This post will focus on the difficulties encountered when trying to accurately gauge an efficient low-usage player's ability, and how I went about trying to do it anyway.
Many of these types of arguments stem from the metric Wins Produced (WP), and how it values certain players. Many claim efficient low-usage players can be vastly overrated by WP, while high-usage less efficient players can be underrated. I don't generally agree with the premise, however there are certain cases where it can be true. This isn't so much a function of WP being crap, but like in any holistic statistical metric, certain data points will fall outside the norm for whatever reason.
I looked at 5 of the top low-usage players in the NBA, in terms of Wins Produced. Kidd, Sefalosha, Collison, Chandler, and Diaw. I then tried to determine if there were any trends in career efficiency. Did their play spike/dip after playing with/without a certain player/system? By how much, and what does this tell us? To measure efficiency, I used True Shooting percentage, and Turnover percentage.
Many of these types of arguments stem from the metric Wins Produced (WP), and how it values certain players. Many claim efficient low-usage players can be vastly overrated by WP, while high-usage less efficient players can be underrated. I don't generally agree with the premise, however there are certain cases where it can be true. This isn't so much a function of WP being crap, but like in any holistic statistical metric, certain data points will fall outside the norm for whatever reason.
I looked at 5 of the top low-usage players in the NBA, in terms of Wins Produced. Kidd, Sefalosha, Collison, Chandler, and Diaw. I then tried to determine if there were any trends in career efficiency. Did their play spike/dip after playing with/without a certain player/system? By how much, and what does this tell us? To measure efficiency, I used True Shooting percentage, and Turnover percentage.
Sefalosha was an easy one to filter. I just looked at his numbers pre-Durant/Harden/Westbrook era, and his numbers during/after. Before the arrival of his superstar teammates, Sefalosha was good for nothing. Afterword, he became a boss. Coincidence? I think not.
Collison is more or less the same story. His efficiency took a serious jump once he started playing with Durant, Harden, and Westbrook.
Boris Diaw experienced a jump in efficiency due to something known as the, "Spurs Effect". San Antonio runs an efficient NBA system that gets everybody good shots, leading to increased production from everyone, including our pal Boris.
We know J-Kidd spent years/decades/centuries running his own team, but it was interesting to see how his production was effected by playing only a supporting role for the Mavs/Knicks. He experienced a modest increase in efficiency, and its likely Dirk Nowitzki and coach Carlisle had something to do with that.
Tyson Chandler was an interesting case. On the surface it would seem that he was helped greatly by playing with Chris Paul, Dirk Nowitzki, Carlisle, and now Carmelo (shiver). However, I have to give him somewhat of a pass. He played a year for the Bobcats, in between his Hornets/Maverick days, and put up a TS% of 64.3. Prior to being moved to New Orleans, his TS% was also steadily increasing, so its probable that he could sustain a TS% of roughly 62, regardless of teammate/system quality. It should also be noted however, that his TO% during this time was a ghastly 26, as opposed to a trim 13.7% this year.
So what does this all mean? Well, it means that low-usage players can be risky gambles. Put them in the correct situation, and the production can be staggering. Put them in the wrong situation, and it could get ugly. Note that the role player in question actually has to be good, like the above 5 are/were. There are plenty of role players in the NBA that suck no matter what they try.
Let's also be clear about something. This doesn't devalue a single season(s) of production from low-usage players. Despite Sefalosha sucking in the past, he is balling now, and while his role may seem "easy", its absolutely crucial to the success of OKC.
However, it does mean you have to be careful about how you value him in relation to a guy like Dwyane Wade. While Sefalosha may be out producing Wade in terms of raw numbers this year (according to WP), it would be very unwise to take him ahead of Wade in a "draft". Why? Because Wade can give you 9/10 regardless of teammates/system. Sefalosha can give you 10/10 on some teams, and 2/10 on others. This is where we draw the line between efficiency and value. Sefalosha is more efficient, but Wade is more valuable.
* This article may not be used to validate Carmelo/Kobe/Westbrook's awful shot selection. Wade is actually efficient, just not "quite" as efficient as Sefalosha. The distinctions drawn between value and productivity are only significant between two relatively close players (WP). The guy ranked 30th can't skip ahead of number 4, because of his inherent "value".
* I am not staking out positions for WP proponents/opponents. I am addressing common arguments that revolve around the metric.
So what does this all mean? Well, it means that low-usage players can be risky gambles. Put them in the correct situation, and the production can be staggering. Put them in the wrong situation, and it could get ugly. Note that the role player in question actually has to be good, like the above 5 are/were. There are plenty of role players in the NBA that suck no matter what they try.
Let's also be clear about something. This doesn't devalue a single season(s) of production from low-usage players. Despite Sefalosha sucking in the past, he is balling now, and while his role may seem "easy", its absolutely crucial to the success of OKC.
However, it does mean you have to be careful about how you value him in relation to a guy like Dwyane Wade. While Sefalosha may be out producing Wade in terms of raw numbers this year (according to WP), it would be very unwise to take him ahead of Wade in a "draft". Why? Because Wade can give you 9/10 regardless of teammates/system. Sefalosha can give you 10/10 on some teams, and 2/10 on others. This is where we draw the line between efficiency and value. Sefalosha is more efficient, but Wade is more valuable.
* This article may not be used to validate Carmelo/Kobe/Westbrook's awful shot selection. Wade is actually efficient, just not "quite" as efficient as Sefalosha. The distinctions drawn between value and productivity are only significant between two relatively close players (WP). The guy ranked 30th can't skip ahead of number 4, because of his inherent "value".
* I am not staking out positions for WP proponents/opponents. I am addressing common arguments that revolve around the metric.