<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 13 2008, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Where is your mathematical proof that this is the, in your words, holy grail of player ratings? What is the statistical basis for using the multipliers that you have used?</div> The reason its the holy grail is that there is nothing better I have seen. </div> After looking at your results for an entire season of Nuggets games, I can't agree that there is nothing better
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jul 13 2008, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pierce played more than twice as much as Powe, so he was much more important to the Celtics than Powe was.</div> effect->cause? Pierce is much more important than Powe is to the Celtics, so he played more than twice as him. </div> How about this for a shock: as long as Powe and Pierce are about equal in being where they need to be to try to force missed shots, and in actually forcing missed shots, and assuming that Powe has the stamina and energy needed, than the Celtics would have been about as good had the playing times been reversed. I know that is shocking and unbelievable to many. But this is one of the main reasons I do the Real Player Ratings: to uncover surprising but true things about the players and the teams, such as this. And the shock factor is precisely why ESPN itself would never do a statistic such as this, because zillions of people would be claiming that the statistic was wack, either because they didn't really understand the per time concept, or because they did understand it and refused to believe it has any merit. </div> I gotta ask.. do you watch basketball games? because your rational sounds like someone who catches a few games and relies on stats to found their conclusions. I've been following this game with more than casual attention to it for 20 years. Guys like Powe do not excel if you give them more minutes. they are flawed players who can have occasional good games but are better suited to limited minutes. That's why that horrible stat per/48 mins is useless. Give a 10 min player who averages 5 & 5 20 mins per game and he averages 5 and 4 with more fouls and T/O's. To even suggest that Leon Powe is anywhere near as good as Paul Pierce is laughable. He wasn't able to put up numbers near pierce's in college for crying out loud. And to suggest it's because of the coaching is silly too. Coaches help no doubt, but good players are able to fit into a team because of their years of playing through grade school, HS, AAU and now at least 1 year of college. At this level coaches are not really there to teach, but to recognize when mismatches and exploit them and create and offense and defensive philosophy that will use the players on his teams strengths. This isn't college ball where the coach instills his offense and the players have to adjust. At this level it's about keeping the players happy and having them accept their roles more than anything else. Good Chemistry = a commitment to winning and doing what is asked of you to win. The Nuggets has shite chemistry and part of that may be Karl's fault, but it's also the GM's and the players.
Chris Mihm, who played like a total of 10 minutes the entire season is 31 points higher than Daniel Gibson, who is somehow ranked 307. The list is bullshit
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jul 13 2008, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ah yes, the ever important truth. So do you think the Celtics would be just as good if they only played Paul Pierce 14 minutes? What if they then gave Leon Powe 36?</div> If Powe had the stamina to play 36 instead of 14 and be just as good, which is probably true, and if Powe is just as good or better than Pierce as a made them miss defender, which I think is probably true also, and if they played the same position, than the Celtics would very likely be just as good with either of them playing 36 and the other 14. However, although they are both forwards, Pierce is a 3 and Powe is a 4, which means if you switched the minutes, you would probably be screwing things up to some degree. Specifically, you might start to look more like the Nuggets, with very good interior defense, but very poor outside defense. Powe turned out to be one hell of a backup for Garnett, and he was crucial for the Celtics during when Garnett was having injury problems, absolutely critical. since obviously Garnett was so important himself. Whoever would have thought that Kevin Garnett's backup would himself be one of the best PFs in the NBA? What about Powe in the future? Powe comes from a very poor background, and players such as this have a steeper hill to climb if they are ever to be regarded as starters, a road which can on occasion be a very twisted one as well as being steep, such as Allen Iverson's road was, where he ended up having his position changed so that the coaches could be comfortable in their skin starting him. But that's another story.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Powe comes from a very poor background, and players such as this have a steeper hill to climb if they are ever to be regarded as starters, a road which can on occasion be a very twisted one as well as being steep</div> Please prove this claim of yours
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Chris Mihm, who played like a total of 10 minutes the entire season is 31 points higher than Daniel Gibson, who is somehow ranked 307. The list is bullshit</div> Tell me how this happens please, thank you. And Amare Stoudimire is not the best player in the NBA
Every ranking system definitely has big flaws, as none of them take into consideration defense, and some place more emphasis on total numbers, others on efficiency, do they take pace on the team into consideration. None of them can really consider if the player is getting an easy looks or a hard shots when they get it. Or just general chemistry that the player brings. However this one seems off statistically. According to the rankings: Bynum > Dwight Sam Cassell > Rajan Rondo TJ Ford > Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Tmac Ike Diogu > Brandon Roy I dont want to say other formulas dont have flaws though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jul 13 2008, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jul 13 2008, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pierce played more than twice as much as Powe, so he was much more important to the Celtics than Powe was.</div> effect->cause? Pierce is much more important than Powe is to the Celtics, so he played more than twice as him. </div> How about this for a shock: as long as Powe and Pierce are about equal in being where they need to be to try to force missed shots, and in actually forcing missed shots, and assuming that Powe has the stamina and energy needed, than the Celtics would have been about as good had the playing times been reversed. I know that is shocking and unbelievable to many. But this is one of the main reasons I do the Real Player Ratings: to uncover surprising but true things about the players and the teams, such as this. And the shock factor is precisely why ESPN itself would never do a statistic such as this, because zillions of people would be claiming that the statistic was wack, either because they didn't really understand the per time concept, or because they did understand it and refused to believe it has any merit. </div> I gotta ask.. do you watch basketball games? because your rational sounds like someone who catches a few games and relies on stats to found their conclusions. I've been following this game with more than casual attention to it for 20 years. Guys like Powe do not excel if you give them more minutes. they are flawed players who can have occasional good games but are better suited to limited minutes. That's why that horrible stat per/48 mins is useless. Give a 10 min player who averages 5 & 5 20 mins per game and he averages 5 and 4 with more fouls and T/O's. To even suggest that Leon Powe is anywhere near as good as Paul Pierce is laughable. He wasn't able to put up numbers near pierce's in college for crying out loud. And to suggest it's because of the coaching is silly too. Coaches help no doubt, but good players are able to fit into a team because of their years of playing through grade school, HS, AAU and now at least 1 year of college. At this level coaches are not really there to teach, but to recognize when mismatches and exploit them and create and offense and defensive philosophy that will use the players on his teams strengths. This isn't college ball where the coach instills his offense and the players have to adjust. At this level it's about keeping the players happy and having them accept their roles more than anything else. Good Chemistry = a commitment to winning and doing what is asked of you to win. The Nuggets has shite chemistry and part of that may be Karl's fault, but it's also the GM's and the players. </div> Yes sir, Leon Powe was just as good as Paul Pierce was, in the 2007-08 regular season, per any unit of time you want to pick, assuming Powe is at least as good as Pierce is at making shooters miss. Really and truly, regardless of how shocked you or I or Coach Rivers or anyone else is. This statistic is in the ballpark of showing the real world in its entirety, my friend, so to claim that the real world is different is not on point. But you are correct for about 99.99 % or more of statistics, which do not reflect the complexity of the real world. Aside from single measurements like ppg and rpg, which obviously are very limited, most combination or "advanced" statistics are only partial glimpses of the real world, because they don't give the result on a per unit of time basis. Whereas, my measure takes a solid combination statistic and adjusts for time, which is as close as you are going to get to seeing the real basketball world, in full and all at once. Since there is stuff in the real world that no one knows about, it is natural when being shocked by something like the Leon Powe performance, to assume that the measurement in question is just like the rest: a faulty, or at least insufficient view of reality. But this measure is like the real wolf at the door my friend, its not part of another boy who cried wolf story. But if you want to just go with the actual production, then go ahead and do it. The per time views of players and teams are extremely useful for people who are looking for flaws in coaches, teams, and the entire League, not as useful for the average fan who wants to focus mostly on the specific pros and cons of players, while assuming that it is impossible to add the pros and cons of a player together to come up with the net. I think you can add the pros and cons together and come up with the ultimate net. Leon Powe is glad I did so. lol. If all you want to do is look for bad things and good things about individual players, than do so, just don't ever click on the per 48 mins. link at ESPN lol. I don't think that even existed last year, by the way, so ESPN is moving in my direction. As for watching games, another reason I did the Real Player Rating was precisely so I could cut way, way back on looking at statistics, which would free up a lot of game watching time. Since the Real Player Rating summarizes almost everything in one measure, it often saves me a lot of time hunting around for evidence regarding who is more productive/talented, which team is more productive/talented, and so forth.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes sir, Leon Powe was just as good as Paul Pierce was, in the 2007-08 regular season, per any unit of time you want to pick, assuming Powe is at least as good as Pierce is at making shooters miss. Really and truly, regardless of how shocked you or I or Coach Rivers or anyone else is.</div> Quite the contrary. It demonstrates how flawed your measurements are.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 13 2008, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Every ranking system definitely has big flaws, as none of them take into consideration defense, and some place more emphasis on total numbers, others on efficiency, do they take pace on the team into consideration. None of them can really consider if the player is getting an easy looks or a hard shots when they get it. Or just general chemistry that the player brings. However this one seems off statistically. According to the rankings: Bynum > Dwight Sam Cassell > Rajan Rondo TJ Ford > Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Tmac Ike Diogu > Brandon Roy I dont want to say other formulas dont have flaws though.</div> Pace is an important concept, and the Real Player Rating only partially adjusts for pace, by penalizing missed shots. (Fast pace teams miss more shots, by definition.) I say partially, because I think the missed shot weights should be higher, at least 1.0. But consider that most "advanced" statistics do not have any penalty at all for missed shots, and thus no adjustment whatsoever for pace. So if there is no adjustment for pace at all, they are not very "advanced" at all, are they? The pace adjustment here is relatively crude and not in my opinion enough, but at least there is a pace adjustment, whereas it is no where to be found in the vast majority of other comparable measures. So once again, the root of the Real Player Rating is shown to be surprisingly effective and, well, real. ESPN may possibly not even have realized that they were actually adjusting for pace when they included the missed shot items!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 08:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But consider that most "advanced" statistics do not have any penalty at all for missed shots, and thus no adjustment whatsoever for pace.</div> Which advanced stats are you claiming don't have a penalty for missed shots?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>TJ Ford > Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Tmac</div> Yes, and this shows you that Indiana made a good trade with Toronto recently. How do you think small market teams like Indiana maneuver to become contenders, despite being a place few top players really want to play? One way they do it is by making trades that the average person thinks is a bad trade, but is actually a good trade. Whereas Indiana made this shrewd trade for a very talented PG with a long career ahead, the Nuggets made a trade for a very talented PG/SG with a not so long career ahead, and made no changes from how the 76'ers ran things. This is just a little snapshot of how the tradition of Indiana having FO and coaching personnel who are more shrewd than the Denver FO and coaching personnel is continuing on.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Chris Mihm, who played like a total of 10 minutes the entire season is 31 points higher than Daniel Gibson, who is somehow ranked 307. The list is bullshit</div> Daniel Gibson is only 22 years old, he is a PG, and to be on the list at all means you are an extremely good bball player. So give him a chance lol. Chris Mihm played 275 minutes in 23 games. So why worry that Mihm, who is 28 years old, was slightly better than the up and coming PG? It doesn't really mean squat that Mihm was a little better. Who cares, when the vast majority of players who are 22 years old are going to get better when they are 23, 24, 25, and so forth. Usually but I guess not always, you should steer away from directly comparing players who are very different in age, or who play very different positions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jul 13 2008, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ah yes, the ever important truth. So do you think the Celtics would be just as good if they only played Paul Pierce 14 minutes? What if they then gave Leon Powe 36?</div> If Powe had the stamina to play 36 instead of 14 and be just as good, which is probably true, and if Powe is just as good or better than Pierce as a made them miss defender, which I think is probably true also, and if they played the same position, than the Celtics would very likely be just as good with either of them playing 36 and the other 14. However, although they are both forwards, Pierce is a 3 and Powe is a 4, which means if you switched the minutes, you would probably be screwing things up to some degree. Specifically, you might start to look more like the Nuggets, with very good interior defense, but very poor outside defense. Powe turned out to be one hell of a backup for Garnett, and he was crucial for the Celtics during when Garnett was having injury problems, absolutely critical. since obviously Garnett was so important himself. Whoever would have thought that Kevin Garnett's backup would himself be one of the best PFs in the NBA? What about Powe in the future? Powe comes from a very poor background, and players such as this have a steeper hill to climb if they are ever to be regarded as starters, a road which can on occasion be a very twisted one as well as being steep, such as Allen Iverson's road was, where he ended up having his position changed so that the coaches could be comfortable in their skin starting him. But that's another story. </div> Thank you for taking the time out of your day to debunk your own stat, and provide examples of how it fails. So much for "truth." edit: I just read your last paragraph, and I'm a bit shocked; as if coaches have credit reports handy when determining minutes; GM's when drafting; player's when practicing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Chris Mihm, who played like a total of 10 minutes the entire season is 31 points higher than Daniel Gibson, who is somehow ranked 307. The list is bullshit</div> Daniel Gibson is only 22 years old, he is a PG, and to be on the list at all means you are an extremely good bball player. So give him a chance lol. Chris Mihm played 275 minutes in 23 games. So why worry that Mihm, who is 28 years old, was slightly better than the up and coming PG? It doesn't really mean squat that Mihm was a little better. Who cares, when the vast majority of players who are 22 years old are going to get better when they are 23, 24, 25, and so forth. Usually but I guess not always, you should steer away from directly comparing players who are very different in age, or who play very different positions.
Okay so TJ Ford, a backup last year, is better than Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker, Jose Calderon, Jason Kidd, Andre Miller, and Devin Harris. Vince Carter is better than Finals MVP Paul Pierce. Any logical NBA fan would say this is pretty much bullshit. These stats don't mean anything. I find it hilarious how you're actually judging players with these stats And age doesn't play a factor at all. Dwight Howard is much younger than Shaq. So I guess he should be ranked lower right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jul 13 2008, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jul 13 2008, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ah yes, the ever important truth. So do you think the Celtics would be just as good if they only played Paul Pierce 14 minutes? What if they then gave Leon Powe 36?</div> If Powe had the stamina to play 36 instead of 14 and be just as good, which is probably true, and if Powe is just as good or better than Pierce as a made them miss defender, which I think is probably true also, and if they played the same position, than the Celtics would very likely be just as good with either of them playing 36 and the other 14. However, although they are both forwards, Pierce is a 3 and Powe is a 4, which means if you switched the minutes, you would probably be screwing things up to some degree. Specifically, you might start to look more like the Nuggets, with very good interior defense, but very poor outside defense. Powe turned out to be one hell of a backup for Garnett, and he was crucial for the Celtics during when Garnett was having injury problems, absolutely critical. since obviously Garnett was so important himself. Whoever would have thought that Kevin Garnett's backup would himself be one of the best PFs in the NBA? What about Powe in the future? Powe comes from a very poor background, and players such as this have a steeper hill to climb if they are ever to be regarded as starters, a road which can on occasion be a very twisted one as well as being steep, such as Allen Iverson's road was, where he ended up having his position changed so that the coaches could be comfortable in their skin starting him. But that's another story. </div> Thank you for taking the time out of your day to debunk your own stat, and provide examples of how it fails. So much for "truth." edit: I just read your last paragraph, and I'm a bit shocked; as if coaches have credit reports handy when determining minutes; GM's when drafting; player's when practicing. </div> You can't simply take the five players on your team with the highest Real Player Ratings and make them all starters! If you did that, you would be putting as much faith in how positions organize an offense and a defense as George Karl does, and I wouldn't want to see anyone go down that road, lol. No, the Real Player Ratings alone can not determine who should play more and who should play less between players who play different positions, assuming that the players in question can not play a different position as well as they are playing their current position. You can to a large extent use it to figure out about how many minutes different players who play the same position should be getting. Lol at the use of the term "credit reports", which is telling in itself. When credit reports were first invented, which was not so long ago, the inventors promised that they could and would never be used as an overall evaluation of someone's economic and social stature. But to many actual users of reports, that is exactly what they have become. In other words, many credit report users use credit reports for a lot more than seeing whether someone pays his bills or not. And so here in 2008, on SportsTwo, someone has just used the credit report term as shorthand for someone's economic and social stature! And just about everyone important on a basketball team knows who on the roster had a particularly rough childhood, high school career, and/or college career, with no "credit report" necessary. There is most likely not a GM in the League who doesn't know that Allen Iverson would be a felon were it not for a pardon by the Governor of Virginia. And there are some GMs, and some coaches also, who would not want Iverson on their teams for that reason alone.
This is the reason why I think Hollinger is BS; these subjective stat formulas don't do anything but reinforce the writer's ideas about the NBA because they're constructed based on the writer's previously-held opinions. It's not like using someone else's garbage stat to back up your opinion, it's literally your opinion supported by...your opinion. To disguise that by calling them "statistics" is a joke. Take for instance your idea about Paul Pierce being just as effective as Leon Powe. That's embarrassing, and what's worse is that you're trying to defend it with numbers that you made up! "This is right because I say it is." You're not fooling anybody. Mathematicians love the idea of being able to finally summarize the NBA with a single number, but it's just not possible. At some point you've got to watch the games yourself.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay so TJ Ford, a backup last year, is better than Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker, Jose Calderon, Jason Kidd, Andre Miller, and Devin Harris. Vince Carter is better than Finals MVP Paul Pierce. Any logical NBA fan would say this is pretty much bullshit. These stats don't mean anything. I find it hilarious how you're actually judging players with these stats And age doesn't play a factor at all. Dwight Howard is much younger than Shaq. So I guess he should be ranked lower right?</div> Yes, TJ Ford was slightly better than them. So I say Indiana made a good trade with Toronto and you most likely are saying they made a bad trade. So let's see if Indiana becomes as good or better a team than is Toronto in the next few years. No, the younger the player, the lower his rating is going to be, everything else held constant. So if a young player has a very high ranking, than he is likely to be one of the best players in the world, looking at the next five years or so. So Howard's advantage over O'Neal is all the more impressive when you look at the ages. If the ratings were reversed, O'Neal's lead over Howard would not be all that impressive.
