<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">26. Vince Carter, NJ 2005-06 season: Though Carter played at an All-Star level, he was disappointing in the sense that he couldn't keep his play at the dizzying heights of his 2004-05 season.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">44. Richard Jefferson, NJ 2005-06 season: Jefferson made good on the first year of his six-year, $76 million extension, making up for his reduced touches in the wake of Vince Carter's arrival by playing with much greater... </div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">50. Jason Kidd, NJ 2005-06 season: Kidd steadfastly refuses to act his age, posting a season at age 32 that was every bit as good as the previous two and earning a first-team All-Defense selection.</div> Source I couldn't get all of the articles cause I don't have insider. I think this writer should be fired. Look at all of the rankings and you'll agree.
Jason Kidd 50? I bet you he will put Nash in the top 10. Many posters don't agree that Kidd is better than Nash, but instead say Nash is slightly better. If it's that's true, then according to the article,Nash would be in the 40's. That's how it looks to me. Jefferson at 44? I don't think so. Top 10? No, but he deserves to be at least in the 20's. Writers don't give him enough credit, because he is a second option to Vince.
<div class="quote_poster">Carter Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I couldn't get all of the articles cause I don't have insider. I think this writer should be fired. Look at all of the rankings and you'll agree.</div> If you read the "What is PER?" link in the upper right hand corner of that page, you'd understand what he means by those rankings. He's not saying that they are they 26th, 44th, and 50th best players in the league. Firstly, PER estimates the measurable productivity of players, per possession. That's a very useful metric when comparing players, but it isn't meant to be a decisive measure of how good a player is. If you read the articles, in many instances Hollinger says that the projections are probably way off. They aren't subjective, but rather computer-based, so they will make sense for some players and be very unreliable for others. ESPN's presentation of these projections are very misleading. I would say his actual analysis of the players (which, unfortunately, is only availabe to Insider subscribers) is much more informative.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">If you read the "What is PER?" link in the upper right hand corner of that page, you'd understand what he means by those rankings. He's not saying that they are they 26th, 44th, and 50th best players in the league. Firstly, PER estimates the measurable productivity of players, per possession. That's a very useful metric when comparing players, but it isn't meant to be a decisive measure of how good a player is. If you read the articles, in many instances Hollinger says that the projections are probably way off. They aren't subjective, but rather computer-based, so they will make sense for some players and be very unreliable for others. ESPN's presentation of these projections are very misleading. I would say his actual analysis of the players (which, unfortunately, is only availabe to Insider subscribers) is much more informative.</div> Do you have Insider? It just sounds like you know that they are quite informative and a lot about it. As well I know you think PER can be a useful tool.
<div class="quote_poster">SkiptoMyLue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Do you have Insider? It just sounds like you know that they are quite informative and a lot about it. As well I know you think PER can be a useful tool.</div> Hollinger's player profiles are essentially an online version of the excellent books (Pro Basketball Forecast and Pro Basketball Prospectus) he had written for past seasons. He's easily the best basketball analyst on ESPN. It's unfortunate so much of this stuff isn't freely available.
i think player rankings shuold no be aloud in the nets forum, since everyone swears kidd is god and shuold be 1
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">i think player rankings shuold no be aloud in the nets forum, since everyone swears kidd is god and shuold be 1</div> Same with you and Carter. You and some other posters back him on pratically everything. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">"What is PER?" </div> Well I missed it, but thanks for letting us know.
<div class="quote_poster">Kidd Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Same with you and Carter. You and some other posters back him on pratically everything. Well I missed it, but thanks for letting us know.</div> lol i started backing him when people like ams ice or what ever came here saying how bad he is, i never said anything about it before he came and really pissed me off
<div class="quote_poster">jefferson Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">lol i started backing him when people like ams ice or what ever came here saying how bad he is, i never said anything about it before he came and really pissed me off</div> Yeah, me too but I stopped.
i acutuallu just saw ranking on nba.com and vince carter was 16th under paul pierce,<u>chris paul</u>, and elton brand
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Hollinger's player profiles are essentially an online version of the excellent books (Pro Basketball Forecast and Pro Basketball Prospectus) he had written for past seasons. He's easily the best basketball analyst on ESPN. It's unfortunate so much of this stuff isn't freely available.</div> Durvasa, why does Hollinger use the PER formula that has Kobe slightly ahead of Wade in PER unlike what you posted a few days ago (in another thread)?
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Durvasa, why does Hollinger use the PER formula that has Kobe slightly ahead of Wade in PER unlike what you posted a few days ago (in another thread)?</div> Hollinger's PER uses all the traditional team and player stats that can be found in a box score. It's guaranteed that this information will be publicly available, as it's always been. As he's defined it, anybody with all these stats (in a spreadsheet, for instance) can calculate PER. In recent years, 82games.com has collected some useful advanced statistics on their website by going through the Play by Play records and made them publicly available online. I incorporated some of these stats into his PER formula to make some of the weights (which, due to lack of information in the boxscores, he estimates) more precise. He's not going to make the change because he'd either have to depend on a service specifically provided by 82games.com or go through the play by plays himself which makes the whole process more complicated.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Hollinger's PER uses all the traditional team and player stats that can be found in a box score. It's guaranteed that this information will be publicly available, as it's always been. As he's defined it, anybody with all these stats (in a spreadsheet, for instance) can calculate PER. In recent years, 82games.com has collected some useful advanced statistics on their website by going through the Play by Play records and made them publicly available online. I incorporated some of these stats into his PER formula to make some of the weights (which, due to lack of information in the boxscores, he estimates) more precise. He's not going to make the change because he'd either have to depend on a service specifically provided by 82games.com or go through the play by plays himself which makes the whole process more complicated.</div> It would seem to me that Hollinger would want his formula to be more precise, instead of having a random person from a basketball message board outdo him with a superior formula. Are these 82games.com advanced stats reliable? Just wondering.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It would seem to me that Hollinger would want his formula to be more precise, instead of having a random person from a basketball message board outdo him with a superior formula.</div> Precision has to be balanced by other considerations, which I mentioned. It is very difficult to extract all the extra information you'd need from the play by plays. Going to all that work just to add a little precision to the formula probably isn't worth the trouble. Plus, he'd be making it very difficult for anyone else to reproduce it. Perhaps he wants to it to be a commonly used metric which can be calculated by most people relatively easily. Fortunately, 82games.com provides this information for now, so it's a little easier. But if he wants to use their data to construct his ratings which he makes money off of, there may be some legal issues involved there. Would he have to credit them each time? Do they get royalties? Not sure about that. And, as I said, if they stop providing that information publicly for whatever reason, then he (and everyone else) would have to get the information elsewhere to calculate the ratings. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Are these 82games.com advanced stats reliable? Just wondering.</div> I believe so.
