Misapplied credit

I think I've been able to pinpoint exactly where the The Wages of Wins guys go wrong in valuing basketball players, or at least what their largest error is. Clearly they overvalue rebounds, but that's not my insight, it seems like everyone is pointing that out. My thoughts are on why they do so. Defensive rebounds are valuable not so much because of the rebound itself (as valuable as that is), but rather because they mean that the other team missed a shot. The player who grabs the board then receives all of the credit for this missed shot in the formula, when in fact credit would probably properly go to the on-the-ball defender first, then to the rebounder, then to team play (this exact order may be wrong, but the general idea is right), and of course discredit to the offense. There are other defensive issues, but in my opinion this is by far the biggest one. Yes, the numbers add up pretty much correctly in the formula 'predicting' a team's wins, but that makes sense; an opponent's possession will end in a steal, a block, a rebound, or points, but the apportioning of credit to individuals is not accurate.

As for their offensive evaluations, they are closer to correct than their defensive ones, but there are some issues there as well, such as no outlet passing credits, setting picks doesn't have any place in the formula, the pass to set up the pass is ignored, etc.

I understand that all these things that I want to include in the formula are extremely hard to measure, but that's partly the point. Just because they are hard to measure doesn't mean that they don't matter, and pretending that they don't matter leads to evaluations like that Garnett, an excellent but flawed player, is by far the best playing today.