I suspect that BBD’s numbers would be better if you threw out last year.

by Brickowski on May 29, 2009 7:13 PM EDT reply actions

Really?

Starbury — in his atrocious half a season — is ahead of BBD? That makes sense.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on May 29, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't like Wins Produced

I think it’s a metric with a fundamental flaw in its conception. I also don’t like the fact that Berri is… well, disingenuous, about the predictive power of his metric and how it was built.

I’m not really a fan of these theoretically derived compiled metrics to rank players (PER, WP, EFF, etc.), as I find them all quite useless.

by cordobes on May 29, 2009 7:50 PM EDT reply actions

Looking at those stiffs at the bottom...

there is no way that Scal should be at the bottom. That just seems like a mean joke.

When Perk was asked what he thought of Howard winning the gold medal this summer, he responded: "What’s his impression of me after I won a ring?"

by Green17 on May 29, 2009 7:56 PM EDT reply actions

Agreed

I think Hollinger and Berri tweak their coefficients until they get can rank Scalabrine last. I would choose Scal over about 100 of the people on the list.

by papa shuttlesworth on May 29, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Regression Analysis Doesn't Lie

But what it does not account for is who is on the floor with you as your statistics are being generated.

Guys who consistently play with bad players have lower wins produced scores that their contributions would otherwise indicate.

by Brickowski on May 29, 2009 8:20 PM EDT reply actions

scal

has played two years with good players – so he must truly suck

by Brendan on May 30, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Too crazy for words

This list is so wrong, on so many different levels.

Scal does not belong anywhere near dead last…and this is coming from one who hated his acquisition from the moment it was announced, and has never stopped hating it!

{I like Scal, the person…not the player}

by Title 18 on May 29, 2009 10:52 PM EDT reply actions

Wow...

I gotta rethink the use of these “wins produced” statistics. Dana Barros ahead of Dave Cowens? Riiiight… Rick Fox ahead of Ray Allen? Riiiiight… Paul Pierce ahead of Kevin McHale? Riiiight…

by Jordinho on May 30, 2009 12:52 AM EDT reply actions

Hmmm...

Fodder for debate I suppose as now I’m forced to root for the Cavs or Orlando.

It’s very surprising to me that it’s not much of a story RE: PHIL JACKSON versus ‘the great’ RED AUERBACH here…

PHIL JACKSON the greatest coachof all time should he win the Championship this year? NO, let’s rephrase that. PHIL JACKSON the WINNINGEST coach of all time…that’s more accurate…at least as far as championships won.

As far as this top list goes, it’s hard to imagine

Eric Williams at #54
Walter McCarty at #217
Antoine Walker at #13

Enjoy the day!

Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk

by mcpu40 on May 30, 2009 8:05 AM EDT reply actions

1 year?

I might be wrong, but I do believe that John Havlicek played more than one year for the C’s…and certainly was a better player than where he is positioned…

by bigal_nl on May 30, 2009 9:01 AM EDT reply actions