Home > Problems with other evaluation tools > Jeff Sagarin and Wayne Winston

Jeff Sagarin and Wayne Winston

We understand why highly respected experts like Jeff Sagarin and Wayne Winston were not as successful with Winval as Sagarin was with his sports ratings. In competition the same better players are playing together when it matters, the benchwarmers only in garbage time.

That is coaching and that creates a small foundation to separate, a lack of data, limited minutes to isolate the effects of one player. It becomes a too small basis with “drifting” evaluations, derived on shifting sands and fading away with extrapolating.

Especially if the underlying assumptions are not so satisfying. You need very wide boots, a foundation on an enormous amount of minutes, when you march in such quicksand.

They could not create the same game conditions, quality, coaching, fatigue, chemistry, structure, motivation, the same game tempo and separate enough good samples of time etc.
There were too many unverifiable fluctuations and with the good, but very small foundation, the results of a valid statistical method becomes irrelevant to the tester’s intentions.

But an appropriate evaluation tool is a prerequisite. It has to be practical, consistent, accurate, with a well-considered philosophy of the performance evaluation, logically and mathematically sound. The method must have validity, reliability and must be standardized and accomplished with objectivity and judiciously. It must rate all the tangibles and the intangibles (what Winval did) that determine a player’s performance value to the team.
The evaluation method must work with a team concept and respect the basketball interactions. Winval was a good first step.