Ok, I am able to get the Excel to host my own basic database. So RPR 2.0 has been born: Real Player Rating 2.0. I have adjusted the ESPN formula to make it close to perfect. It is dangerous to generalize here, but I'll do it anyway. Generally speaking, by being slightly more conservative and defense oriented, RPR 2.0 is even more down to earth and a reflection of reality than is RPR 1.0. From now on, I will be using RPR 2.0 for teams I focus on such as the Raptors. Whether I will use it for the full NBA when I do the ratings in January is very likely. The ESPN rating underlying RPR 1.0, for some unknown reason, values twos more than threes, relatively speaking. In RPR 2.0, I reverse this, to reflect how teams that are better at 3-point shooting frequently win the game even if they are inferior in many other respects. With RPR 1.0, a made two is worth a total of 3 points, while with RPR 2.0, it is worth 2.4. And with RPR 1.0, a made three is worth a total of 3.5, while with RPR 2.0, it is worth 4.0. So for twos, the value goes from 3 to 2.4. For threes, the value goes from 3.5 to 4. The net result is a much greater separation between what you get for a three compared with a two in RPR 2.0, which is a fairly substantial improvement. The almost insignificant .25 bonus for made free throws in eliminated in RPR 2.0. One effect of this is that the accuracy in free throw shooting required for a player to benefit from it has increased slightly, from .390 to .450 to be exact. As with field goals in general, RPR 2.0 demands a little more accuracy before it starts handing out the benefits. I have increased the penalties for missed threes slightly. The penalty for missed twos has remained exactly the same. The penalty for missed free throws has remained almost exactly the same. I have slightly decreased the value of offensive rebounds, since many of them are put backs, while leaving defensive rebounds alone. I have very slightly increased the value of blocks and assists, from 1.4 to 1.5 for both. I have slightly increased the value of steals, from 1 to 1.25. Penalties for two items were increased quite a bit: turnovers, and personal fouls. The penalty for a turnover goes from -.7 to -1.5. Personal fouls, which are not included in the ESPN rating and in the classic Real Player Rating (RPR 1.0) are included in this new RPR 2.0; the penalty is -.4. RPR 2.0 is not finalized yet, and is subject to additional minor changes. However, any additional changes, if any, will be minor. Here is the RPR 2.0 in list format: Points 1.00 2-Pt FGs Made 0.40 3-Pt FGs Made 1.00 FTs Made 0.00 Offensive Rebounds 0.75 Defensive Rebounds 1.00 Assists 1.50 Steals 1.25 Blocks 1.50 2-Pt FGs Missed -0.80 3-Pt FGs Missed -1.00 FTs Missed -0.82 Turnovers -1.50 Personal Fouls -0.40 (The made free throws made have no bonus; they count as the point scored only.) For each player, the sum of everything he has done is filtered through the above factors, to produce "Real Total Contributions". Then that is divided by minutes to give RPR 2.0. It's RPR 2.0B, where B stands for "basic", to be exact. I will describe later two adjustments that can be made to the basic RPR 2.0B, one of which is necessary for comparing players who play on different teams, and the other of which is necessary to make up for the fact that missed shots forced can not be and is not kept tracked of. Here are the underlying "zero points," which are the accuracy percentages that result in zero impact on a player's rating: 3-Pointer 0 score % 0.200 2-Pointer 0 score % 0.250 1-Pointer 0 score % 0.450 In other words, a player whose accuracy is at the percentage indicated would net zero points toward his rating. So a player's rating depends on how much better that player is in shooting than the base percentages shown. With RPR 1.0, the zero points were lower percentages than these. So with RPR 2.0, more so than with RPR 1.0, wildly inaccurate shooters are given what they deserve, nothing. And dangerously inaccurate shooters are given less reward in RPR 2.0 than they got in RPR 1.0. How does RPR 2.0 affect individual players? I will have much more on this subject later, but for now, consider Bobby Jones as just one example. A young player such as Bobby Jones, who missed more than his share of shots and made more than his share of turnovers,, comes out looking worse, compared with other players, in RPR 2.0 than in RPR 1.0. Coaches generally reduce the playing times of players who miss more shots or make more turnovers than do other players, regardless of other factors they might bring on to the court, such as three point shooting, assists, and defense. Many players whose accuracy is less than is desired by coaches, and whose turnovers are more than is wanted, are doomed to never become starters: to be either reserves or out of the League for the rest of their careers. RPR 1.0, by not penalizing turnovers and missed shots enough, is a little biased in favor of less accurate and more turnover prone players, many of whom are younger, and some of whom will never start precisely because of these traits, if they can't in the future become more accurate or more careful with the ball. So RPR 2.0 more accurately reflects the reality of how players are looked at by coaches than does RPR 1.0. However, some actual real world coaches, with George Karl being an excellent example, penalize players who miss more shots or who commit more turnovers than desired far more than is rational, and the RPR 2.0 does not in any way make the mistake that they do. In other words, RPR 2.0 is a little tougher on the younger, impulsive, turnover-prone players, without taking it to the extremes that some mistaken real world coaches do. As proof of the last claim, consider that the the changes in RPR 2.0 are relatively tough on JR Smith, but the changes are no where near enough to justify JR Smith not starting and getting at least 27 mpg though. Sorry George, even with RPR 2.0 you are still totally wrong on your Smith evaluation! Nuggets RPR 2.0 ratings will be posted soon, which will reveal that unless Nene plays and plays better this coming year than he did last year, the Nuggets are going to be even more heavily damaged by the loss of Camby than was thought.
DENVER NUGGETS 2007-08 REG SEAS REAL PLAYER RATINGS 2.0B The basic RPR does not include an adjustment for estimated missed shots forced. Therefore, it somewhat underestimates the the value of players who force the most misses, and overestimates the value of players who force the fewest misses. Carmelo Anthony 0.782 Marcus Camby 0.777 Allen Iverson 0.755 J.R. Smith 0.669 Kenyon Martin 0.588 Anthony Carter 0.570 Linas Kleiza 0.547 Nene 0.485 Eduardo Najera 0.480 Chucky Atkins 0.439 Bobby Jones 0.370 Yakhouba Diawara 0.342 Here you see that Anthony, Camby, and Iverson were all but tied, while JR Smith trailed them by about 13-14%. When these are adjusted for missed shots forced (later to appear here) Martin moves a little ahead of Smith. With RPR 2.0, because of his careful shooting and ball handling, Anthony Carter moved very slightly ahead of Linas Kleiza. If you are willing to settle for a point guard who is careful with respect to both shooting and handling the rock, but who has never in history scored in volume, you could do a lot worse than Carter actually. Trouble is, Carter is alright for the regular season but will become a fairly large liability in the playoffs. But since no one else was ready to cover the PG position for the Lakers series, Carter should have been the PG for the duration of the series. Had Karl not made the boneheaded decision to abandon Carter, the Nuggets could have won a game, at least, as they did in the previous several years. That would have been better than the no wins at all that Karl left them with. Notice that Jones and Diawara are less than half as productive as Anthony/Camby/Iverson. That mark (half the rating of the top 1-3 players on the team) is going to generally be the doomsday mark for players: if they are below it, they are usually going to be waived. Here are the ratings under the first RPR: DENVER NUGGETS 2007-08 REG SEAS REAL PLAYER RATINGS 1.0B (For comparison.) Carmelo Anthony, Den SF 1.091 Allen Iverson, Den SG 0.979 J.R. Smith, Den SG 0.938 Marcus Camby, Den C 0.914 Kenyon Martin, Den PF 0.777 Linas Kleiza, Den SF 0.762 Nene Hilario, Den PF 0.723 Anthony Carter, Den PG 0.704 Eduardo Najera, Den PF 0.636 Bobby Jones, Den SG 0.607 Chucky Atkins, Den PG 0.575 Yakhouba Diawara, Den SG 0.495 CHANGE IN RPR FROM 1.0 TO 2.0 AS SHOWN BY RPR 2.0B / RPR 1.0B Carmelo Anthony, Den SF 0.717 Allen Iverson, Den SG 0.771 J.R. Smith, Den SG 0.713 Marcus Camby, Den C 0.850 Kenyon Martin, Den PF 0.757 Linas Kleiza, Den SF 0.719 Nene Hilario, Den PF 0.632 Anthony Carter, Den PG 0.809 Eduardo Najera, Den PF 0.755 Bobby Jones, Den SG 0.610 Chucky Atkins, Den PG 0.763 Yakhouba Diawara, Den SG 0.691 From this last list, you can see that Marcus Camby and Anthony Carter had the smallest reductions in their rating numbers, whereas Bobby Jones and Nene had the biggest drops. Camby's missed jump shots, which have been bitterly criticized, turn out to be no big deal, not only because there were not as many of them as critics have imagined, but also because Camby commits very few fouls and relatively few turnovers, which gave him a boost in the new rating system. Camby and Carter represent a group that you might call the more careful type of bball player. Coaches generally like this type of player, while some fans who think style is important usually dislike the style of such players to one extent or another. Fans who focus on style prefer more aggressive or devil may care types of players, although ironically, they will be the first to pounce on anyone who goes over the "line" and is seen to be reckless and impulsive rather than aggressive and hustling. The difference between coaches and fans in how they look at the "careful" players is an interesting discrepancy. So what really is the best way to look at such players? A complete answer is beyond the scope here, but the most important trick is to on the one hand to never get hung up on style per se, but on the other hand, to never forget that even RPR 2.0 does not tell you for sure whether a player such as Marcus Camby fits into what you are doing or not doing offensively and defensively. Camby actually did fit the Nuggets fast break system very well, which is another reason why the Nuggets may be a losing team in 2008-09. With the RPR 2.0, a much larger gap has appeared between Camby and Nene, though it must be remembered that health problems reduced the potential of Nene to one extent or another. Regardless of the health issues, the fact that Nene has played remarkably little over the last several seasons relative to his pay grade, and his amazingly low RPR 2.0 rating, makes it nothing less than a riverboat gamble for the Nuggets to try to rely on him as their starting center. They will have to get very lucky to have Nene at center work out well. Steven Hunter would also be a riverboat gamble. In limited minutes, his RPR 2.0B is only .334! The JR Smith reduction was about the same as the Kleiza and the C Anthony reductions, another sign that he is not the reckless and dangerous player that is in the mind of George Karl.
In order to fairly compare teams and players on different teams, you have to adjust RPR 2.0B for pace. You first calculate the factor by which a team's pace differs from the average League pace, and then you apply the inverse of that to each player's RPR 2.0B. For example, the Nuggets were the fastest pace team in the NBA in 2007-08, by a factor of 1.0816. In order to fairly compare Nuggets to players on other teams, you have to multiply all of the Nuggets RPRs by 1/1.0816 (by .9245). You have to do the same thing for any other team whose players you want to compare. Every player's rating is adjusted for his team's pace. Players on fast pace teams are adjusted downward, and players on slow pace teams are adjusted upward. I am comparing the Lakers and the Nuggets here. The following includes everything NBA scorekeepers track adjusted for pace. Whenever you see "-P" it means that the ratings have been adjusted for the pace of the team relative to the average pace of all teams. But none of the following includes any estimated adjustments for forced misses. No one in history has ever included such estimates, and what I do for teams that I know very well is to put out the RPR with and without such adjustments. If you want to, you can in your head adjust the following numbers up or down, by up to +.100 for players who are extremely good, or by up to -.100 for players who are extremely bad at forcing misses. For about 80% of players, the adjustment should be no more than .060 up or down. But for the best 10% and the worst 10%, the adjustment can be between .070 to .100 (up or down). For example, you can make a rough estimate that Kenyon Martin's rating would become between .604 and .624 if it were adjusted for forced misses. Players who are about average in forcing misses have very little change in their ratings. NUGGETS 2007-08 REGULAR SEASON RPR 2.0B-P Carmelo Anthony 0.723 Marcus Camby 0.719 Allen Iverson 0.698 J.R. Smith 0.618 Kenyon Martin 0.544 Anthony Carter 0.527 Linas Kleiza 0.506 Nene 0.449 Eduardo Najera 0.444 Chucky Atkins 0.406 Bobby Jones† 0.342 Yakhouba Diawara 0.316 LAKERS 2007-08 REGULAR SEASON RPR 2.0B-P Kobe Bryant 0.836 Pau Gasol† 0.825 Andrew Bynum 0.810 Lamar Odom 0.640 Jordan Farmar 0.578 Ronny Turiaf 0.575 Trevor Ariza† 0.575 Sasha Vujacic 0.546 Derek Fisher 0.507 Luke Walton 0.494 Vladimir Radmanovic 0.483 Kwame Brown† 0.410 Chris Mihm 0.383 LAKERS/NUGGETS HEAD TO HEAD 2007-08 REGULAR SEASON RPR 2.0B-P Kobe Bryant 0.836 Carmelo Anthony 0.723 Pau Gasol† 0.825 Marcus Camby 0.719 Andrew Bynum 0.810 Allen Iverson 0.698 Lamar Odom 0.640 J.R. Smith 0.618 Jordan Farmar 0.578 Kenyon Martin 0.544 Ronny Turiaf 0.575 Anthony Carter 0.527 Trevor Ariza† 0.575 Linas Kleiza 0.506 Sasha Vujacic 0.546 Nene 0.449 Derek Fisher 0.507 Eduardo Najera 0.444 Luke Walton 0.494 Chucky Atkins 0.406 Vladimir Radmanovic 0.483 Bobby Jones† 0.342 Kwame Brown† 0.410 Yakhouba Diawara 0.316 Chris Mihm 0.383 TOP THREE: Nuggets 0.713 Lakers 0.824 TOP FIVE: Nuggets 0.660 Lakers 0.738 TOP NINE: Nuggets 0.581 Lakers 0.655 The Nuggets starting 5 were probably at least as talented as the Lakers starting 5, but the actual production was much in favor of the Lakers, as you can see. You can see that Bryant and Gasol were almost 20% better than Anthony/Camby/Iverson, which is a large gap actually And the reason why Phil Jackson is considered to be one of the best coaches is shown by how good the Lakers were in the middle and even in the lower part of these lineups. Jackson had 11 players with ratings of almost .500 or more, more than enough to be competitive in the playoffs, regardless of an injury or two. Whereas the Nuggets had just 7, not even enough to provide full game rotations. Karl might possibly had as many as 9, had Atkins and Nene been healthy, or if one of them had been healthy and you want to count Najera, but that still would have left him two behind the number of fully qualified players Jackson had. Jackson had enough ready to contribute players to cover just about every contingency other than the world coming to an end. Karl was short due to a combination of health issues and his inability to fully take advantage of reserve players such as Najera and Bobby Jones. George Karl has always been poor at getting reserve players up to or better than the .500 level, due to totally inconsistent minutes given to such players, and due to his continual benching of reserve players for reasons that are trivial when the bigger picture is considered. SHOCKERS: Notice that the best nine Lakers had an average rating almost exactly equal to the average rating of the top 5 Nuggets. Also, notice that the best five Lakers were better than the best three Nuggets. When you see this, you see evidence of why Jackson has nine rings and Karl has none, unless you want to count that cheap ring he won at the ring toss at the County Fair once. Am I going to do the RPR 2.0B-P for the entire NBA? Yes, starting for 2008-09, for about 330 players, with January being when it will come out. Whether I will go back and do the measure for the 2007-08 regular season is up in the air right now. Keep in mind that the already produced RPR 1.0, though it is being outclassed by the new RPR 2.0, is still very reasonable and realistic in itself. See the older topic about NBA Real Player Ratings for 2007-08 for that.
This post gives you the real player ratings of the Celtics and the Lakers, and tells you why the Celtics defeated the Lakers, despite having lower average ratings. CELTICS RPR 2.0B-P 2007-08 REGULAR SEASON Kevin Garnett 0.914 Paul Pierce 0.702 Leon Powe 0.653 Rajon Rondo 0.609 Ray Allen 0.576 Eddie House 0.527 Kendrick Perkins 0.505 Sam Cassell† 0.488 James Posey 0.483 P.J. Brown 0.419 Tony Allen 0.413 Glen Davis 0.383 Brian Scalabrine 0.274 LAKERS VERSUS CELTICS RPR 2.0B-P 2007-08 REGULAR SEASON Kobe Bryant 0.836 Kevin Garnett 0.914 Pau Gasol† 0.825 Paul Pierce 0.702 Andrew Bynum 0.810 Leon Powe 0.653 Lamar Odom 0.640 Rajon Rondo 0.609 Jordan Farmar 0.578 Ray Allen 0.576 Ronny Turiaf 0.575 Eddie House 0.527 Trevor Ariza† 0.575 Kendrick Perkins 0.505 Sasha Vujacic 0.546 Sam Cassell† 0.488 Derek Fisher 0.507 James Posey 0.483 Luke Walton 0.494 P.J. Brown 0.419 Vladimir Radmanovic 0.483 Tony Allen 0.413 Kwame Brown† 0.410 Glen Davis 0.383 Chris Mihm 0.383 Brian Scalabrine 0.274 TOP THREE: Lakers 0.824 Celtics 0.756 TOP FIVE: Lakers 0.738 Celtics 0.691 TOP NINE: Lakers 0.655 Celtics 0.606 WHY THE CELTICS WON DESPITE HAVING LOWER RATINGS Everything that was here has been deleted, because it was based on me forgetting that Bynum could not play for the Lakers. See the next post for the corrected Lakers versus Celtics ratings for the series, and for the obvious reason the Celtics won the series.
Damn, I forget that Bynum did not play in the series. So here is the corrected Lakers versus Celtics breakdown for the series, which is what I intended to have in the previous post. The previous post has the full roster comparison, including the injured Bynum. CORRECTED LAKERS VERSUS CELTICS RATINGS (Players who were available, only) Kobe Bryant 0.836 Kevin Garnett 0.914 Pau Gasol† 0.825 Paul Pierce 0.702 Lamar Odom 0.640 Leon Powe 0.653 Jordan Farmar 0.578 Rajon Rondo 0.609 Ronny Turiaf 0.575 Ray Allen 0.576 Trevor Ariza† 0.575 Eddie House 0.527 Sasha Vujacic 0.546 Kendrick Perkins 0.505 Derek Fisher 0.507 Sam Cassell† 0.488 Luke Walton 0.494 James Posey 0.483 Vladimir Radmanovic 0.483 P.J. Brown 0.419 Kwame Brown† 0.410 Tony Allen 0.413 Chris Mihm 0.383 Glen Davis 0.383 (No one) Brian Scalabrine 0.274 TOP THREE: Lakers 0.767 Celtics 0.756 TOP FIVE: Lakers 0.691 Celtics 0.691 TOP NINE: Lakers 0.620 Celtics 0.606 Now you see that the gap in favor of the Celtics in forced misses could have been small and the Celtics would still have won. The gap was moderately large, since the Celtics won the series 4-2, and did a monumental rout in game 6. The huge gap in favor of the Celtics in forced misses I was mistakenly taking about in the previous post, when I forgot that Bynum did not play, would only have been needed had Andrew Bynum played. In point of fact, such a very large gap would have been very difficult for the Celtics to produce, so the Lakers would probably have won the series if Bynum had played. I just deleted the mistaken explanation of how the Celtics beat the Lakers that was for a short while in the previous post.
How about another summary, in case anyone got confused. (I for one got confused at one point!) The Lakers were the better team overall as the ratings show. But when Bynum was not available, the two teams were almost exactly even. So the main factors that would determine who would win the series were going to be who had the better, smarter way of playing, and who forced more missed shots. The Lakers had the better Coach, but that advantage was reduced by the Celtics veterans and Rondo being able to, partly by themselves unassisted by their Coach, come up with really smart ways of playing. So the Lakers coaching advantage was partly and maybe largely offset by how smart the Celtics players were. Doc Rivers had to stay out of the way enough as the Celtics figured out the best way to play, which he did. In other words, the Celtics wanted to win so much, that they did not need a lot of coaching. So since the ratings and the knowing the best ways to play were both about even, how did the Celtics win? The answer is obvious. The Celtics were the number one team in forcing misses during the regular season, so all they had to do to win this series was to do what they had been doing all season long: force more misses than the other team. Garnett, Pierce, Powe and company did force more misses than did the Lakers, by a good margin, so they took the series by a good margin.
I'm jazzing up the ratings with pics and a handy new scale: Historic Superstar Player 0.810 and more Superstar Player 0.730 to 0.809 Star Player 0.660 to 0.729 Outstanding Player 0.600 to 0.659 Major Role Player 0.550 to 0.599 Role Player 0.500 to 0.549 Minor Role Player 0.450 to 0.499 Very Minor Role Player or Defensive Specialist 0.400 to 0.449 Reserve Only or Defensive Specialist 0.350 to 0.399 Bust Player or Defense Only Player and less 0.349 SAN ANTONIO SPURS RPR 2.0B-P 2007-08 REGULAR SEASON Tim Duncan 0.891 Manu Ginobili 0.837 Tony Parker 0.732 Brent Barry 0.592 Fabricio Oberto 0.513 Matt Bonner 0.497 Ime Udoka 0.464 Kurt Thomas† 0.461 Michael Finley 0.454 Francisco Elson† 0.408 Robert Horry 0.403 Jacque Vaughn 0.391 Damon Stoudamire† 0.319 Bruce Bowen 0.289 TOP THREE: 0.820 TOP FIVE: 0.713 TOP NINE: 0.605 HISTORIC SUPERSTAR: Tim Duncan HISTORIC SUPERSTAR: Manu Ginobili SUPERSTAR: Tony Parker STARS: (None in category) OUTSTANDING PLAYERS: (None in category) The Spurs top three are the best players on this team by a country mile, but as anyone will tell you, they have offensive and defensive schemes that make the best of their role players as well.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Aug 6 2008, 01:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So...where are the ratings?</div>
LAKERS Historic Superstar Player 0.810 and more Superstar Player 0.730 to 0.809 Star Player 0.660 to 0.729 Outstanding Player 0.600 to 0.659 Major Role Player 0.550 to 0.599 Role Player 0.500 to 0.549 Minor Role Player 0.450 to 0.499 Very Minor Role Player or Defensive Specialist 0.400 to 0.449 Reserve Only or Defensive Specialist 0.350 to 0.399 Bust Player or Defense Only Player and less 0.349 LOS ANGELES LAKERS RPR 2.0B-P 2007-08 REGULAR SEASON Kobe Bryant 0.836 Pau Gasol† 0.825 Andrew Bynum 0.810 Lamar Odom 0.640 Jordan Farmar 0.578 Ronny Turiaf 0.575 Trevor Ariza† 0.575 Sasha Vujacic 0.546 Derek Fisher 0.507 Luke Walton 0.494 Vladimir Radmanovic 0.483 Kwame Brown† 0.410 Chris Mihm 0.383 TOP THREE: 0.824 TOP FIVE: 0.738 TOP NINE: 0.655 HISTORIC SUPERSTAR: Kobe Bryant HISTORIC SUPERSTAR: Pau Gasol HISTORIC SUPERSTAR: Andrew Bynum SUPERSTAR (None in category) STAR (None in category) OUTSTANDING Lamar Odom Bynum was right on the border between historic superstar and superstar. As soon as I do all the teams individually, I am going to put in order the top 330 players across the NBA.
CELTICS Historic Superstar Player 0.810 and more Superstar Player 0.730 to 0.809 Star Player 0.660 to 0.729 Outstanding Player 0.600 to 0.659 Major Role Player 0.550 to 0.599 Role Player 0.500 to 0.549 Minor Role Player 0.450 to 0.499 Very Minor Role Player or Defensive Specialist 0.400 to 0.449 Reserve Only Player or Defensive Specialist 0.350 to 0.399 Bust Player or Defense Only Player and less 0.349 BOSTON CELTICS RPR 2.0B-P 2007-08 REGULAR SEASON Kevin Garnett 0.914 Paul Pierce 0.702 Leon Powe 0.653 Rajon Rondo 0.609 Ray Allen 0.576 Eddie House 0.527 Kendrick Perkins 0.505 Sam Cassell† 0.488 James Posey 0.483 P.J. Brown 0.419 Tony Allen 0.413 Glen Davis 0.383 Brian Scalabrine 0.274 TOP THREE: .0756 TOP FIVE: 0.691 TOP NINE: 0.606 HISTORIC SUPERSTAR Kevin Garnett SUPERSTAR (None in category) STAR Paul Pierce OUTSTANDING Leon Powe OUTSTANDING Rajon Rondo According to Phil Jackson, Rondo was the straw that broke the Lakers back. Had Bynum played, the series would have been an all-time classic, 7-game series.
NUGGETS Historic Superstar Player 0.810 and more Superstar Player 0.730 to 0.809 Star Player 0.660 to 0.729 Outstanding Player 0.600 to 0.659 Major Role Player 0.550 to 0.599 Role Player 0.500 to 0.549 Minor Role Player 0.450 to 0.499 Very Minor Role Player or Defensive Specialist 0.400 to 0.449 Reserve Only Player or Defensive Specialist 0.350 to 0.399 Bust Player or Defense Only Player and less 0.349 NUGGETS Carmelo Anthony 0.723 Marcus Camby 0.719 Allen Iverson 0.698 J.R. Smith 0.618 Kenyon Martin 0.544 Anthony Carter 0.527 Linas Kleiza 0.506 Nene 0.449 Eduardo Najera 0.444 Chucky Atkins 0.406 Bobby Jones† 0.342 Yakhouba Diawara 0.316 TOP THREE 0.713 TOP FIVE 0.660 TOP NINE 0.581 HISTORIC SUPERSTAR (None in category) SUPERSTAR (None in category) Come on Anthony, pick it up STAR Carmelo Anthony STAR Marcus Camby STAR Allen Iverson POINT GUARD (lol) OUTSTANDING J.R. Smith The Nuggets had no superstars, but they had three players who were close to being superstars. On the one hand, J.R. Smith could not make star under the new and improved system. On the other hand, all outstanding players should start, so at least Karl still came out looking like a fool. Don't you think that if I have a rating system for coaches, Karl will be way down the list?
Looks promising, tremaine. Looking forward to seeing the rating system in full. Kinda surprising AI was so low, and Ray Allen, too.
