APBRmetrics

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:53 am**

I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't really address my concern. FT% isn't affected by team environment or league environment. There is no defense being played against a FTA, and there is no "pace" during a FTA. So the reasons for adjusting FG% or eFG% aren't applicable to FT%.

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:01 pm**

Mike G wrote:Eff% incorporates both frequency and accuracy of scoring attempts. On one team, a player may get more FTA than he would on another team, will make about the same FT%, and may have the same Eff%

Again, who cares what league environment is? Nobody plays for a hypothetical average team. Each game has a scoring and rebounding pace, and a team has season averages for these.

Analogous is Reb% -- a player's rebounds per 100 in the games he's played. This is specific to his team. It doesn't matter what the league averaged in a given year.

OK - I do agree for the most part with the above highlight - but the only caveat I have is that, theoretically, players on great teams would be punished slightly (sharing stats with 4 other good/great teamates against about league average comp) - while players on BAD teams benefit slightly. If memory serves - it seems you adjust for this later in your equations - which is cool. This is why I do league adjustments first - and then compile the team stats after league adjustments - figure out player shares of the stats - and then adjust for team quality. This way I don't need team opponent stats except for points against (for the team rating) - makes it a little easier on me also for compiling the stats.

If you (Mike G) and I used the exact same weights - I think our rankings woud end up quite similar anyway. Heck - I believe they are probably similar enough now.

I've done all my historical ratings from 79-80 until present - I'll do the older seasons soon. I'm still tweaking my player projection system - and then hoping to incorporate a college to pro projection, which I'm very excited about. God I hope it ends up decent (hoping my testing on historical college to pro seasons end up solid). I haven't posted the stuff here because I plan on getting a site up with all the results - and I am so completely ignorant on anything involving starting a website that I've dragged my feet on it.

BTW Mike - does Larry Bird & Magic Johnson's peak season end up a little lower in your top regular season rankings than you'd expect? While consistently near the top of their respective seasons - their teammates are so solid and team/league pace higher during their careers that they aren't really that close to the very peak seasons of my last 32 seasons (Bird's '88 the 59th best season, Magic 61st - both with a 147 rating). The top 3 are '09 LeBron with a 176, followed by '00 Shaq with a 173.

Anybody reading this - don't get me wrong - Bird and Magic were consistantly great in my ratings (Bird 7 seasons of better than a 135 rating, Magic 10 seasons of better than a 129) - just not uber elite - their PEAK rating seasons the last 32 years aren't really that close to the peak ratings of Jordan (10 seasons rated better than Larry's best), David Robinson (7 better), Shaq (6), LeBron (6), Karl Malone (5), Garnett (4), Wade (3), & Duncan (3).

They definitely played on teams that shared the stats alot more (often among 3 or more teammates) than the above guys who much more often took a bigger statistical load relative to their teams. They all played on good to very good regular season teams - which is partly why their ratings are so good (huge statistical load on good/great teams).

Now - my adjusted player wins (player's share of regular season & adjusted playoff wins based off their ratings) - guys like Larry & Magic will look better (winning championships means alot) - and Michael will kinda blow everybody away (the last 32 years at least -it'll be interesting how Bill Russell with his more modest ratings but more championships will look). I think APW will better jive with how many basketball historians view player rankings (championships mean a ton).

Sorry about the diatribe - I'll let you know when I get the site up so we can compare notes.

Posted: **Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:48 pm**

Sorry about the non-response. I got busy.

Standardized per36 rates, T being a weighted total of the others.
Showing just their top T season, and the last column shows how many years they topped 45.:

Code: Select all

T-rate                  yr   tm     Eff%   Sco    Reb   Ast    PF   Stl    TO   Blk  45
50.7   Michael Jordan   88   Chi   .591   36.5    5.4   5.4   3.1   3.0   2.9   1.5   9
50.5   Shaquille O'Neal 00   LAL   .564   32.7   12.7   3.7   3.1    .4   2.7   2.9   8
50.2   Wilt Chamberlain 62   Phl   .525   33.6   14.9   1.7   1.3                     3
50.1 Kareem AbdulJabbar 72   Mil   .592   33.4   12.9   3.9   2.6                     5
50.1   David Robinson   94    SA   .562   31.6   10.3   4.6   2.7   1.6   3.0   3.1   6

49.7   Lebron James     09   Cle   .578   33.1    8.1   6.9   1.7   1.7   2.9   1.1   2
48.7   Kevin Garnett    04   Min   .546   26.7   14.2   5.2   2.4   1.4   2.5   2.1   2
48.5   Karl Malone      97   Uta   .587   33.0   11.4   4.6   2.7   1.4   2.9    .6   3
47.1   Hakeem Olajuwon  93   Hou   .562   26.6   12.9   3.4   3.6   1.8   3.1   4.0   2
46.4   Larry Bird       88   Bos   .599   30.7    9.7   5.4   2.0   1.6   2.7    .7   1

46.2   Tim Duncan       04    SA   .532   27.0   13.6   3.6   2.4    .9   2.7   2.7   1
45.2   Tracy Mcgrady    03   Orl   .562   32.5    6.3   5.4   2.0   1.6   2.5    .8   1
...
44.2   Magic Johnson    89    LA   .610   24.3    8.0  11.6   2.2   1.8   4.0    .3   0

Just 12 players have hit the mega-star level of a 45 T rate.
40 is a run of the mill superstar, 35 a solid allstar.

Mike, Magic, and Bird all peaked in '88-89. Before them, only Kareem and Wilt were this good.
And we don't know all their stats back then ...

Bird's best year ranks 26th all-time. Magic's is 47th, behind 51- and 49-game seasons by Shaq.
T is a measure of productivity per minute. The tip-top guys tend to not have great teammates, and they're good enough and young enough to 'do it all'. So no, I'm not surprised that Bird and Magic, with all their co-stars, were merely great.
And even in their prime, we could see Jordan was better. Bird said as much, in no uncertain terms.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:35 pm**

For no good or bad reason, players current in 2011, grouped by career playoff minutes and ranked by (beta version) career playoff eWins per 484 minutes.
Average e484 is 1.00, but an average (NBA regular season) player would be about .90 in playoffs.
The median career playoff e484 is .75; average (unweighted by minutes) is .82

Code: Select all

4400+ playoff minutes.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
2.49   Shaquille O'Neal 215   38   .552   27.0  12.5   2.8    .5   3.0  2.2   41.2
2.47   Tim Duncan       176   39   .542   24.7  12.7   3.4    .7   2.9  2.5   41.0
2.13   Dirk Nowitzki    124   41   .579   25.6   9.9   2.3   1.0   2.1   .9   37.1
1.94   Kobe Bryant      207   39   .534   25.9   5.2   4.5   1.4   2.8   .7   35.0
1.60   Chauncey Billups 139   37   .571   21.4   3.7   6.2   1.1   2.2   .2   31.0

1.52   Jason Kidd       142   40   .501   13.6   7.0   8.5   1.8   2.8   .3   30.1
1.36   Richard Hamilton 119   40   .521   22.2   4.2   3.8    .9   2.6   .2   28.2
1.24   Tony Parker      138   36   .508   20.2   3.4   5.0   1.0   2.9   .1   26.8
1.20   Ben Wallace      128   35   .472    8.5  13.0   1.6   1.6   1.2  2.1   26.3
0.61   Derek Fisher     208   28   .551   12.6   3.2   3.3   1.4   1.3   .1   19.6


3470-4400 min.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
2.51   Lebron James      92   43   .548   27.5   7.9   6.1   1.4   3.0   .9   41.5
2.25   Dwyane Wade       86   40   .565   27.8   5.9   5.6   1.5   3.6  1.0   38.5
2.06   Kevin Garnett    105   39   .515   20.4  11.8   3.9   1.3   2.5  1.4   36.3
1.68   Paul Pierce      110   40   .551   23.0   6.6   3.9   1.2   3.0   .6   31.9
1.64   Manu Ginobili    122   31   .581   22.2   5.7   4.2   1.7   2.7   .3   31.4

1.48   Steve Nash       113   37   .582   19.2   3.7   8.6    .6   3.3   .1   29.6
1.29   Ray Allen        110   39   .586   20.7   4.1   3.1   1.0   1.8   .3   27.4
1.25   Shawn Marion      92   38   .518   14.7   9.4   1.6   1.3   1.3  1.3   26.9
0.95   Tayshaun Prince  118   37   .510   13.9   6.1   3.0    .8   1.4   .7   23.5
0.81   Mike Bibby       109   32   .510   13.8   3.6   4.4   1.2   2.1   .3   21.8


2480-3470 min.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
1.72   Pau Gasol         89   39   .569   19.1   9.9   2.9    .5   1.8  1.8   32.4
1.49   Rajon Rondo       73   37   .474   14.4   6.4   8.0   1.8   2.6   .2   29.7
1.40   Jermaine O'Neal   86   29   .492   17.3   9.7   1.6    .5   2.4  2.4   28.6
1.30   Lamar Odom       102   34   .533   15.6  10.5   2.5    .7   2.1  1.1   27.5
1.21   Kenyon Martin     89   35   .503   16.4   8.5   2.3   1.3   2.4  1.2   26.5

1.08   Jason Terry       83   35   .561   18.8   3.0   3.6   1.1   1.9   .2   25.0
1.00   Peja Stojakovic   95   33   .545   16.9   5.6   1.1    .9   1.2   .2   24.0
0.97   Richard Jefferson 94   34   .548   16.7   6.1   2.6    .8   2.3   .4   23.7
0.95   Ron Artest        76   37   .482   14.7   5.4   2.8   1.5   1.8   .7   23.5
0.75   Hedo Turkoglu     88   31   .502   13.6   5.4   3.6    .9   2.2   .3   21.2


2120-2460 min.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
2.15   Dwight Howard     57   39   .599   22.2  15.0   1.3    .7   3.3  2.6   37.4
1.83   Vince Carter      56   40   .506   23.0   6.3   4.4   1.2   2.3   .7   33.6
1.61   Carlos Boozer     60   36   .525   18.9  12.9   2.3    .7   2.6   .4   31.1
1.12   Rashard Lewis     64   38   .552   17.5   6.5   2.3    .9   1.9   .5   25.4
1.12   Marcus Camby      76   30   .481    9.6  12.3   1.5   1.0   1.3  2.4   25.4

1.04   Antonio McDyess  100   24   .513   12.7  11.1   1.4    .7   1.5  1.2   24.5
0.94   Jerry Stackhouse  71   30   .480   16.3   4.1   3.1    .7   2.3   .3   23.4
0.92   Joe Johnson       56   39   .501   16.7   4.5   3.1    .9   2.1   .2   23.1
0.82   Stephen Jackson   58   37   .510   16.1   4.3   3.0   1.5   3.0   .4   22.0
0.67   Kendrick Perkins  85   26   .565    9.8  10.4   1.1    .6   2.3  1.9   20.3


1700-2120 min.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
1.96   Baron Davis       46   38   .541   21.8   4.8   6.7   2.4   2.5   .5   35.1
1.89   Amare Stoudemire  56   37   .573   24.9   9.5   1.0    .9   2.7  1.7   34.3
1.60   Carmelo Anthony   49   38   .514   23.2   7.4   2.6   1.2   2.9   .4   31.0
1.50   Deron Williams    44   40   .567   20.2   3.6   7.4   1.1   3.2   .3   29.9
1.28  Zydrunas Ilgauskas 80   26   .518   16.1  10.9   1.3    .5   1.9  1.5   27.3

1.14   Josh Howard       62   33   .523   17.3   8.4   1.6   1.1   2.3   .7   25.7
0.80   Joe Smith         91   19   .507   12.3   7.7    .9    .8   1.6  1.0   21.8
0.66   Kurt Thomas       95   20   .501   10.2  10.2   1.2    .8   1.7   .9   20.1
0.57   Udonis Haslem     77   27   .514    9.7   9.8   1.0    .6   1.3   .4   19.1
0.30   Raja Bell         64   27   .618   11.1   3.4   1.8    .8    .8   .1   16.0
   

1470-1680 min.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
2.26   Tracy McGrady     38   42   .513   26.5   6.4   5.6   1.2   2.9  1.0   38.6
1.40   Josh Smith        41   36   .481   16.2   8.9   2.5   1.2   2.2  1.9   28.6
1.20   Antawn Jamison    42   36   .517   17.9   8.0   1.3    .8   1.6   .7   26.4
0.87   Mehmet Okur       71   24   .507   12.2   9.1   1.5   1.0   1.5   .9   22.6
0.76   Tyson Chandler    53   29   .607    9.8  11.2    .7    .6   1.2  1.4   21.3

0.73   Anderson Varejao  71   22   .526   10.2   9.9    .8   1.5   1.4   .9   21.0
0.64   James Posey       65   26   .595   11.2   7.3   1.3   1.3   1.1   .4   19.9
0.59   Delonte West      54   29   .546   12.8   3.6   3.5   1.2   2.2   .4   19.3
0.56   Leandro Barbosa   64   23   .518   14.6   3.1   2.5    .9   1.7   .2   19.0
0.24   Shane Battier     51   33   .572    8.5   5.0   1.5   1.0   1.1   .7   15.3


1270-1440 min.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
1.23   Andrew Bynum      61   22   .541   15.0  11.3    .8    .5   1.7  2.0   26.7
1.13   Luol Deng         36   40   .528   16.7   6.7   1.9   1.2   1.4   .6   25.5
1.11   Kirk Hinrich      38   35   .540   15.9   3.9   5.2   1.4   2.0   .4   25.4
1.08   Andre Miller      39   37   .507   17.0   4.7   4.8   1.1   2.7   .1   25.0
1.07   Al Horford        39   35   .502   12.1   9.9   2.7    .6   1.4  1.2   24.8

0.98   Nene Hilario      44   29   .561   13.8   8.8   2.3   1.2   2.0   .7   23.9
0.96   Boris Diaw        39   35   .548   14.6   5.8   4.2    .8   2.5   .8   23.6
0.86   Brad Miller       49   26   .545   13.1   8.4   2.8    .7   2.3   .8   22.4
0.85   Andrei Kirilenko  45   30   .515   12.3   5.4   2.3   1.5   1.9  2.3   22.4
0.71   Glen Davis        64   21   .515   13.2   7.0   1.3   1.2   1.6   .6   20.7


1100-1270 min.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
1.77   Derrick Rose      27   42   .499   23.5   4.5   6.4   1.0   3.3   .5   32.9
1.43   Chris Bosh        31   39   .546   19.3   9.1   1.5    .8   1.9   .9   29.0
1.39   Grant Hill        38   32   .522   16.7   8.2   4.4   1.1   2.4   .6   28.6
1.35   Jameer Nelson     39   32   .566   19.9   4.5   5.1   1.0   2.4   .1   28.2
1.30   Jason Richardson  32   35   .590   19.9   6.4   1.4   1.1   1.2   .4   27.5

1.26   Caron Butler      31   39   .499   16.9   7.7   2.5   1.8   2.1   .5   27.1
1.18   Drew Gooden       44   27   .510   15.6  11.9   1.0    .5   1.9   .6   26.1
0.54   Luke Walton       87   15   .499   10.6   5.8   3.5   1.2   2.2   .3   18.8
0.51   Erick Dampier     57   22   .553    7.8  10.7    .6    .7   1.6  1.6   18.4
0.32   James Jones       63   19   .618   10.5   4.6    .7    .6    .7   .8   16.3

1000-1100 min.
e484      per36 rates    G   Min    Eff%   Sco   Reb   Ast   Stl   TO   Blk    T
1.04   Trevor Ariza      41   25   .563   15.4   6.1   2.7   1.6   1.8   .5   24.5
0.98   Ben Gordon        27   37   .537   19.8   3.3   2.9    .7   2.4   .1   23.8
0.92   Brendan Haywood   49   22   .602   11.9   8.8    .9   1.0   1.3  2.3   23.1
0.83   Mo Williams       30   34   .525   16.0   3.4   4.3    .6   2.1   .1   22.1

0.70   Mickael Pietrus   49   22   .595   15.2   4.3   1.0   1.0   1.1   .9   20.6
0.44   Jordan Farmar     69   15   .498   11.8   3.6   2.8   1.3   1.9   .3   17.7
0.27   Kyle Korver       48   21   .554   11.5   2.9   1.9    .8   1.3   .4   15.6

Posted: **Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:31 am**

It may be clear from the bottom of this list that defense is undervalued in this rating system...

you list about 20 PGs ahead of maurice cheeks. if a system accounted for defense outside of steals, blocked shots, and defensive rebounding, he'd be top 5...

for the 4 years of 78-79 to 81-82 (before moses malone got there), the 76ers were the best defensive team in the league (lowest pts/poss allowed) and had the best regular season W-L record (averaged a 56-26 record) over that 4 year stretch. cheeks played the 3rd most total minutes on the team (31 min/g), had the 6th most total assists among all PGs in the league, was the 3rd best overall shooter among all PGs that played at least 3 of those 4 seasons (minimum of 1000 total minutes played), had the 2nd most steals among all PGs, but only the 9th most turnovers (almost as many steals as turnovers). he was a key reason they were the best defensive team over the 4 years, and could have been named either 1st or 2nd all-D team any of those seasons (done buse, dennis johnson, michael cooper, and michael ray richardson were)...

from 78-79 to 87-88, 10 years, the 76ers were the 2nd best defensive team in the league (next to only milwaukee), and had the 3rd best regular season W-L record (averaged a 54-28 record over the 10 years, next to only the celtics and lakers). cheeks played the most total minutes on the 76ers over that decade, and was again a key reason they were so good defensively all that time. he was named all-D 1st team from 82-83 to 85-86, and all-D 2nd team in 86-87 (julius erving played the 2nd most total minutes, bobby jones played the 3rd most minutes on the 76ers that decade). he had the 2nd most total assists over those 10 years (next to magic johnson), had by far the most steals, but just the 6th most turnovers among PGs, with almost as many steals as turnovers (17 more turnovers than steals). PGs like magic johnson, isiah thomas, and norm nixon each had far more turnovers than steals (70%-100% more). among PGs with 5000 minutes played those 10 years cheeks had the 4th best overall shooting...

he was quite possibly the best defensive PG of the 1980s, and was also one of the most efficient PGs on offense while still passing for a slew of assists...

Posted: **Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:31 am**

bchaikin wrote: you list about 20 PGs ahead of maurice cheeks. if a system accounted for defense outside of steals, blocked shots, and defensive rebounding, he'd be top 5...
... he was quite possibly the best defensive PG of the 1980s, and was also one of the most efficient PGs on offense while still passing for a slew of assists...

Being the possibly best defensive PG of a decade, then he's possibly one of the top 5 defensive guards of all time. And his career neatly coincides with the '80s. But top 5 overall PG of all time?

I'm a big Cheeks fan, as you may know. But he wasn't a go-to scorer and not a rebounder. Of the 36 players I'd call primarily Guards, who are ranked higher, he's better than only one (Mark Jackson) as a scorer; also better than just one (Gus Williams) as a rebounder.

Of 33 guards to play at least 1000 games, he's dead last in Usg% (15.2), below Derek Fisher's 16.5
http://bkref.com/tiny/KxSAa
That's regular season only.
His Ast% is 9th, behind 8 other PG's and a few spots ahead of Jordan and Kobe.

Per 36 minutes and per 100 pts and 44 reb per game, his career rates resemble these:

Code: Select all

diff   career per36      Sco   Reb   Ast    PF   Stl   TO   Blk
.00   Maurice Cheeks    12.6   3.3   7.1   2.3   2.4   2.4   .3
.13   Greg Anthony      11.4   3.0   6.4   2.8   1.8   2.1   .2
.14   Pooh Richardson   12.1   3.5   7.6   2.1   1.5   2.2   .2
.15   Rickey Green      11.8   2.6   7.1   2.1   2.0   2.3   .1
.16   Mookie Blaylock   14.0   4.5   7.2   2.0   2.4   2.5   .4

.16   John Lucas        12.5   2.9   8.2   2.3   1.7   2.7   .1
.17   Dick McGuire      10.6   4.1   7.2   2.8   2.3   2.3   .4
.17   Darnell Valentine 11.3   3.1   6.7   3.2   2.1   2.9   .1
.18   Kenny Anderson    14.5   3.7   7.3   2.7   1.7   2.4   .2
.18   Allen Leavell     12.4   2.4   6.3   3.1   1.9   2.7   .2

Because of some other intangibles, Cheeks played a lot of minutes (and a lot of playoffs), so his career equivalent totals resemble these:

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv   ePts   eReb   eAst    PF     Stl    TO    Blk
.00   Maurice Cheeks 13875   3594   7794   2583   2613   2604   343
.48   Derek Harper   16811   3218   6933   3001   2113   2516   314
.49   Rod Strickland 14803   4470   8491   2195   1688   3021   229
.52  Mookie Blaylock 12637   4077   6455   1791   2200   2236   325
.52   Baron Davis    14547   3539   6041   2505   1653   2411   388

.57   Tim Hardaway   16183   3154   7371   2153   1527   2659   138
.58   Andre Miller   15618   4573   7205   2523   1402   2732   201
.60   Lenny Wilkens  16763   4365   7294   3583   2387   2814   428
.69   Dave Bing      16481   3050   5364   2694   1850   2397   213
.70   Kevin Johnson  14984   2819   7118   1779   1220   2630   204

None are especially close. Cheeks' lack of scoring is almost unique for such a long-lasting player. But we know he didn't take bad shots, and he was always good for a clutch shot when needed.

I have him ranked above all in these lists but KJ and Hardaway. These were sensational players who led some good teams. Cheeks was the ultimate supporting player.

According to b-r -- http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... kma01.html
His career PER is 16.5, and in playoffs 16.6 . WS/48 drops, though, from .143 to .130 for playoffs.
My numbers indicate about a 5% increase in his overall rates from RS to PO. This would be about a 10% increase in eWins per minute. That's just stupendous.

If his po/rs were a more typical .94, he'd drop behind 5 other guards in these rankings. If that produces fewer playoff minutes, behind some more.

Posted: **Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:26 pm**

Being the possibly best defensive PG of a decade, then he's possibly one of the top 5 defensive guards of all time... But top 5 overall PG of all time?

you're questioning cheeks as a top 5 PG, but then go ahead and list isiah thomas as a top 5 PG? what did thomas do to deserve a top 5 ranking?...

let's look at each player's 1st 10 years in the league, for cheeks 78-79 to 87-88. for thomas 81-82 to 90-91...

for cheeks from 78-79 to 87-88, he plays the most minutes on the 76ers, 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes played, the 8th most minutes in the league those 10 years. that team has the 3rd best regular season winning percentage (avg 54-28 record) during that time, was the 2nd best team in the league defensively all that time (due in large part to cheeks), went to 3 finals and won 1 title. cheeks throws for the 2nd most assists among all PGs (only magic johnson threw for more), grabs by far the most steals in the league, but commits just the 19th most turnovers among all players. he shoots a 57.1% ScFG% (2s, 3s, and FTs), 4th best/highest among the 72 PGs that played at least 4000 minutes that decade, scores 12.3 pts/g. his 5% turnovers per touch is 6th best/lowest among those same 72 PGs, his 2.07 pts/0ptposs (offensive efficiency) is 7th best among those 72 PGs...

for thomas from 81-82 to 90-91, he plays the most minutes on the pistons, 1/7 of the team's total minutes played, the 3rd most minutes in the league those 10 years. that team had the 5th best regular season winning percentage (avg 49-33 to 50-32 record) during that time, was the 5th best team in the league defensively all that time (and not due in large part to thomas), went to the finals 3 times and won 2 titles. thomas throws for the 2nd most assists among all PGs (only magic johnson threw for more), grabs the 3rd most steals, but commits the 2nd most turnovers among all players. he shoots just a 51.2% ScFG%, which is less than what just the league average PG shot during these 10 years, and among the 74 PGs that played at least 4000 minutes that decade, ranked just 36th, and scored 19.8 pts/g, 2nd best among those 74 PGs. his 6% turnovers per touch ranks just 41st among those 74 PGs, and his 1.76 pts/0ptposs (offensive efficiency) ranks just 40th, and below that of just the league average PG...

perhaps if thomas had passed more to his more offensively efficient teammates, rather than try to score since his offensive efficiency was not that good, and played better man defense, his pistons would have had a better regular season winning percentage than did cheeks' 76ers...

thomas was far less efficient on offense than cheeks, and less efficient than just the league average PG on offense. both passed for the 2nd most assists during each 10 year span (7431 ast for thomas, 5658 ast for cheeks), but where cheeks had 1837 ST and 1854 TO thomas had 1552 ST and 2944 TO. thomas cost his team far more by missed shots rebounded by the opponent and by far more turnovers. thomas has 1773 more assists, but cheeks had 1837-1552+2944-1854=1375 more zero point possessions (285 more ST + 1090 less TOs). that's 1375 more team possessions (worth about 1 point each) cheeks saved than did thomas, and 1773 ast certainly do not have anywhere the value of 1375 points...

so how come you have thomas ranked so much higher than cheeks?...

I'm a big Cheeks fan, as you may know. But he wasn't a go-to scorer and not a rebounder.

what good is a go-to scorer if he is not an efficient scorer? thomas was not efficient, and was not much better of a rebounder than cheeks was...

Of 33 guards to play at least 1000 games, he's (cheeks) dead last in Usg%

if this of some significance? from 77-78 to 79-80 the phoenix suns had the league's 3rd best regular season W-L record (avg 51-31), and won primarily because their defense (lowest pts/poss allowed) was 2nd best in the league those 3 years (their offense ranked just 8th best). their only player to make the all-D team during that time was PG don buse, and he made the all-D 1st team all 3 years. he was as low of a touches/min PG as you could find back then (just 0.90 touches/min those 3 seasons) yet that team won primarily because of their defense, he played the 2nd most total minutes on that team those 3 seasons, and he was their top defender...

Per 36 minutes and per 100 pts and 44 reb per game, his career rates resemble these:

Code:
diff career per36 Sco Reb Ast PF Stl TO Blk
.00 Maurice Cheeks 12.6 3.3 7.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 .3
.13 Greg Anthony 11.4 3.0 6.4 2.8 1.8 2.1 .2
.14 Pooh Richardson 12.1 3.5 7.6 2.1 1.5 2.2 .2

yes when you do not consider defense outside of steals, blocks, and def rebs nor scoring efficiency you can make pretty much anybody, even greg anthony and pooh richardson, look like maurice cheeks...

His career PER is 16.5, and in playoffs 16.6 . WS/48 drops

PER does not factor in individual player defense other than steals, blocks, and def rebs, and WS's spreads a team's defense among all players equally normalized to minutes played. like in 83-84 when on denver kiki vandeweghe (an awful defender) and t.r. dunn (an excellent defender) played similar minutes WS would have them as equal defenders outside of ST, BS, and def rebs...

Posted: **Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:04 am**

Cheeks was named to 4 All-Star teams, 5 all-D teams (four 1st teams).
Isiah made 12 All-Star teams and 5 all-NBA teams (three times 1st team). He collected .318 MVP shares (in 10 seasons receiving votes) while Cheeks never received an MVP vote.

While I'm quoting basketball-reference, I'll mention they give Cheeks 103.5 Win Shares (RS) to Isiah's 80.7. And 59% of Mo's were on offense, Zeke 51%.
In playoffs, it's 13.1 - 12.5, to Cheeks.

Their team situations were rather reversed: Cheeks joined a team full of superstars, but toward the end of his prime decade, his role increased as the team's talent slipped away.
Isiah was a Pistons' main man from the get-go, when they were not good. As they gained dominance, his role receded substantially.

In 1981, Detroit was 21-61, and their offense was dead last in the league, and I emphasize dead. At 98.1 pts/100 possessions, the next worst was NJ at 101. Worst eFG%, worst TO%.

Next year with Isiah, they scored another 7.7 points per 100. Their eFG%, which had been .025 below league avg at .464, jumped to .485, just .010 below avg.
This was Isiah's worst year shooting, at .432 eFG%, .704 FT%, .487 TS%.

Then from 1983 thru 1986, Isiah had a TS% of .531, and the Pistons shot .531. This is before trading Tripucka and Benson for Dantley, before they were a .600 team.
In this interval, Isiah led the league in steals (over Cheeks), was 2nd in assists (to Magic).

These years are generally the period when Isiah is flogged for shooting too much, too badly, and with too many turnovers. Yet by 1983, the Pistons, with a .151 TO%, were 6th lowest of 23 teams. By 1984, they were best in the league (.127). In 1985 and '86, 2nd-best.
Isiah was 2nd-4th in the NBA in turnovers all 4 years.

Of 33 guards to play at least 1000 games, he's (cheeks) dead last in Usg%

if this of some significance?

Yes, I'd say so. The more a player shoots, the more significant is his shooting %. If you take 3 shots in 30 minutes, it's unlikely the game is decided by whether you hit 1-3 or 2-3.

It was very cool to watch Maurice Cheeks step up and make shots, when others could not or would not. He deferred to superstars most of the time, and he got to pick his shots; this generally gives a player higher efficiency.

But offensive efficiency doesn't happen in a vacuum. Did Cheeks improve his team's efficiency as much as Isiah did his? I'm skeptical.

Does Cheeks' defense (other than his steals and blocks) vault him from top 25 to top 5 all-time point guard? I don't see how. You've got Magic, Oscar, Stockton, West? ... Kidd, Cousy, Isiah, Payton, Frazier, Billups, Nash ...

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:54 am**

In 1981, Detroit was 21-61, and their offense was dead last in the league, and I emphasize dead. At 98.1 pts/100 possessions, the next worst was NJ at 101. Worst eFG%, worst TO%. Next year with Isiah, they scored another 7.7 points per 100. Their eFG%, which had been .025 below league avg at .464, jumped to .485, just .010 below avg. This was Isiah's worst year shooting, at .432 eFG%, .704 FT%, .487 TS%.

are you seriously trying to suggest that thomas was the key reason that team improved 18 games from 21-61 to 39-43? rookie thomas, among the 40 PGs in the league that played at least 1000 total minutes that year, had the 6th lowest/worst overall shooting (47.8 ScFG%) combined with the 4th highest/worst rate of turnovers per touch (7%). he had just the 8th most assists among these PGs (565) but the most turnovers (299, and most in the league). his pts/0ptposs (offensive efficiency) was a very low 1.46 pts/0ptposs, 2nd lowest/worst among those 40 PGs...

you think perhaps, maybe, pistons rookie kelly tripucka, who shot a 55.7% ScFG% (8% better than thomas) and scored 21.6 pts/g, and played 600 more minutes than thomas did, might have had just a little more to do with that improvement? or that plus the 2000+ minutes played by vinnie johnson and bill laimbeer?...

from 1983 thru 1986... These years are generally the period when Isiah is flogged for shooting too much, too badly, and with too many turnovers...

yes, these 4 years he missed the most shots (2994) and committed the most turnovers (1224) among all PGs...

Of 33 guards to play at least 1000 games, he's (cheeks) dead last in Usg%

if this of some significance?

Yes, I'd say so

then answer me this - from 77-78 to 79-80, for that 3 year stretch, where do you have done buse ranked among the league's PGs in terms of who helped his team win more games? i ask as he was the lowest touches/min PG in the league during that time, and despite playing the 3rd most minutes among all the league's PGs averaged just 8 pts/g and 4.4 ast/g. for example those 3 years he threw for less than 1/2 the assists that kevin porter did, and scored less than 1/2 the points norm nixon did. but he was voted the best defensive PG in the league all 3 years, the suns won the third most regular season games over that time, primarily because of their defense, he was their best defensive player, and he played the 2nd most minutes on the team (1/8 of the team's total minutes played)...

It was very cool to watch Maurice Cheeks step up and make shots, when others could not or would not. He deferred to superstars most of the time, and he got to pick his shots; this generally gives a player higher efficiency.

this idea that a player who takes less shots generally has a higher efficiency that a player who takes more per time played is patently false. players who take less shots do not shoot better or have higher efficiencies than players who take more shots (per time played). want proof?...

let's look at scoring opportunities (ScOpp = FGA + FTA/2) of all players who played at least 500 minutes in a season since 1977-78. a player played 500+ minutes in a season 9755 times since 1977-78, and here is the distribution of ScOpp/48min and the players' overall shooting (ScFG%):

ScOpp/48..ScFG%..#times
..<6.....49.2%....0025
06-08...48.4%....0072
08-10...50.5%....0220
10-12...51.4%....0529
12-14...52.2%....0933
14-16...52.1%....1314
16-18...52.1%....1609
18-20...52.5%....1454
20-22...52.6%....1248
22-24...52.7%....0961
24-26...53.0%....0623
26-28...53.1%....0334
28-30...53.6%....0227
30-32...54.5%....0108
32+.....54.2%....0098

if anything, the stats show players tend to shoot higher overall the more scoring opportunites they take. and this is 9755 data points over 33 seasons...

here's the same data but looking at just PGs. a PG played 500+ minutes in a season 1934 times since 1977-78, and here is the distribution of ScOpp/48min and the players' overall shooting (ScFG%):

ScOpp/48..ScFG%..#times
..<6.....00.0%....000
06-08...36.1%....002
08-10...47.7%....020
10-12...49.3%....090
12-14...50.5%....228
14-16...51.4%....327
16-18...51.5%....418
18-20...52.0%....323
20-22...52.3%....259
22-24...52.0%....151
24-26...51.9%....074
26+......52.0%....042

again, PGs who took less scoring opportunities per time played did not shoot better than PGs who took more...

from 78-79 to 87-88, cheeks averaged 15.4 ScOpp/48min. among the 27 PGs (minimum 1000 total minutes played) that averaged 14-17 ScOpp/48min over those 10 years, his 57.1% ScFG% ranked 4th best...

from 81-82 to 90-91, thomas averaged 25.4 ScOpp/48min, 2nd most among all PGs. among the 27 PGs (minimum 1000 total minutes played) that averaged 20+ ScOpp/48min over those 10 years, his 51.2% ScFG% ranked just 13th...

But offensive efficiency doesn't happen in a vacuum. Did Cheeks improve his team's efficiency as much as Isiah did his? I'm skeptical.

cheeks was more efficient on offense than thomas - he shot much better overall with fewer turnovers and lower turnovers per touch - and thus improved his team's offensive efficiency more. what's to be skeptical about?...

Does Cheeks' defense (other than his steals and blocks) vault him from top 25 to top 5 all-time point guard?

his defense with his steals and blocks, and his better offensive efficiency, certainly gets him much closer to the top 5 than isiah thomas...

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:02 pm**

bchaikin wrote: this idea that a player who takes less shots generally has a higher efficiency that a player who takes more per time played is patently false. players who take less shots do not shoot better or have higher efficiencies than players who take more shots (per time played). want proof?...

let's look at scoring opportunities (ScOpp = FGA + FTA/2) of all players who played at least 500 minutes in a season since 1977-78. a player played 500+ minutes in a season 9755 times since 1977-78, and here is the distribution of ScOpp/48min and the players' overall shooting (ScFG%):

ScOpp/48..ScFG%..#times
..<6.....49.2%....0025
06-08...48.4%....0072
08-10...50.5%....0220
10-12...51.4%....0529
12-14...52.2%....0933
14-16...52.1%....1314
16-18...52.1%....1609
18-20...52.5%....1454
20-22...52.6%....1248
22-24...52.7%....0961
24-26...53.0%....0623
26-28...53.1%....0334
28-30...53.6%....0227
30-32...54.5%....0108
32+.....54.2%....0098

if anything, the stats show players tend to shoot higher overall the more scoring opportunites they take. and this is 9755 data points over 33 seasons...
...

again, PGs who took less scoring opportunities per time played did not shoot better than PGs who took more...

Wait, let me get this straight: You're trying to show that efficiency is not affected by touches/min, and you're doing so by showing that efficiency actually increases with touches/minute? This is a very backwards approach, as it doesn't really prove or disprove anything. There are many explanations, the chief being that players who are good scorers tend to shoot more.

The better test is using the same player who changes his role in a year. (As in, usage either dips up or down) The easiest way to visualize the data though is next time you're playing ball, take it upon yourself to shoot every single possession. Does your efficiency go up after the Xth marginal shot? What about X+1? X+2?

I see your point that perhaps Mo Cheeks is being underrepresented in the pantheon of greats (I believe you voiced a similar concern a few months back when there was a top 100 BBall players of all time list going around, or something like that) but as noted, the argument basically boils down to "he played a lot of minutes for a good defensive team, and despite his lack of boxscore defensive stats, was clearly the major reason for this, so he's getting underrated". (Due to minutes played? Reputation at the time?) I have trouble seeing how a non-big can anchor a defense, but I suppose that's another argument. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Bobby Jones/Moses Malone the anchors?)

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:24 pm**

Bobbofitos wrote:
bchaikin wrote: this idea that a player who takes less shots generally has a higher efficiency that a player who takes more per time played is patently false...
... players who are good scorers tend to shoot more.

The better test is using the same player who changes his role in a year. (As in, usage either dips up or down)...

Yeah, I was talking about a given player, taking more or fewer shots, and how it affects his shooting%. We can look at Cheeks' shooting numbers and see there's a rise and fall in both his FG/36 and his FG%.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... kma01.html
His FG% peaks at .570 in 1985, when he was taking 10.2 FGA/36 min.
His FGA/36 peaks at 10.9 in 1989, and his FG% had dipped to .483.
That's a dramatic downturn in FG% when trying another 0.7 FG per 36. Most likely there were other factors -- notably teammates. In 1985, he's running with Moses, Erving, Toney, and Barkley. Having all these weapons, it's easier to get a good shot without pressure.

In 1989, he's running with Barkley, Gminski, Ron Anderson, and Hersey Hawkins. Still plenty of guys who could (and would) shoot, but not as well. Cheeks' TS% was lowest among these.

In 1989-90, he was with the Spurs for 50 games, taking 9.2 FGA/36 and shooting just .478 .
Then he goes to the Knicks, he shoots just 7.6 FGA/36 and shoots .579 (92-159).

Cheeks may have had a hard ceiling around 10 FGA/36 when on a team that's stacked with scorers. He never had a season with more shots and still a great FG%.
Other players seem to have softer ceilings, and they can take as many shots as you let them take, without great depreciation in efficiency. Isiah was more that way, and Iverson.

Of course the best shooters should take the most shots; I didn't think we still debated that here. And when a given player is in his prime, he normally takes more shots and with a better %.
Cheeks' career doesn't offer evidence that he was ever capable of more than 10.2 FGA/36 with an above avg FG%, for a whole season. His career high Pts/G is 15.6 .
But in playoffs, he was higher on 6 occasions (20.8 in 1986, 94-182 FG).

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:19 pm**

bchaikin wrote:In 1981, Detroit was 21-61, and their offense was dead last in the league, and I emphasize dead. At 98.1 pts/100 possessions, the next worst was NJ at 101. Worst eFG%, worst TO%. Next year with Isiah, they scored another 7.7 points per 100. Their eFG%, which had been .025 below league avg at .464, jumped to .485, just .010 below avg. This was Isiah's worst year shooting, at .432 eFG%, .704 FT%, .487 TS%.

are you seriously trying to suggest that thomas was the key reason that team improved 18 games from 21-61 to 39-43? ...
you think perhaps, maybe, pistons rookie kelly tripucka, who shot a 55.7% ...? or that plus the 2000+ minutes played by vinnie johnson and bill laimbeer?....

Both Isiah and Tripucka made the all-rookie team. Isiah was Sporting News Rookie of the Year, whatever that is.
The Pistons had all manner of personnel changes that year, and of course chemistry is always an issue. Alongside Isiah, these players would have by far their best years in the league.

So how does a rookie come in and lead the league in turnovers, have even more TO the next 3 years; and drive the team's turnover% down from a league-worst .180, to .160, to .151, to a league-best .127, in that interval?

Laimbeer's TO% was 15.5 in Cleveland, and in Detroit it dropped to 14.8, 11.1, 9.0 ...
Vinnie's had been at 20 as the lead guard in Seattle; with Isiah, it too shrank: to 16, to 12, to 7.5 ...
John Long, the Pistons' resident gunner, dropped from 12.7 to 10.6 right away.
Terry Tyler's TO% stayed at 14 in Isiah's rookie year, then dropped to as low as 7.6 in 1985. Moving on to Sacramento, it jumped back to 11.9 .
Tripucka's 11.3 TO% jumped to 18.8 arriving in Utah.

A great distributor like Isiah often has the effect of avoiding turnovers by his teammates. Magic led the league in TO in 1991, then abruptly retired; Worthy and Byron Scott saw their TO% jump by 1/3, etc.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:17 am**

Wait, let me get this straight: You're trying to show that efficiency is not affected by touches/min, and you're doing so by showing that efficiency actually increases with touches/minute? This is a very backwards approach, as it doesn't really prove or disprove anything.

1 - the data was presented in response to this statement:

he got to pick his shots; this generally gives a player higher efficiency

which is false - players who take less "shots" do not generally see an increase in efficiency. the data shows that ScFG% does not - on average - change much regardless of the number of "shots" attempted, or in this case "scoring opportunities". 7519/9755 or over 3/4 of the data - that's data from 33 years - shows players (minimum 500 minutes played in a season) attempting 12-24 (i.e. a range doubled) scoring opportunites per 48 minutes, with a difference over that entire range (12 to 24) of just 1/2 of 1 percent (52.2% vs 52.7%), or 0.6% looking at min to max ScFG%...

2 - the data looks at scoring opportunities (FGA + FTA/2), not touches/min. these are not the same thing. in 2010-11 chris paul averaged 18.7 ScOpp/48min, brandon bass 18.5 ScOpp/48min. but paul handled the ball much more on offense, 2.08 touches/min vs. 0.64 touches/min for bass...

The better test is using the same player who changes his role in a year...

or even year to year. the increments of ScOpp/48min (by every two ScOpp) chosen was arbitrary. you could have chosen any incremental range. but what this data does show is that - on average - for every player that say attempted 12-14 ScOpp/48min one season but attempted say 14-16 or 16-18 another season, there was a player that went from 16-18 down to 14-16 or 12-14, and yet the ScFG%s from 12-24 ScOpp/48min varied little, from a low of 52.1% to a high of 52.7%...

I see your point that perhaps Mo Cheeks is being underrepresented in the pantheon of greats... but as noted, the argument basically boils down to "he played a lot of minutes for a good defensive team, and despite his lack of boxscore defensive stats, was clearly the major reason for this, so he's getting underrated". (Due to minutes played? Reputation at the time?) I have trouble seeing how a non-big can anchor a defense, but I suppose that's another argument. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Bobby Jones/Moses Malone the anchors?)

from 78-79 to 81-82, 4 years, (and before malone got there) the philadelphia 76ers were the league's best defensive team (lowest pts/poss allowed), out of 22-24 teams. think about that - someone on that team (or rather alot of someones) was playing excellent/outstanding defense to rank as best in the league over a full 4 seasons...

during that time julius erving (11277 min), caldwell jones (10027 min), maurice cheeks (9945 min), and bobby jones (8656 min) played just over 1/2 of the team's total minutes played. darryl dawkins (7788 min), steve mix (5374 min), lionel hollins (5207 min), and henry bibby (4573 min) over 1/4 of the team's total minutes. another 16 players combined to play just 1/5 of the rest of the team's minutes...

so, who do you think of those players were excellent defenders? and don't let someone try to convince you that just 1 or 2 were excellent but that most were average with a couple of poor ones in there, because then the numbers don't work out to be the top defensive team over such a long time period...

bobby jones was all-D 1st team all 4 years, caldwell jones 2 years. but those 4 years bobby played just 27 min/g, and caldwell just 31 min/g. that's just 58 min/g for an all-D performer. someone else had to be playing top notch defense...

you can take my word for it, or that of those who saw them play at that time. and you do that by reading everything you can find from that time period on the league...

that philly team from 78-79 to 81-82 had the 2nd lowest eFG% allowed, and 2nd lowest 2pt FG% allowed on defense. they were 3rd in steals per game and 1st in blocked shots per game. those 4 years dr. j. had the 5th most steals plus the 10th most blocked shots among all players in the league. bobby jones had the 34th most steals and the 18th most blocked shots. caldwell jones had the 8th most BS and darryl dawkins had the 15th most BS. cheeks had the 2nd most steals...

lots of books/magazines back then sang the praises of maurice cheeks as a top defender even prior to 82-83. just one example is zander hollander's complete handbook of pro basketball, who in 1983 (after the 81-82 season, and before cheeks was ever named to an all-D team) wrote that cheeks was "...called the team's best defensive player by assistant coach jack mcmahon...". that's awfully high praise coming from a coach that had two all-D 1st team performers (caldwell and bobby jones)...

cheeks was then named to the all-D 1st team for 4 straight years, 82-83 to 85-86. as you well know, selections to all-D teams always seem to come a year or two after a player was first deserving, so you can imagine how good of a defender cheeks was the 1-2 seasons prior to actually being selected all-D 1st team for the first time. the fact is he played 1/8 of the 76ers' total minutes played the 4 years of 78-79 to 81-82, the team was the best defensive team in the league during that time, and there is no way that outside of his steals that the team could have been 2nd best in the league in lowest eFG% and lowest 2pt FG% allowed with a player playing 1/8 of the total minutes yet he himself allowing a high FG% on defense. if he had pretty much the rest of the entire team would needed to have been excellent in allowing a very low eFG% or 2pt FG% for that remaining 7/8 of the team's minutes played. and players like steve mix, henry bibby, andrew toney, and doug collins, players that no one would confuse with all-D 1st team performers, played 25% of those remaining 7/8 of team's total minutes played...

now, from 78-79 to 87-88, a full decade (and cheeks the only 76ers player to play in all 10 seasons), the 76ers were the league's 2nd best team defensively (lowest pts/poss allowed, milwaukee was 1st). that's a very long time to be the 2nd best defensive team in the league, so someone or alot of someones on the 76ers were playing top defense during that decade. cheeks was just 1 of 67 different players to play on the team during that time, but he alone played 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes played (most by any one 76ers player and 13% of the team's minutes). of that 87% of minutes for the rest of the team, i can name you 43 players that played for the 76ers that no one in their right mind would ever call a top defender yet that played 1/4 of that remaining 87% of minutes. so how much of an impact do you think cheeks had over 10 years on that 2nd best defensive team in the league, playing 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's minutes and being named all-D 1st team 4 times and all-D 2nd team once from 82-83 to 87-88?...

and this was a defense first minded PG that also over that decade was 2nd in total assists, 3rd in overall shooting among the 35 PGs that played at least 10,000 minutes those 10 years, with the 3rd lowest rate of turnovers per touch among those 35 PGs. so he was excellent on defense and very efficient on offense...

In 1985, he's (cheeks) running with Moses, Erving, Toney, and Barkley. Having all these weapons, it's easier to get a good shot without pressure... Cheeks may have had a hard ceiling around 10 FGA/36 when on a team that's stacked with scorers. He never had a season with more shots and still a great FG%.

he wasn't a go-to scorer and not a rebounder

Cheeks' lack of scoring is almost unique for such a long-lasting player

we know he didn't take bad shots

Cheeks was the ultimate supporting player

The more a player shoots, the more significant is his shooting %

It was very cool to watch Maurice Cheeks step up and make shots, when others could not or would not. He deferred to superstars most of the time, and he got to pick his shots; this generally gives a player higher efficiency.

what's funny about all of these comments is this - compare the stats of maurice cheeks, isiah thomas, and john stockton, through the age of 31:

..min....ScFG%...ScOPP/48...pts/g...player
26285....57.1%.......15.4......12.3...cheeks (10 years)
26148....58.8%.......17.0......13.3...stockton (10 years)
33766....50.8%.......25.1......19.5...thomas (12 years)

stockton's stats for overall shooting, scoring attempts/48min, and per game scoring are clearly more like those of cheeks than those of thomas. his scoring attempts were much lower and similar to those of cheeks, and his per game scoring average was within one point of cheeks and nowhere near that of thomas. he also happened to shoot a high overall ScFG%. does everything you say about cheeks also pertain to stockton (through the age of 31)? did he only shoot well because he didn't shoot alot, and only shoot well because he always played alongside a high scorer (after all karl malone scored the 2nd most points in nba history and played almost his entire career with stockton)...

was stockton not a go to scorer (and was btw a worse per minute rebounder than cheeks)? was stockton's lack of scoring almost unique for such a long lasting player (through the age of 31)? do we know he only shot well because he didn't take bad shots? was stockton the ultimate supporting player? was his overall shooting not significant because he did not shoot as much as thomas? did he only shoot well because he deferred to a superstar most of the time, and got to pick his shots, and that's why he shot a better efficiency?...

the answer is of course not - both players stockton and cheeks shot well because both players were simply great overall shooters...

the first 10 years of their careers cheeks (78-79 to 87-88) and stockton (84-85 to 93-94) were quite similar. stockton threw for the most assists his decade, cheeks the 2nd most his decade. stockton was 2nd best in overall shooting (among PGs with 10,000 minutes played) his decade, cheeks 3rd. both lead their decade in steals. the 76ers in cheeks decade had the 3rd best regular season winning percentage (avg 54-28 record) and were the 2nd best team defensively, the jazz in stockton's decade had the 5th best winning percentage (avg 49-33 record) and were the best team defensively. stockton was named to the all-D 2nd team 5 times, never the 1st team. but both players could easily be considered the best defensive PG of each's first 10 years in the league...

A great distributor like Isiah often has the effect of avoiding turnovers by his teammates.

yes because a very high touches/min PG who throws for alot of assists plus who takes alot of shots and commits alot of turnovers often (but not always) reduces the touches/min on offense of his teammates...

Magic led the league in TO in 1991, then abruptly retired; Worthy and Byron Scott saw their TO% jump by 1/3, etc.

wow, sounds like a big difference... but here's the reality...

from 86-87 to 91-92, here is each players' turnovers per touch:

scott - 5%, 5%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 5%
worthy - 6%, 5%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 5%

from 86-87 to 91-92, here is each players' TO/g:

scott - 1.8, 2.0, 2.1, 1.6, 1.0, 1.5
worthy - 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.0, 1.6, 2.4

each's 5 seasons (86-87 to 90-91) were played with magic at PG, the 6th season 91-92 with sedale threatt at PG. both scott and worthy had excellent seasons at not turning the ball over in 90-91, but their rates of turnovers per touch and TO/g in 91-92 were similar to those earlier seasons with magic at PG...

because magic had far higher touches/min on offense in 90-91 than sedale threat did in 91-92 (far more assists, far higher scoring average), scott's and worthy's touches/min on offense were down in 90-91. in 91-92 with threatt at PG both scott and worthy saw a 13% increase in their touches/min on offense compared to in 90-91...

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:30 am**

Long response here.

bchaikin wrote:Wait, let me get this straight: You're trying to show that efficiency is not affected by touches/min, and you're doing so by showing that efficiency actually increases with touches/minute? This is a very backwards approach, as it doesn't really prove or disprove anything.

1 - the data was presented in response to this statement:

he got to pick his shots; this generally gives a player higher efficiency

which is false - players who take less "shots" do not generally see an increase in efficiency. the data shows that ScFG% does not - on average - change much regardless of the number of "shots" attempted, or in this case "scoring opportunities". 7519/9755 or over 3/4 of the data - that's data from 33 years - shows players (minimum 500 minutes played in a season) attempting 12-24 (i.e. a range doubled) scoring opportunites per 48 minutes, with a difference over that entire range (12 to 24) of just 1/2 of 1 percent (52.2% vs 52.7%), or 0.6% looking at min to max ScFG%...

This is not false, at least not demonstrably so with the information given. What that actually shows is that offenses function far more optimally than the layman may suppose. (If everyone at various usage rates the past 30 years actually settle on very similar %s) What this leads to, in a roundabout way, is that simple usage is a good predictor of actual (not just perceived, but actually "real") scoring ability. There's no doubt that Mo Cheeks, as a career 15% usage guy, was effective, he was just only really effective as a 4th (or 5th) option. Isiah Thomas, with a 25% career usage, may not have been the most effective 1st (or 2nd) option, but he still is a 1st or 2nd option.

2 - the data looks at scoring opportunities (FGA + FTA/2), not touches/min. these are not the same thing. in 2010-11 chris paul averaged 18.7 ScOpp/48min, brandon bass 18.5 ScOpp/48min. but paul handled the ball much more on offense, 2.08 touches/min vs. 0.64 touches/min for bass...

My mistake with the nomenclature. I'm using scoring opportunities, shot per 48, usage, etc. all the same. If there's a need to differentiate at any point I'll note it.

The better test is using the same player who changes his role in a year...

or even year to year. the increments of ScOpp/48min (by every two ScOpp) chosen was arbitrary. you could have chosen any incremental range. but what this data does show is that - on average - for every player that say attempted 12-14 ScOpp/48min one season but attempted say 14-16 or 16-18 another season, there was a player that went from 16-18 down to 14-16 or 12-14, and yet the ScFG%s from 12-24 ScOpp/48min varied little, from a low of 52.1% to a high of 52.7%...

I suppose it could be anecdotal, (I also don't have access to run a particular "change usage wildly" query, which would make these matters rather simple) but I'm more or less asking for particular Iversonian examples. (2006-07, 36.7 usg/52.9 ts with the Sixers, 27.1 usg/54.5 ts with the Nuggets)

I see your point that perhaps Mo Cheeks is being underrepresented in the pantheon of greats... but as noted, the argument basically boils down to "he played a lot of minutes for a good defensive team, and despite his lack of boxscore defensive stats, was clearly the major reason for this, so he's getting underrated". (Due to minutes played? Reputation at the time?) I have trouble seeing how a non-big can anchor a defense, but I suppose that's another argument. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Bobby Jones/Moses Malone the anchors?)

from 78-79 to 81-82, 4 years, (and before malone got there) the philadelphia 76ers were the league's best defensive team (lowest pts/poss allowed), out of 22-24 teams. think about that - someone on that team (or rather alot of someones) was playing excellent/outstanding defense to rank as best in the league over a full 4 seasons...

during that time julius erving (11277 min), caldwell jones (10027 min), maurice cheeks (9945 min), and bobby jones (8656 min) played just over 1/2 of the team's total minutes played. darryl dawkins (7788 min), steve mix (5374 min), lionel hollins (5207 min), and henry bibby (4573 min) over 1/4 of the team's total minutes. another 16 players combined to play just 1/5 of the rest of the team's minutes...

so, who do you think of those players were excellent defenders? and don't let someone try to convince you that just 1 or 2 were excellent but that most were average with a couple of poor ones in there, because then the numbers don't work out to be the top defensive team over such a long time period...

bobby jones was all-D 1st team all 4 years, caldwell jones 2 years. but those 4 years bobby played just 27 min/g, and caldwell just 31 min/g. that's just 58 min/g for an all-D performer. someone else had to be playing top notch defense...

you can take my word for it, or that of those who saw them play at that time. and you do that by reading everything you can find from that time period on the league...

I don't know. I'll take your word for it that he truly was a defensive beast. And that surely is worth a lot.

In 1985, he's (cheeks) running with Moses, Erving, Toney, and Barkley. Having all these weapons, it's easier to get a good shot without pressure... Cheeks may have had a hard ceiling around 10 FGA/36 when on a team that's stacked with scorers. He never had a season with more shots and still a great FG%.

he wasn't a go-to scorer and not a rebounder

Cheeks' lack of scoring is almost unique for such a long-lasting player

we know he didn't take bad shots

Cheeks was the ultimate supporting player

The more a player shoots, the more significant is his shooting %

It was very cool to watch Maurice Cheeks step up and make shots, when others could not or would not. He deferred to superstars most of the time, and he got to pick his shots; this generally gives a player higher efficiency.

what's funny about all of these comments is this - compare the stats of maurice cheeks, isiah thomas, and john stockton, through the age of 31:

..min....ScFG%...ScOPP/48...pts/g...player
26285....57.1%.......15.4......12.3...cheeks (10 years)
26148....58.8%.......17.0......13.3...stockton (10 years)
33766....50.8%.......25.1......19.5...thomas (12 years)

As far as Stockton vs Cheeks, Stockton ended up playing roughly 15,000 more career minutes. (Including playoffs) That has a lot of value. http://bit.ly/nBV9oN
That's the Bref comparison. I don't know how you can say they are equal? at all, when...
-They play nearly the exact same number of minutes (26285 for Cheeks, not including playoffs, and 26148 for Stockton) And yet...
-Stockton compiled 1200 more points (only only about 750 true shot opportunities, leading to a 21 pt gap in TS, which is pretty sizable) and had almost 4,000 more assists (Stockton nearly doubled Cheeks in this category).
-They have nearly identical turnover, rebound, and block rates, while Stockton has a slim lead in steal rate.

I'm not a big Thomas fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he's a much different type of player than Cheeks. I don't have Thomas high up on the all-time rankings either, but suffice to say he and Cheeks share a relatively similar overall ranking.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:34 pm**

bchaikin wrote: in response to this statement:

he got to pick his shots; this generally gives a player higher efficiency

which is false - players who take less "shots" do not generally see an increase in efficiency. ..

There are many reasons that "players" may take fewer shots. An important one is that at some point in their careers, they aren't as effective, and the team needs for them to shoot less. And so, there are many player-seasons where 'less shooting' may be accompanied by lower shooting%.

A given player -- in this case, I'm referring to Maurice Cheeks -- who may shoot or not shoot, depending on his mood -- a luxury afforded by an all-star lineup such as the Sixers enjoyed for much of Cheeks' career -- will not have the burden of having to take many shots with which he's not comfortable; and he can perfect this niche (as a 4th or 5th option) even to the nearly unthinkable 57% success rate, on FG alone, from a guard.

Wilt Chamberlain was moody, he went through several sets of teammates, and he put himself through the gamut of roles in his career. How did his FG% change with his FG/minute?

Code: Select all

Wilt: Warriors         Sixers              Lakers
yr  FGA/36  FG%     yr  FGA/36  FG%     yr  FGA/36  FG%
60   24.9  .461     65   18.7  .528     69   10.8  .583
61   23.4  .509     66   19.2  .540    (70   16.2  .568)
62   29.3  .506     67   11.2  .683     71   12.2  .545
63   26.2  .528     68   12.9  .595     72    7.9  .649
64   22.4  .524                         73    6.0  .727
65   26.3  .499

Wilt played just 12 games in 1969-70
Hard to find an instance when his FG% followed his FGA/min upward or downward.
He might have shot 70% for his career, if he's willing to average 14 pts/G.

Most players are not Wilt; they listen to coaches and teammates telling them, "Take that shot", "Don't take those shots", etc.

Bobbofitos wrote:

Mo Cheeks, as a career 15% usage guy, was effective, he was just only really effective as a 4th (or 5th) option. Isiah Thomas, with a 25% career usage, may not have been the most effective 1st (or 2nd) option, but he still is a 1st or 2nd option.

This says it pretty succinctly. Of all guards playing at least 30,000 career minutes through 1994, Isiah ranks 1st in Usg%; and Cheeks ranks lowest, by a good bit.
http://bkref.com/tiny/LT8Cy
Of course, Usage doesn't consider assists. Isiah's Ast% ranks only behind Magic, at 37.4, which is 28% higher than Cheeks' 29.2
Isiah was the cornerstone of a slow-building dynasty. In his 10th season, he was winning Finals mvp.
In Cheeks' 10th season for Philly, they were missing the playoffs. A year later, he was gone.

Aside of stats, we know something about how players were perceived in their time by looking at their accolades. Cheeks was all-D but not all-NBA. That latter list may overemphasize offense (since there's no all-O team), but in Isiah's rookie year, 1982, the 1st team guards were Gervin and Gus, 2nd team Magic and Moncrief (the youngsters).
In 1983, it was Magic and Moncrief, then Gervin and Isiah.
1984: Magic and Isiah, over Moncrief and Paxson
1985 : Magic and Isiah, over Moncrief and Jordan (rookie)
1986 : Magic and Isiah, over Moncrief and Alvin Robertson
1987 : Magic and Jordan, over Isiah and Lever

So Isiah was finally bumped from 1st team all-league by not less than Michael Jordan in his prime; and by 1988, he was also displaced by Stockton and Drexler, from the 2nd team.

While Mo Cheeks led the Sixers in important categories in his 11 years there, he was also the only player there during that entire span.
From 1979 to 1982, he's behind Erving and Caldwell Jones in minutes. Behind Erving, Dawkins, and Bobby Jones in points. Tops in assists and steals, 6th in rebounds.
From '83 to '86, he's 2nd to Moses in minutes. After Moses, Erving, and Toney in points. Easily #1 in steals and assists, again 6th in rebounds.
From '87 thru '89, well behind Barkley in minutes and points, again 1st in steals and assists and 6th in boards.

With his great playoffs, I rank Cheeks 6th in Sixers/Nats careers; after Erving, Iverson, Schayes, Barkley, and Greer (barely).
http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=474

APBRmetrics

663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011

Re: 663 careers statistically ranked 1952-2011