APBRmetrics

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:26 am**

Mike G wrote:A 15 X 15 square is bigger than a 10 X 20 rectangle, and it doesn't require any 'distortion' to believe that. You may like the shape of the rectangle, or it may fit your preference better, but that's just you.

This isn't completely true. Moving from say "15" -> "16" (and so on) may matter more. Would you rather have 1 all star season or 10 seasons of barely above replacement level production sort of deal. When the goal is to win championships, it's completely reasonable to support a 10x20 > 15x15.

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:09 am**

Well, if the 15 and the 20 are PER, then we are comparing a player with 10 years at marginal all-star level, vs a player with 15 years at average player level. Both players will be assumed to go through a 'trajectory'; and the 15-yr guy may get one allstar nod as a replacement (like Divac) vs the 'better' player who got 1 or 2 all-NBA's and 6-8 allstar games.

In that case, it seems like no contest: It's a perennial allstar (but with a relatively short career) vs a constant (and long-term) contributor. But the lesser player has 1.5 times the career length -- 15 vs 10 chances of contributing to a title run. He may be a 4th or 5th or 8th or 10th man, but every champion has these guys.

It'll be a while -- if ever -- before we are debating replacement types vs one-season wonders. But with 30 teams, a player of any caliber who plays 15 years has a 50/50 shot at a title. Better players should have a better chance.

In hindsight, we see why or how some guys got there and others did not. A superstar may hog the ball or the salary, so his team never attracts the supporting players he needs. A journeyman may hook up with one or several champs, just by being a self-sacrificing 'team player'.

Are Horry and Fisher itinerant title-delivering specialists? Or just amazingly lucky? Or were their teams lucky to have them?

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:40 pm**

With less than a day left to vote or change your vote, we have 24 players with 3 or more votes. These would be advanced to top 75 consideration and replaced with 24 other names.

It's rather a disappointment that only 5 people have voted. Round 1 had 15 voters, round 2 had 7. Only one person has voted after the first day in this round.
To me, the discussions are more interesting than the vote totals -- especially when those totals are meager. I can't tell if people are intimidated by the discussion process, the voting process, or if they're just uninterested in such an experiment. The thread is exposed to (I think) the best analytical basketball minds in the world.

It's still better than a situation where lots of knuckleheads are calling people names, insisting their opinions are without fault while others are idiots, and the like. Everyone's been pretty level headed for the most part. There just aren't enough "everyones".

The upshot is that this "first iteration" is a highly preliminary phase. We're just establishing a "consensus" top 25, top 50, etc. Then we can, sooner or later, restart the process.

It may be that the most expedient final process would be for individuals to submit an actual ranking, from 1 to 100, 1 to 200, or whatever. Averaging these submissions could then be the tiebreaking procedure.

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:29 pm**

Mike G wrote:Well, Bill Sharman ranks way out there at 190 in my list, so unless he's a write-in, he won't be on the ballot for a while.
In Win Shares, regular season, he's 46th among guards, 123rd among all players. In playoffs, 85th.
He ranks 81 in Offensive WS (RS) and 36th in WS/48.

In my version of 'equivalent points', season + playoff, he's #108; amongst Theus, DJ, Jeff Malone, and Byron Scott.
In eAssists, he's 248th -- behind Dantley, Paul Silas, Bill Bradley. There are 75 players with more of both.

His stats indeed suggest that he was the best SG of his era; but that he'd be lucky to crack the top 10 today.
Unless there's something the stats aren't conveying, of course.

The difficulty of lasting the same career duration in the older era; defense; basketball iq (see his coaching career) which might manifest itself in say low turnovers, leadership etc; physical fitness (running oppenents ragged to the benefit of his substitutes Sam Jones and Frank Ramsey). Does your system put much weight on %s (that might be another area of difference)?

Given the goal of winning championships and given the gap between him and the next best 50s SG (especially if you discount Ramsey as a tweener), and the convention to play two guards Sharman gave a substantial edge to increasing your team's probability of winning titles. He's 124th in career Win Shares, a metric that skews favourably to bigs (and again the longevity that early 50s players couldn't have) and 179 (circa 2009) in a PER derived value added measure that skewed against older era players. On their own that wouldn't say top 75 material but again substantially better than say Carl Braun or Gene Shue and as such giving you a substantial edge towards winning titles. As a guard (and dead-eye shooter) in the pre-three era that he was consistently top 10 in ts% is pretty impressive.

Anyway I've added my first voting contribution. Decided not to write in especially when I don't have a solid set of rankings yet. Guys I'd look to vote for next time not presently on the board include:
Arizin
Howell
S Jones
Sharman
Moncrief
Dave Cowens
plus maybe ...
Chet Walker
Hornacek
Eddie Jones
Terry Porter
Detlef Schrempf
Mikkelsen
Gallatin
Bobby Jones
possibly maybe ...
Terrell Brandon
Dave Bing
Earl Monroe

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:21 pm**

Just voted for 20 players, I have 5 write-ins:

Bill Sharman
Bobby Jones
Bill Walton
Dennis Johnson
Dave DeBusschere

I might sub Dantley and Webber out for Mel Daniels and Sidney Moncrief before the deadline, not sure though.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:01 am**

Guys I'd look to vote for next time not presently on the board include:
...
Dave Cowens...

Cowens got 6 of 7 votes in the 2nd round, i.e., preliminary top 50.

Sharman played when a season was 66 to 79 games. I've multiplied his yearly 'equivalent totals' by 82/66, etc. I've also weighed playoffs more heavily, and given credit for titles. But I don't give him credit for having a better shooting % than his contemporaries.

If he shot better than others, then he got more points, which are also a higher % of total points in the games he was in. So his teams outscored their opponents, they got into more playoff games, and they won more titles. He gets credit in all these ways. Yet I still don't rank him as highly as his offensive Win Shares would say.

He had 4 years above 34 mpg; just 2 years above 36. Richie Guerin went as high as 43 mpg and scored 29.5 ppg. Why isn't he in the discussion?
Bobby Wanzer was an earlier superguard. Check out his playoff rates:
http://bkref.com/tiny/ENUFa

There are literally dozens of similarly accomplished players in NBA and ABA history -- of guards, forwards, and centers -- they can't all be in the top 100.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:44 am**

What quantitatively (or qualitatively) separates these players in assessments of their careers?
http://bkref.com/tiny/6L5JV

(Cunningham, Kemp, Jerry Lucas, McAdoo, McGinnis, Webber)

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:34 am**

Mike G wrote:
Guys I'd look to vote for next time not presently on the board include:
...
Dave Cowens...
Cowens got 6 of 7 votes in the 2nd round, i.e., preliminary top 50.

Sharman played when a season was 66 to 79 games. I've multiplied his yearly 'equivalent totals' by 82/66, etc. I've also weighed playoffs more heavily, and given credit for titles. But I don't give him credit for having a better shooting % than his contemporaries.

If he shot better than others, then his points are a higher % of total points in the games he was in. So his teams outscored their opponents, they got into more playoff games, and they won more titles. He gets credit in all these ways. Yet I still don't rank him as highly as his offensive Win Shares would say.

He had 4 years above 34 mpg; just 2 years above 36. Richie Guerin went as high as 43 mpg and scored 29.5 ppg. Why isn't he in the discussion?
Bobby Wanzer was an earlier superguard. Check out his playoff rates:
http://bkref.com/tiny/ENUFa

There are literally dozens of similarly accomplished players in NBA and ABA history -- guards, forwards, centers -- they can't all be in the top 100.

Sorry must have missed Cowens.

Personally I'd say there's far too much not caused by Sharman for playoffs to give Sharman sufficient weight for his superiority. Sharman's minutes were limited in later years by having Sam Jones and Frank Ramsey playing his position, so techinically that harmed his total productivity but it seems harsh to say that diminished his career.

Guerin isn't in the discussion yet because (a) his 29.5ppg season was a fluke, both in his performance and that performance coinciding with a high pace, high percentage (for era) and thus high scoring year. He also isn't in because because whether you consider him a pg or an sg (the distinction wasn't so strong at the time) he was probably only third best at his position (behind West and Sam Jones, I'd have to look at Greer too at SG, Robertson and probably Wilkens at PG).

Wanzer, Zaslofsky, Davies, Feerick, Fulks and Risen could all warrant serious consideration. But players like this are disadvantaged here because:
a) We're on a metrics board and we've got less metrics for 40s players
b) They likely missed chunks of their career to armed service (WW2), and the late beginning of basketball that we now consider major league. As a result they'll fair poorly on counting/accumulative stats (and also won't be on the board until late).
c) The mostly white and pre-shot clock era is difficult to compare fairly with "modern" era players, even for those who want to do so fairly. Most (not on here but elsewhere) will just mock the games pioneers for their whiteness and playing to the rules at that time.

So basically I'm tempted to consider this a list/ranking of players who played a significant chunk of their career post-shot clock (and George Mikan), and act in accordance with that.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:33 am**

Mike G wrote:What quantitatively (or qualitatively) separates these players in assessments of their careers?
http://bkref.com/tiny/6L5JV

(Cunningham, Kemp, Jerry Lucas, McAdoo, McGinnis, Webber)

Well voting has
6: Lucas, McAdoo
5: Cunningham
3: McGinnis, Webber
2: Kemp

Lucas and McAdoo (the two that I voted for) might be considered better because:
McAdoo- took an NBA MVP over Jabbar, has an excellent peak (the sort that makes you think the team could/should be a contender)
Lucas: Likely the best player at the position of the decade (you could argue Howell by the metrics, DeBusschere on D, Hawkins by what he could have done and his demolition of the ABA or Heinsohn for contributions to winner, but Lucas seems to have the best combination of stats and acclaim - at the time and after), which can't be said for the others. Has a high percieved historical standing (made the NBA 50 in 1996, the only player of this group to do so). Combines high percentages and rebounding with floor spacing which is fairly rare and valuable.

Kemp is damaged by PR (Dream Team II, so may children, getting fat, substance abuse), but would probably be in the top 75 if he'd stayed in shape/productive for a couple more years. As it is his low career minutes (he never played more than three quarters of the game, typically a little less) during his productive years caused by his horrendous foul trouble, combined with his rapid decline meant he didn't have the impact that he could/should(?) have had. He's better than how I think people percieve him though.

Cunningham and McGinnis are probably just approaching what I think would be (of the top of my head) their ballpark (very roughly 75-100, though McGinnis could slide further, and I'm okay with Cunningham making the top 75). They just didn't have very long careers, didn't shoot that accuarately and weren't a good "best player" in terms of giving you a good chance at an NBA title (no great NBA peak). Cunningham is coming off higher (I suspect) because of better D, better work ethic (as percieved, fairly or otherwise), better teammate (sublimating his stats), better BB-IQ and caring more (Cunningham became a Coach/Owner, McGinnis has a poor reputation in Philly, or at least with Pat Williams). Actually most of this applies to Webber too good, but not the best at his position, too low a fg%, not a good "best player" for making a team championship probability rather than just possibility.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:16 pm**

Final tallies for round 3, players ranked in the top 75:
7 - Bob Lanier, Ray Allen
6 - Dominique Wilkins, Manu Ginobili, Reggie Miller, Bob McAdoo, George Gervin, Alonzo Mourning, Jerry Lucas, Wes Unseld, Adrian Dantley, Nate Thurmond
5 - Pau Gasol, Tony Parker, Billy Cunningham, Dikembe Mutombo
4 - Dan Issel, Vince Carter, James Worthy, Kevin Durant, Kevin Johnson, Ben Wallace

There are again 22 players who've received more than 50% of (7) votes.

3 - Chris Webber, George McGinnis, Chauncey Billups, Jack Sikma, Terry Cummings, Alex English, Shawn Marion, Neil Johnston, Walt Bellamy, Tom Heinsohn
2 - Shawn Kemp, Rasheed Wallace, Larry Nance, Cliff Hagan, Horace Grant, Grant Hill, Gus Williams, Bill Walton
1 - Carlos Boozer, Carmelo Anthony, Elton Brand, Maurice Lucas, Dennis Johnson, Dave DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, Bill Sharman, Dennis Rodman
0 - Divac, Adams, Odom, Amar'e, Baron, Cassell, Dandridge

Part of me wants to promote and replace those who got 3 votes; in the previous round, all who received 3 of 7 votes got 4 or more this time. So it may be "inevitable" that players who are "average" in round A will be the cream of the crop in round (A+1).

However, 2 players -- Durant and Ben Wallace -- received 3 votes previously and barely made the cut with 4 this time. (Ray Allen, meanwhile, went from 1 vote to unanimous 7 this time.)

Due to the relatively low participation, and even with much time to debate the candidates, there's not that great a correlation between votes in subsequent rounds. The write-in feature is causing fewer than half of players to get as many as half the votes.
Also, shooting for ~25 to advance, our options are 22 (with 4+ votes) vs 32 (with 3+ votes).

I'll now re-write the poll to include 22 more player candidates.

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:22 pm**

Kemp is damaged by PR (Dream Team II, so may children, getting fat, substance abuse), but would probably be in the top 75 if he'd stayed in shape/productive for a couple more years. As it is his low career minutes (he never played more than three quarters of the game, typically a little less) during his productive years caused by his horrendous foul trouble, combined with his rapid decline meant he didn't have the impact that he could/should(?) have had.

Kemp is also known as the only player ever to arguably outplay Jordan in the Finals, in 1996 -- or possibly in any playoff series. In Jordan's other 5 Finals, nobody else was at all close.
He wasn't 'the best at his position' because of Karl Malone, who was the best ever at the position. Also that Barkley guy.

Kemp was perfectly capable of playing extended minutes. From '92 thru '98, he averaged 28 to 34 mpg in the season and 35 to 41 in playoffs. Seattle had a rather deep team in that time. Kemp's playoff numbers tended to be stronger than his regular seasons AND over more minutes.

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:23 am**

I'm going to write-in Andrei Kirilenko as one of my votes.

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:08 am**

Kirilenko has one. Bobbo, you should have one more vote yet.

Of this group of (now) 51, AK has scored more points than Rodman or Walton.
He's 37th of 51 in rebounds, 38th in assists, 28th in steals, and 5th in blocks.
In the sum of all these things, he's ahead of only Walton, and he's 45th in minutes.

In 45 playoff games his PO/RS ratio is dead last, and by a good bit -- .76 -- next lowest is .82 (Cassell), and the median is .96

His playoff PER is 14.9, vs season PER of 19.0 -- ratio is .78
PO/RS WS/48 = .093/.155 = .60
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lan01.html

This isn't a fluke result of his having most playoff minutes outside his prime years. 68% of his playoff minutes are from '07 and '08, age 25-26. He just has never brought his A game to the postseason.

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:18 am**

Bill Walton's career (equivalent) totals look like these guys' --

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.   ePts   eReb   eAst    PF    Stl    TO    Blk
.00   Bill Walton      6527   5303   1678   1444   418   1490  1134

.35   Dave Corzine     7472   5726   1460   2084   398   1435   909
.39   Mel Hutchins     6959   5300   1999   1780   651    992   610
.43   Ralph Sampson    7085   4420   1055   1755   431   1513   818
.51 Sweetwater Clifton 6479   4892   1820   2267   604    957   575
.51   Bo Outlaw        5669   4802   1577   2245   886   1118  1241

Ralph made it to the Hall of Fame with a similar storyline.
In per 36 minutes, relative to 100 pts and 44 reb per team per game:

Code: Select all

diff   career per36   Sco    Reb   Ast    PF   Stl    TO   Blk
.00   Bill Walton    15.7   12.8   4.0   3.5   1.0   3.6   2.7

.30   Jerry Lucas    15.5   11.9   3.1   2.8   1.4   2.6   1.8
.41   Ralph Sampson  16.9   10.5   2.5   4.2   1.0   3.6   1.9
.47   Vlade Divac    14.3    9.9   3.6   3.8   1.3   2.6   1.7
.47   Nate Thurmond  13.4   11.9   2.7   2.8    .6   2.4   2.6
.48   Josh Smith     16.9    9.3   3.2   3.1   1.4   2.7   2.3

None of these are really close. Nate is close as a shotblocker, maybe. There's Sampson again. Next 5: Gilmore, Roundfield, Russell, Stokes, Bogut

Walt Bellamy

Code: Select all

diff   career per36    Sco    Reb   Ast   PF   Stl   TO   Blk
.00   Walt Bellamy    18.4   11.0   2.3   3.4   .8   2.5   .7

.10   David Lee       17.3   11.5   2.4   3.2  1.0   2.2   .4
.10   Cliff Robinson  18.2    9.9   2.2   3.5  1.2   2.9   .8
.11   Luis Scola      18.4   10.0   2.2   3.9   .9   2.2   .4
.12   Mehmet Okur     17.6    9.7   2.0   3.5   .7   1.9   .9
.14   Truck Robinson  16.0   10.3   1.9   3.3   .8   3.0   .7

Scorer-rebounders not known for their defense. I could be way off on Bells' Blk rate, as this is based on the very end of his career. Next 5: Thorpe, Zach, Cummings, C Boozer, Gooden.

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.  ePts    eReb    eAst    PF     Stl    TO    Blk
.00   Walt Bellamy   20,467   12083   2521   3733    835   2762   770
.35   Otis Thorpe    18,833   11293   2820   4378    881   2916   518
.50   Terry Cummings 20,324    9763   2277   4180   1374   2415   729
.52   Dolph Schayes  21,823   11189   3422   3986   1210   2606  1401
.53   Jack Sikma     17,901   11880   3546   4310   1260   2819  1131
.59   Bob Lanier     19,702    9882   3124   3276   1103   2853  1596

A couple of the same names. Next 5: Willis, Buck, Kemp, Sheed, Marion

Jack Sikma

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.  ePts    eReb   eAst    PF     Stl    TO    Blk
.00   Jack Sikma    17,901   11880   3546   4310   1260   2819   1131
.44   Otis Thorpe   18,833   11293   2820   4378    881   2916    518
.51   Bob Lanier    19,702    9882   3124   3276   1103   2853   1596
.53   Walt Bellamy  20,467   12083   2521   3733    835   2762    770
.55   Dolph Schayes 21,823   11189   3422   3986   1210   2606   1401
.56   Vlade Divac   15,189   10471   3830   4043   1407   2742   1803

Same-sized careers resemble one another here. Next: Kemp, Webber, Cummings, Buck, Rasheed.
Rebounders who score and pass.

Code: Select all

diff   career per36    Sco    Reb   Ast    PF   Stl    TO   Blk
.00   Jack Sikma      16.1   10.7   3.2   3.9   1.1   2.5   1.0
.06   Dave Cowens     16.1   11.9   3.5   3.8   1.1   2.2    .9
.06   Maurice Lucas   15.8   10.7   2.8   4.1   1.0   3.0    .8
.10   Neal Walk       15.9    9.6   2.8   4.4    .9   2.4    .7
.10   Lamar Odom      15.2    9.6   3.9   3.3    .9   2.5   1.0
.11   Arvydas Sabonis 18.3   10.8   3.0   3.9   1.1   2.4   1.4

Next 5 - Laettner, Gus Johnson, Brad Miller, DeBusschere, Wicks

Larry Foust

Code: Select all

diff   career per36    Sco    Reb   Ast    PF   Stl    TO   Blk
.00   Larry Foust     18.5    9.8   2.2   4.3   1.1   2.6   1.5
.05   Willis Reed     18.4   10.8   1.9   3.9   1.0   2.6   1.7
.07   Vern Mikkelsen  18.2    8.5   2.4   4.6   1.2   2.5   1.3
.10   Bailey Howell   19.1    8.2   2.0   4.2   1.0   2.4   1.3
.10   Zelmo Beaty     17.2    9.3   1.6   4.0    .9   2.3   1.4
.10   Paul Millsap    17.6   10.0   2.2   4.3   1.4   2.0   1.2

Next: Sabonis, Gallatin, Roundfield, Risen, Vin Baker

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.   ePts    eReb   eAst    PF    Stl    TO    Blk
.00   Larry Foust     15,105   8422   1866   3672   723   1742   1038
.27   Zelmo Beaty     16,249   8636   1502   3736   808   2143   1343
.37   Antonio McDyess 13,205   8689   1381   3343   818   1709   1164
.43   Jermaine O'Neal 14,862   8096   1473   3056   496   1995   1945
.45   Spencer Haywood 16,028   7954   1517   2517   591   2419   1065
.45   Johnny Kerr     13,112   9359   2284   2834   975   1928   1279

next - Mychal Thompson, Cartwright, Lovellette, Perkins, Paultz

Zelmo Beaty

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.   ePts    eReb   eAst    PF    Stl    TO    Blk
.00   Zelmo Beaty     16,249   8636   1502   3736   808   2143   1343
.27   Larry Foust     15,105   8422   1866   3672   723   1742   1038
.39   Bailey Howell   18,452   7894   1937   4038   947   2264   1170
.42   Jermaine O'Neal 14,862   8096   1473   3056   496   1995   1945
.43   Sam Perkins     17,310   9058   2165   3618  1236   1822   1077
.43   Spencer Haywood 16,028   7954   1517   2517   591   2419   1065

next - McDyess, Nance, Dwight, Kerr, McAdoo

Code: Select all

diff   career per36    Sco    Reb   Ast    PF   Stl    TO   Blk
.00   Zelmo Beaty      17.2   9.3   1.6   4.0    .9   2.3   1.4
.07   Willie Naulls    16.9   8.0   1.8   3.8    .9   2.2   1.2
.08   Antonio McDyess  15.6  10.3   1.6   4.0   1.0   2.0   1.4
.08   Vin Baker        16.8   9.0   2.2   3.6    .8   2.5   1.1
.10   Larry Foust      18.5   9.8   2.2   4.3   1.1   2.6   1.5
.11   Willis Reed      18.4  10.8   1.9   3.9   1.0   2.6   1.7

next - Risen, Johnny Green, Howell, Carroll, Okur

Alvan Adams

Code: Select all

diff   career per36       Sco   Reb   Ast    PF   Stl   TO   Blk
.00   Alvan Adams        16.6   8.9   4.8   4.1   1.6   3.4  1.0
.12   Mickey Johnson     16.6   8.9   3.5   4.3   1.4   3.7   .9
.21   Billy Cunningham   19.9   9.0   4.2   3.9   1.6   3.9  1.4
.23   Sidney Wicks       16.7   8.7   3.3   3.6   1.1   3.0   .8
.26   Christian Laettner 16.2   8.6   3.1   3.8   1.3   2.7   .9
.26   Scottie Pippen     17.9   7.3   5.5   3.0   2.0   2.9   .9

A C with the numbers of a SF. Next up - C Hawkins, A Walker, Odom, Webber, Divac

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.   ePts    eReb   eAst    PF    Stl     TO    Blk
.00   Alvan Adams     14,115   7599   4085   3464   1380   2888   887
.32  Billy Cunningham 15,015   6937   3247   3064   1283   3036  1086
.44   Antoine Walker  16,088   7715   3484   2751   1182   2708   499
.49   Lamar Odom      15,073   9557   3839   3315    929   2506  1000
.58  Dave DeBusschere 13,173   8919   2688   3151   1209   2199  1385
.60   Bob Dandridge   16,763   5840   3067   3322   1182   2717   552

next - M Lucas, Cowens, Ron Harper, McGinnis, J Howard

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:19 pm**

Mike G wrote:
Kemp is damaged by PR (Dream Team II, so may children, getting fat, substance abuse), but would probably be in the top 75 if he'd stayed in shape/productive for a couple more years. As it is his low career minutes (he never played more than three quarters of the game, typically a little less) during his productive years caused by his horrendous foul trouble, combined with his rapid decline meant he didn't have the impact that he could/should(?) have had.
Kemp is also known as the only player ever to arguably outplay Jordan in the Finals, in 1996 -- or possibly in any playoff series. In Jordan's other 5 Finals, nobody else was at all close.
He wasn't 'the best at his position' because of Karl Malone, who was the best ever at the position. Also that Barkley guy.

Kemp was perfectly capable of playing extended minutes. From '92 thru '98, he averaged 28 to 34 mpg in the season and 35 to 41 in playoffs. Seattle had a rather deep team in that time. Kemp's playoff numbers tended to be stronger than his regular seasons AND over more minutes.

I like Kemp, but he was playing less than he would have because of foul trouble. Seattle went deep with perimeter/wing talent but not on bigs (Benjamin, Perkins, Ervin Johnson, Mcilvaine and then some Schrempf or McKey at the 4). On the outside they had (at various times: Payton, McMillan, Threatt, Barros, Snow, Pierce, Gill, Hawkins, Askew, Wingate, Ehlo, Schrempf, McKey, Eddie Johnson). Seattle were deeper and more talented on the outside than the inside and I suspect they’d rather have 36-38 minutes from him than the 32-34 they usually got. He has three seasons above 22.5 PER and .200 WS/48 (a not insignificant achievement), but looking at all such seasons his are very much at the bottom end of the minutes spectrum (one could look by mpg rather than total minutes and then their lockout season won't be unfairly punished, but I think the other two seasons come off even worse)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=mp
Sort by fouls per minute amongst that group and you see foul trouble very much was what limited his minutes
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =pf_per_mp
This foul trouble is what allows people to make the poor and crude argument that he isn’t a historically significant type of player because he “only once scored 20ppg” (which I have seen online alongside the false claim that he never got 10rpg and whilst ignoring the slow era pace and the efficiency of his scoring). Had he played those extra minutes (either in his 30’s as an non-fatty, or in his prime with less fouls, or perhaps coaches willing to risk playing him whilst in foul trouble) he would have been a fair bit better and be perceived as quite a lot better.

Mike G wrote:Kirilenko has one. Bobbo, you should have one more vote yet.

Of this group of (now) 51, AK has scored more points than Rodman or Walton.
He's 37th of 51 in rebounds, 38th in assists, 28th in steals, and 5th in blocks.
In the sum of all these things, he's ahead of only Walton, and he's 45th in minutes.

In 45 playoff games his PO/RS ratio is dead last, and by a good bit -- .76 -- next lowest is .82 (Cassell), and the median is .96

His playoff PER is 14.9, vs season PER of 19.0 -- ratio is .78
PO/RS WS/48 = .093/.155 = .60
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lan01.html

This isn't a fluke result of his having most playoff minutes outside his prime years. 68% of his playoff minutes are from '07 and '08, age 25-26. He just has never brought his A game to the postseason.

Are those years Kirilenko’s peak? Injuries, and then maybe Sloan mishandling him (or at least their relationship not working) and his confidence seemingly going meant at an age when you might expect him to be peaking he had what by PER and WS/48 is his worst year (’07) and an average or worse year (‘08). By contrast he played just 5 playoff games in the three years that PER and WS/48 concur was his peak (03-05).

The sum of the boxscore numbers is harsh on Kirilenko because:
(a) the things Kirilenko is good at (especially blocks but also steals) occur less than the things that he is less good at (volume scoring).
(b) he’s still active
(c) he’s a high percentage shooter (very strong ts%) and low turnover player
(d) he’s a very good defender

I seem to recall (though my knowledge of this is limited) +/- type stats tend to like him. He also has metrics peak few left on the board have. 24.4 PER (albeit in somewhat limited total minutes due to injury) is very impressive especially for a relative non-scorer (on a metric I believe favours scorers), based on a quick search I only spotted Brand, Ming, Bellamy, Hill, Arizin, Kevin Love, John Drew, Terrell Brandon, Bernard King, Bosh, Walton, Carmelo Anthony, Arvydas Sabonis, Brook Lopez , Chris Webber and Penny Hardaway who are still unlisted and have a PER peak above his.

Of those only Walton has defensive reputation that could be compared with Kirilenko. Most had either short/injury ravaged/ substance issue affected careers, were bad defenders or still haven’t played a lot of their careers, or a combination of the above. Some will be voted in very soon.

I won’t be voting for him just yet but I understand him getting consideration.

APBRmetrics

Vote players into our alltime top 160, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 100, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 100, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 100, etc.

Re: Vote players into our alltime top 75, etc.