Fanservice: The 100 Greatest Players of the Wins Produced Era (Poster Version)

I needed a short quick post today. My reader’s of course obliged.

Reader Mark Wylie asked:

Is there somewhere you have the all time wins produced list with WP48 and minutes played? I’m really interested in seeing that and the highest wins produced seasons and Wp48 seasons.

I really thought I had put this up at some point. I looked back and I hadn’t. So here goes the 100 greatest players according to Wins Produced in the Turnover era (i.e. since 1978):

We might just have to sell this one for your home.

Posterized

 

 


17 Comments

  1. Man of Steele
    2/8/2011
    Reply

    I’d be interested to see what everyone thinks the cutoff for the Hall of Fame should be. It seems like guys who accumulate over 200 wins are good candidates, although maybe it should be like 175 total wins with a WP48 over .200 or something like that.

    It’s crazy to see how LeBron and Chris Paul already measure up on this list. They seem to be good candidates to reach the mind-blowing 300 win club.

  2. Mark Wylie
    2/8/2011
    Reply

    Thanks heaps for this Arturo, between this chart and Andres Automated Wins Produced site they will answer lots of the questions I get when I read Wages of Wins network posts. I don’t want to sound ungrateful but is there some way I can put these numbers in, or you can post these in a google or excel spreadsheet so I can sort the columns?

    So after a quick scan the all time wins produced season team would be: (correct me if I’m wrong)

    PG ’82 Magic Johnson 29.6 wins
    SG ’89 Michael Jordan 32.9 wins
    SF ’09 LeBron James 27.8 wins
    PF ’92 Dennis Rodman 33.1 wins
    C ’91 David Robinson 28.6 wins

    Interesting that while Michael Jordan is widely accepted as the best player ever, he doesn’t have either the highest total wins, wins per season or WP48.

  3. 2/8/2011
    Reply

    In regards to Jordan, one question I’m always wondering is why is standard deviation never brought up in this conversation? Wouldn’t it be harder for Jordan to stand out relative to his counterparts at SG than other positions because shooting guard is the most heavily populated position? If you account for SD, what do the rankings look like?

  4. Man of Steele
    2/8/2011
    Reply

    robbie, Dr. Berri mentioned something along those lines in a post about a year ago. Essentially, Jordan is more standard deviations from the norm for his position than even someone like David Robinson, who had an outstanding WP48 but at a position with a different population/talent concentration.

  5. Jon
    2/8/2011
    Reply

    Mark, it is interesting because its wrong. The idea that Barkley, Robinson, or Rodman contributed more wins to their teams than MJ tells you alot more about the Wins Produced stat than it does those players. Isn’t it funny how the 1994 Spurs, with 2 of the 6 greatest players in history, both at their absolute peaks, won a single playoff game. What are the odds?

  6. Jon
    2/8/2011
    Reply

    I don’t see how thats a strawman argument. I’m looking at their rankings for wins produced per 48, all those players i named rank higher than MJ on that statistic. Which is laughable. Of course Barkley and Robinson were good, why does me saying that they were clearly not as good as MJ mean i think they suck? Jordan took off 2 years in his prime, not 5. and nearly every player has a couple seasons of decline, thats typical for anyone. Why don’t you ask Phil Jackson who was a more valuable player – Jordan or Rodman? Saying he’s an amazing athlete tells us nothing, why don’t we declare Bo Jackson the best player of all-time.

    • ilikeflowers
      2/8/2011
      Reply

      Jordan is one of only two players to every break the 0.500 wp48 barrier for a season. He was regularly around and above 0.400 in his prime. At his peak only Magic in the modern era was better. Jordan also has all time levels of production at a position (SG) where super-elite levels of production are rare. Jon must be right, he’s seen through all the smoke and mirrors.

      Gotta love this,

      Of course Barkley and Robinson were good, why does me saying that they were clearly not as good as MJ mean i think they suck?

      So Jon refutes the strawman claim and immediately presents another.

      • Jon,
        Most of 1986,1994, Most of 1995. 1999 ,2000 and 2001. He would have been good to great in the last three.

  7. Jon
    2/8/2011
    Reply

    Flowers, i don’t think you understand the meaning of strawman argument? I guess you think its a phrase that sounds cool? 2 more issues –

    1) everytime i see discussion of the greatest players ever on the WoW network, or one of these charts, its always based on regular season statistics. Why do you always ignore the fact that players like Robinson and Rodman, Stockton and more than anyone else Malone, were much worse in the playoff than the regular season. While MJ was, if anything, slightly better than his already incredible self. Does nobody realize here that the playoffs are the games that truly matter? This isn’t baseball where you can’t really judge someone on their playoff resume because of sample size issues. At the absolute least, playoff stats should be included with regular season when having these discussions.

    2) you only say the 1994 spurs had a terrible supporting cast because thats what WoW tells you to say. Hmm Robinson and Rodman created 50 wins, the team only won 55, the other players must be awful. other all-inclusive stats like Win Shares rate 5-6 other players on the team as at least league average. Dale Ellis, Vinny Del Negro, Antoine Carr, were very capable role players at least. The Spurs lost primarily b/c Robinson (41% shooting) and Rodman (6-24 from FT line) were underwhelming. Switch out either one of them for MJ and i’m pretty sure that team wins a title, let alone a 2nd playoff game.

    • ilikeflowers
      2/8/2011
      Reply

      Flowers, i don’t think you understand the meaning of strawman argument?

      Self-pwnage at its finest…

  8. Man of Steele
    2/8/2011
    Reply

    Just read the article Dr. Berri wrote about standard deviation. While Rodman and Robinson may have been more productive, Jordan was more valuable, owing to the distribution of talent at the SG position.

  9. 7/19/2012
    Reply

    Who did the Spurs add the year they gave Rodman away that made the supporting cast significantly greater, to the point where they actually exceeded their expected winning% without Rodman?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *