No offense, but TJ Ford is NOT better than Chauncey Billups, he is NOT better than Tony Parker, he is NOT better than Jose Calderon who started over him, and he is NOT better than Jason Kidd. Vince Carter is NOT better than Paul Pierce, the Finals MVP. Apparently Andrew Bynum is THE BEST center in the NBA because Amare and Duncan are actually power forwards Jesus... These stats are bullshit, I'm sorry. Not trying to sound mean or anything, but if you actually use these stats to judge players, then you are an idiot. You go up to any NBA GM and offer him TJ Ford for Chauncey Billups and you'll get laughed at.
treamine...what?! Man, I've read this whole thread and you seem to be making things up bro. I've got respect for you and I like what you do...but what is all this? You're multiplying numbers with random stats from I don't know where.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 09:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div> That just shows why these stats don't mean anything You can't get penatalized just because you're younger. That's bullshit
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jul 13 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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> Lol, I think Hollinger may be BS too because, for one thing, his per is almost insanely complicated and, for another thing, you can't even find out what his formulas are that make up the per on ESPN itself! Whereas, the Real Player Rating is hardly too complicated. Its at about the 11th or 12th grade level in terms of math. I didn't make up a damn thing lol. The scorekeepers watch the games and keep track of who does what. They turn in their counts to the NBA, which makes them available to ESPN. ESPN has programmers, who are paid a whole lot of money, who construct and maintain their NBA statistics database, which is sitting on the internet for anyone to view. ESPN Sports personnel had a meetng and decided to use a summary or combination statistic called by them the "ESPN Player Rating." Tremaine came along and said "Wait a minute, the ESPN stat is surprisingly good, but what about Leon Powe, TJ Ford, JR Smith, and so forth? No one seems to know how good they are. What can I do to alert the public that these are great up and coming players who, some months or years from now, will almost certainly be starters, and who most everyone will agree are good players? Can I give my readers advance knowledge that they can not get elsewhere? Why yes, I can do that! So I took the ESPN summary measure and divided by minutes. And then I am accused of making everything up at SportsTwo. Lol. No seriously, I hope you understand now, there is no conspiracy here. I had no idea until I did this how good Leon Powe and TJ Ford are, so it wasn't just me trying to prove something I had claimed in advance. And isn't it true that TJ Ford is going to be a PG starter in the NBA this coming season? Aren't most starters considered better than most non-starters by most fans? It looks like the Real Player Rating accomplished its mission with respect to TJ Ford. Now if only I had done the 2007-08 before the Indiana trade, lol...
Okay answer my question So you're saying TJ Ford is better than Chauncey Billups, Jason Kidd, Tony Parker, and Jose Calderon (who he couldn't even start over last season)?
Brian, Pierce isn't THAT much better then Vince. He's better, but not as big of a margin that you are making it seem. But I agree, these numbers just remind of John Hollinger.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No offense, but TJ Ford is NOT better than Chauncey Billups, he is NOT better than Tony Parker, he is NOT better than Jose Calderon who started over him, and he is NOT better than Jason Kidd. Vince Carter is NOT better than Paul Pierce, the Finals MVP. Apparently Andrew Bynum is THE BEST center in the NBA because Amare and Duncan are actually power forwards Jesus... These stats are bullshit, I'm sorry. Not trying to sound mean or anything, but if you actually use these stats to judge players, then you are an idiot. You go up to any NBA GM and offer him TJ Ford for Chauncey Billups and you'll get laughed at.</div> Well obviously, you are in the majority, that ESPN identified when they decided not to do this themselves, that either doesn't understand or refuses to put any stock in any per time measure. So be it. Do what you want and go about your business. I'm not the kind of guy who writes for the average, run of the mill fan, in case you haven't noticed, although I will do so if the price is right lol. I am most definitely not writing for the average Joe: I am discovering things and writing for people who want to see new and better ways of looking at basketball, who plays it, and how it could be played better. I really like the fact that ESPN made a major nod in my direction by recently installing the per 48 minute stats in their huge and sophisticated database. But Brian, don't you ever click the "per 48 mins." link on any ESPN team stats page, I wouldn't want to see you get all upset and going on their forum and saying its BS and all. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. If you don't like what's on the tremaine channel, click something else, lol.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay answer my question So you're saying TJ Ford is better than Chauncey Billups, Jason Kidd, Tony Parker, and Jose Calderon (who he couldn't even start over last season)?</div> You still haven't answered my question.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay answer my question So you're saying TJ Ford is better than Chauncey Billups, Jason Kidd, Tony Parker, and Jose Calderon (who he couldn't even start over last season)?</div> I just want to point out that John Hollinger from ESPN says some similarily wacky things, which is the problem with these rankings. TJ Ford is ranked ahead of Parker, Baron Davis, Jason Kidd, Deron Williams. Powe is ranked ahead of Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, Tmac. Ginobili is ranked ahead of Kobe
Yeah, which is why I think all these rankings and formulas are bullshit. You can't "rank" a player just by statistics, you actually have to take time and actually watch them perform on the court to see how good somebody is.
I know I posted this in this forum before, but PER's formula isn't secret http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a per-minute rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." It appears from his books that John's database only goes back to the 1988-89 season. I decided to expand on John's work and calculate PER for all players since minutes played were first recorded (1951-52).</div> This is yet another fact that you have wrong tremaine
To be even more clear about ESPN, they have a summary per time statistic on their site called the Hollinger Player Efficiency Rating. I think mine is at least slightly better, but who knows for sure, because the Hollinger formulas are literally a secret to one extent or another, whereas whatever I do is always out in the open. Traditionally, the Hollinger p.e.r. is only available to those who pay for the "ESPN Insider" membership. So by definition, ESPN reserved their one and only combination, per time measurement for only those who pay for "inside" status, which, by definition would be folks who are not your average run of the mill basketball watchers. They knew that the average man on the street doesn't give a damn about being alerted in advance that JR Smith or TJ Ford are both going to be quality starters soon in the NBA, and that they are currently being underrated. But they also knew that the insiders would want to know that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well obviously, you are in the majority, that ESPN identified when they decided not to do this themselves, that either doesn't understand or refuses to put any stock in any per time measure.</div> PER is a per minute rating and is on ESPN
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To be even more clear about ESPN, they have a summary per time statistic on their site called the Hollinger Player Efficiency Rating. I think mine is at least slightly better, but who knows for sure, because the Hollinger formulas are literally a secret to one extent or another, whereas whatever I do is always out in the open. Traditionally, the Hollinger p.e.r. is only available to those who pay for the "ESPN Insider" membership. So by definition, ESPN reserved their one and only combination, per time measurement for only those who pay for "inside" status, which, by definition would be folks who are not your average run of the mill basketball watchers. They knew that the average man on the street doesn't give a damn about being alerted in advance that JR Smith or TJ Ford are both going to be quality starters soon in the NBA, and that they are currently being underrated. But they also knew that the insiders would want to know that.</div> Again, the formula isn't secret and there are public sites where you can find PER calculated throughout the season. Knickerblogger is one of those places. 82games.com also uses their own calculated PER for their statistics.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 09:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 09:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div> That just shows why these stats don't mean anything You can't get penatalized just because you're younger. That's bullshit </div> No, you have it backwards, and you agree with me on the age thing. I'm saying that younger players normally have lower ratings than older all else held constant, so when you look at a younger player's rating, you should mentally give them some kind of a bonus, not penalize them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (King Shake @ Jul 13 2008, 09:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>treamine...what?! Man, I've read this whole thread and you seem to be making things up bro. I've got respect for you and I like what you do...but what is all this? You're multiplying numbers with random stats from I don't know where.</div> Lol, any writer makes things up after he determines what the correct things to "make up" are. I don't know how I could possibly have more foundation evidence and backing for what I have done than by using the ESPN database. In case you don't know, ESPN is, by far, the biggest sports media house in the United States. So if their database is junk, then Lord help us all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (King Shake @ Jul 13 2008, 09:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>treamine...what?! Man, I've read this whole thread and you seem to be making things up bro. I've got respect for you and I like what you do...but what is all this? You're multiplying numbers with random stats from I don't know where.</div> Lol, any writer makes things up after he determines what the correct things to "make up" are. I don't know how I could possibly have more foundation evidence and backing for what I have done than by using the ESPN database. In case you don't know, ESPN is, by far, the biggest sports media house in the United States. So if their database is junk, then Lord help us all. </div> Let me kinda take back what I said. I've been reading it over, and there is some good to what you do and there will always be controversy, but I think it's just as good as JH and his stuff. Any math put out by a writer will get agreed and disagreed with, but I like what you're doing. I know you're working hard at it, and I respect that. Just, I think guys are surprised how the numbers come out to say some players are better than others, but it's based on stats, among other things. But, keep working on it, I think it'll get better.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 13 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know how I could possibly have more foundation evidence and backing for what I have done than by using the ESPN database. In case you don't know, ESPN is, by far, the biggest sports media house in the United States. So if their database is junk, then Lord help us all.</div> You are using a formula that has no published mathematical basis as a base and then adding your own subjective judgments. You have no basis for attempting to hide behind them when your work is being critiqued. And these critiques are much nicer than what you receive if you put this in front of the people on the APBR forum.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 13 2008, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay answer my question So you're saying TJ Ford is better than Chauncey Billups, Jason Kidd, Tony Parker, and Jose Calderon (who he couldn't even start over last season)?</div> You don't think the per time measure has any value, so for you the answer is no, TJ Ford was not better than those players in 2007-08, because (a) he didn't do anywhere near as much as they did and (b) there must have been a valid reason why his playing time was what it was, which is one reason why no per time measure is needed. So for you the answer is no and for me (and the Indiana Pacers lol) it is yes. Both you and I get to go on with our business with no changes in our thinking necessary, because I am out there on the horizon looking at things that have seldom if ever been looked at in basketball before, and you choose not to go there.
