All-Time rankings of current players. (MikeG, 2011)
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:40 am
recovered page 1 of 3
Author Message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3583
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:07 am Post subject: All-Time rankings of current players. Reply with quote
Somehow I came upon this article:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6231 ... ive-career
Quote:
Even more amazing is that if Kobe Bryant’s career followed in similar footsteps to Tim Duncan’s (being a primary scoring option from the first game of his career and not having such a dominant scoring teammate as Shaquille O’Neal), Kobe’s averages would likely rival Michael Jordan’s
Quote:
Yet, one area where Kobe shines above Duncan is clutch ability. During crunch time, Tim Duncan may be effective, but Kobe Bryant is a cold-blooded assassin.
Ugh, and double Ugh.
We know better, don't we? Or do we?
What do people think about the all-time rankings of current and recent players?
Do people here think about it?
How about this list, showing rank after last season (players who were active) and the year before. Some active players are slipping, due to being passed by 'more active' players.
Based on statistics alone, extra weight on playoffs, with a bonus for titles.
Rates are relative to standards of 100 pts and 44 reb per team per game.
Playoff numbers are included. Also note po%, which is % of minutes in playoffs. And po/rs, ratio of career playoff T rate to regular-season T.
T is a weighted sum of other standardized rates.
Code:
2010 '09 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk T po/rs po%
4 4 Shaquille O'Neal 1383 36 .569 28.0 12.2 2.7 .6 3.0 2.4 43.0 .97 .16
6 7 Tim Duncan 1147 37 .544 25.1 12.7 3.4 .8 2.8 2.4 42.2 .99 .16
14 14 Kevin Garnett 1220 37 .540 21.5 11.6 4.3 1.3 2.4 1.6 39.0 .95 .08
15 17 Kobe Bryant 1218 37 .545 27.0 5.5 4.5 1.5 2.9 .6 36.6 .96 .17
20 25 Lebron James 619 41 .552 28.8 7.2 6.2 1.6 3.0 .8 42.8 1.01 .12
25 27 Dirk Nowitzki 1023 37 .572 25.7 9.1 2.6 .9 1.9 1.0 37.6 .98 .11
28 29 Jason Kidd 1308 37 .501 13.8 7.0 9.1 2.0 3.1 .3 31.3 .98 .10
33 39 Paul Pierce 985 38 .556 24.6 6.4 3.8 1.5 3.0 .6 34.2 .94 .11
39 37 Tracy McGrady 852 35 .514 24.0 6.6 5.1 1.4 2.5 1.0 36.7 1.06 .05
40 40 Allen Iverson 985 41 .507 25.1 3.5 5.6 2.0 3.2 .2 34.0 1.03 .07
41 53 Dwyane Wade 536 38 .555 27.9 5.2 6.1 1.8 3.7 .9 39.1 .97 .13
50 52 Vince Carter 908 37 .529 24.4 5.7 4.2 1.2 2.3 .7 34.4 .98 .06
54 74 Pau Gasol 728 36 .569 21.0 9.5 3.1 .6 2.4 1.8 34.0 .98 .11
55 57 Chauncey Billups 1061 33 .571 20.3 3.6 6.4 1.2 2.3 .2 30.4 1.04 .14
60 75 Steve Nash 1128 32 .598 18.9 3.5 8.8 .8 3.3 .1 30.1 .99 .11
2010 '09 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk T po/rs po%
61 62 Rasheed Wallace 1264 33 .530 17.7 8.1 2.1 1.1 1.7 1.5 29.0 .93 .14
70 79 Manu Ginobili 670 28 .581 23.3 5.6 4.7 1.9 2.7 .4 33.9 .92 .20
71 69 Ray Allen 1123 37 .571 22.5 4.6 3.6 1.2 2.3 .2 30.1 .91 .10
75 76 Grant Hill 906 35 .541 20.0 7.4 4.8 1.4 2.7 .6 32.1 .90 .04
78 126 Dwight Howard 540 36 .583 20.7 14.2 1.4 .9 3.1 2.2 36.0 1.04 .09
81 83 Baron Davis 794 35 .499 17.7 4.3 7.3 2.0 2.9 .5 30.3 1.18 .06
82 80 Shawn Marion 891 37 .539 17.6 9.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.3 31.4 .88 .08
84 105 Lamar Odom 839 36 .529 15.5 9.6 4.0 .9 2.7 1.0 28.6 .98 .11
86 85 Elton Brand 731 37 .545 20.5 10.4 2.5 .9 2.4 2.0 34.3 1.09 .02
101 124 Amare Stoudemire 568 35 .595 25.5 9.7 1.2 .9 2.8 1.5 35.5 1.01 .09
104 108 Tony Parker 800 34 .534 21.2 3.6 6.2 1.0 2.8 .1 30.1 .87 .18
Apologies to those with narrower screens.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philosopher
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 74
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:49 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Ugh, and double Ugh.
We know better, don't we? Or do we?
I agree. Bryant has never approached Jordan's peak. Not even close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EvanZ
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:57 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Chris Paul doesn't make it on there? I guess he needs a few more years.
If I were retrospectively drafting active players, I think it would look something like this:
1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. James
4. Howard
5. Garnett
6. Wade
7. Nash
8. Paul
9. Kobe
10. Gasol
_________________
http://www.thecity2.com
http://www.ibb.gatech.edu/evan-zamir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3583
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Chris Paul had only played 362 games through last year's playoffs.
The next-fewest of any active player ranked above Paul (#143) was Yao Ming (133), with 507 games.
By year's end, Paul will have passed (or gained on) Carmelo, Camby, Yao, Ben, Rip, Boozer, and Jermaine. None of those are pushing Top100, other than 'Melo.
Evan, I presume your list includes speculations about the future. Still, you expect Nash to have a career greater than Kobe's? You realize he's older.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DSMok1
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 608
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
EvanZ wrote:
Chris Paul doesn't make it on there? I guess he needs a few more years.
If I were retrospectively drafting active players, I think it would look something like this:
1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. James
4. Howard
5. Garnett
6. Wade
7. Nash
8. Paul
9. Kobe
10. Gasol
I've been mulling over a method for rating all careers in the NBA, sort of as a response to the ELO system that Justin set up over at BBRef. There has been a ton of work done in baseball on evaluating players historically, perhaps we can draw from that.
_________________
GodismyJudgeOK.com/DStats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
EvanZ
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:47 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Evan, I presume your list includes speculations about the future. Still, you expect Nash to have a career greater than Kobe's? You realize he's older.
No, I mean if I could draft each of these players now, but as a rookie. So, choosing between a 21 or 22 year old Nash vs. 18 year old Kobe. In other words, going back in time and starting a team from scratch.
_________________
http://www.thecity2.com
http://www.ibb.gatech.edu/evan-zamir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3583
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:12 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
You're just comparing their rookie seasons?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I was shocked...shocked...to see this article was written by "Ethan S (Lakers Featured Columnist)". Superficial analysis and an unsurprising conclusion. I wouldn't put Kobe in a top 5 all-time. Top 5 right now? Yeah, probably.
I like watching Kobe play, but he's not Jordan. He's not close to Jordan.
Is scoring really "the most important part of the game of basketball"?
Do big men really have it easier than perimeter players?
Is/was Kobe really a better clutch player than Duncan?
In order, I would say no, no and no. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 195
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: All-Time rankings of current players. Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Somehow I came upon this article:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6231 ... ive-career
Quote:
Even more amazing is that if Kobe Bryant’s career followed in similar footsteps to Tim Duncan’s (being a primary scoring option from the first game of his career and not having such a dominant scoring teammate as Shaquille O’Neal), Kobe’s averages would likely rival Michael Jordan’s
Quote:
Yet, one area where Kobe shines above Duncan is clutch ability. During crunch time, Tim Duncan may be effective, but Kobe Bryant is a cold-blooded assassin.
Ugh, and double Ugh.
We know better, don't we? Or do we?
What do people think about the all-time rankings of current and recent players?
Do people here think about it?
How about this list, showing rank after last season (players who were active) and the year before. Some active players are slipping, due to being passed by 'more active' players.
Based on statistics alone, extra weight on playoffs, with a bonus for titles.
Rates are relative to standards of 100 pts and 44 reb per team per game.
Playoff numbers are included. Also note po%, which is % of minutes in playoffs. And po/rs, ratio of career playoff T rate to regular-season T.
T is a weighted sum of other standardized rates.
Code:
2010 '09 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk T po/rs po%
4 4 Shaquille O'Neal 1383 36 .569 28.0 12.2 2.7 .6 3.0 2.4 43.0 .97 .16
6 7 Tim Duncan 1147 37 .544 25.1 12.7 3.4 .8 2.8 2.4 42.2 .99 .16
14 14 Kevin Garnett 1220 37 .540 21.5 11.6 4.3 1.3 2.4 1.6 39.0 .95 .08
15 17 Kobe Bryant 1218 37 .545 27.0 5.5 4.5 1.5 2.9 .6 36.6 .96 .17
20 25 Lebron James 619 41 .552 28.8 7.2 6.2 1.6 3.0 .8 42.8 1.01 .12
25 27 Dirk Nowitzki 1023 37 .572 25.7 9.1 2.6 .9 1.9 1.0 37.6 .98 .11
28 29 Jason Kidd 1308 37 .501 13.8 7.0 9.1 2.0 3.1 .3 31.3 .98 .10
33 39 Paul Pierce 985 38 .556 24.6 6.4 3.8 1.5 3.0 .6 34.2 .94 .11
39 37 Tracy McGrady 852 35 .514 24.0 6.6 5.1 1.4 2.5 1.0 36.7 1.06 .05
40 40 Allen Iverson 985 41 .507 25.1 3.5 5.6 2.0 3.2 .2 34.0 1.03 .07
41 53 Dwyane Wade 536 38 .555 27.9 5.2 6.1 1.8 3.7 .9 39.1 .97 .13
50 52 Vince Carter 908 37 .529 24.4 5.7 4.2 1.2 2.3 .7 34.4 .98 .06
54 74 Pau Gasol 728 36 .569 21.0 9.5 3.1 .6 2.4 1.8 34.0 .98 .11
55 57 Chauncey Billups 1061 33 .571 20.3 3.6 6.4 1.2 2.3 .2 30.4 1.04 .14
60 75 Steve Nash 1128 32 .598 18.9 3.5 8.8 .8 3.3 .1 30.1 .99 .11
2010 '09 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk T po/rs po%
61 62 Rasheed Wallace 1264 33 .530 17.7 8.1 2.1 1.1 1.7 1.5 29.0 .93 .14
70 79 Manu Ginobili 670 28 .581 23.3 5.6 4.7 1.9 2.7 .4 33.9 .92 .20
71 69 Ray Allen 1123 37 .571 22.5 4.6 3.6 1.2 2.3 .2 30.1 .91 .10
75 76 Grant Hill 906 35 .541 20.0 7.4 4.8 1.4 2.7 .6 32.1 .90 .04
78 126 Dwight Howard 540 36 .583 20.7 14.2 1.4 .9 3.1 2.2 36.0 1.04 .09
81 83 Baron Davis 794 35 .499 17.7 4.3 7.3 2.0 2.9 .5 30.3 1.18 .06
82 80 Shawn Marion 891 37 .539 17.6 9.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.3 31.4 .88 .08
84 105 Lamar Odom 839 36 .529 15.5 9.6 4.0 .9 2.7 1.0 28.6 .98 .11
86 85 Elton Brand 731 37 .545 20.5 10.4 2.5 .9 2.4 2.0 34.3 1.09 .02
101 124 Amare Stoudemire 568 35 .595 25.5 9.7 1.2 .9 2.8 1.5 35.5 1.01 .09
104 108 Tony Parker 800 34 .534 21.2 3.6 6.2 1.0 2.8 .1 30.1 .87 .18
Apologies to those with narrower screens.
I wouldn't mind having the braintrust around here create our own top 100 list or something like that.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
EvanZ
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:16 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
You're just comparing their rookie seasons?
I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining. The question is: if you could go back in time and draft a player, who would you draft, given what we know now? My previous list is my answer to that question.
_________________
http://www.thecity2.com
http://www.ibb.gatech.edu/evan-zamir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I think it would be fascinating to see how this group did a GOAT list.
I'd also be interested to know what y'all thought of projects we have like this over at RealGM:
Top 100 as of 2008
Retro POY project through 2010
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 687
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
great to see sidney moncrief listed high on your top 100 list...
but it also has steve nash listed as high as 39th, yet maurice cheeks isn't even on the list?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 195
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mathayus wrote:
I think it would be fascinating to see how this group did a GOAT list.
I'd also be interested to know what y'all thought of projects we have like this over at RealGM:
Top 100 as of 2008
Retro POY project through 2010
Isiah Thomas at 25 is terrible, he really shouldn't be on this list at all.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:47 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
great to see sidney moncrief listed high on your top 100 list...
but it also has steve nash listed as high as 39th, yet maurice cheeks isn't even on the list?...
Huh. You're surprised that a 4 time all-star who never made all-NBA didn't crack the top 100? Care to expound? Not saying you're wrong at all (I personally loved his game), there are just others with more accolades that didn't make the cut.
For point of reference, on the 2006 list, Mo landed the 100th spot and I was among those who had been lobbying for him. I wasn't as involved in 2008, so I don't know off hand how close he came to making the cut.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 687
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
You're surprised that a 4 time all-star who never made all-NBA didn't crack the top 100?
no, just the cheeks vs. nash comparison, since the list had nash rated so high...
Care to expound?
---g------min--ScFG%--ast-----st------to----player
1101--34845--56.2--7392--2310--2268---cheeks
1073--33606--59.7--9055--0813--3038---nash
each has played 15 years, close to the same number of minutes. nash has 1663 more assists, cheeks had 1497 more steals with 770 less turnovers, or 2267 more zero point team possessions. each team possession is worth approximately 1 point, so that's 2267 less team possession points for nash. from a team perspective an assist is certainly not worth anywhere near a point...
nash may have scored more but when cheeks did not score does not mean his team did not score. but a zero point team possession costs your team a possession/point, and cheeks is up on nash 2267 team zero point possessions, or about 2.1 per game over their entire careers...
this not to mention that outside of steals, blocked shots, and def rebs cheeks was the vastly superior defender (4 times all-D 1st team, 1 time all-D 2nd team), and this was during the days of great defensive guards like dennis johnson, michael cooper, and t.r. dunn in their prime...
for the 8 year period of 78-79 to 85-86, the 76ers were the league's 2nd best defensive team (lowest pts/poss allowed, milwaukee was 1st), and cheeks played 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes (2nd most minutes to erving). i'd say he was a key reason why they were so dominant defensively for so long...
nash was in the league for 8 seasons (96-97 to 03-04, ages 22-30) before he won his first mvp. how many people would consider him an all-time great based on what he did his first 8 years in the league?...
also he got a ton of votes for mvp from 04-05 to 07-08. but from 08-09 to 10-11 he got few. yet his stats for both 3 year stretchs were virtually identical...
page 2
Author Message
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 212
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
You're surprised that a 4 time all-star who never made all-NBA didn't crack the top 100?
no, just the cheeks vs. nash comparison, since the list had nash rated so high...
Care to expound?
---g------min--ScFG%--ast-----st------to----player
1101--34845--56.2--7392--2310--2268---cheeks
1073--33606--59.7--9055--0813--3038---nash
each has played 15 years, close to the same number of minutes. nash has 1663 more assists, cheeks had 1497 more steals with 770 less turnovers, or 2267 more zero point team possessions. each team possession is worth approximately 1 point, so that's 2267 less team possession points for nash. from a team perspective an assist is certainly not worth anywhere near a point...
nash may have scored more but when cheeks did not score does not mean his team did not score. but a zero point team possession costs your team a possession/point, and cheeks is up on nash 2267 team zero point possessions, or about 2.1 per game over their entire careers...
this not to mention that outside of steals, blocked shots, and def rebs cheeks was the vastly superior defender (4 times all-D 1st team, 1 time all-D 2nd team), and this was during the days of great defensive guards like dennis johnson, michael cooper, and t.r. dunn in their prime...
for the 8 year period of 78-79 to 85-86, the 76ers were the league's 2nd best defensive team (lowest pts/poss allowed, milwaukee was 1st), and cheeks played 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes (2nd most minutes to erving). i'd say he was a key reason why they were so dominant defensively for so long...
nash was in the league for 8 seasons (96-97 to 03-04, ages 22-30) before he won his first mvp. how many people would consider him an all-time great based on what he did his first 8 years in the league?...
also he got a ton of votes for mvp from 04-05 to 07-08. but from 08-09 to 10-11 he got few. yet his stats for both 3 year stretchs were virtually identical...
Interesting. Good to hear your perspective.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:05 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know if there's any way to do it, but I wonder if we might at least attempt to :
1) think about current careers, or at least (recent) players who played with and against current players.
2) judge players by what they've done, not by what they might do eventually.
3) judge players by their individual merits as players, not by how well they might fit into your Dream Team lineup.
#3 may mean you judge their effectiveness in the lineups they've actually served, not in some hypothetical. This should make it easier?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:33 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Referring back to the opening post, does it seem about right that there would be 12 current players among the all-time top 50?
And 24 of the top 100 ?
Debate about where current players are ranked relative to one another?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 212
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:56 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Referring back to the opening post, does it seem about right that there would be 12 current players among the all-time top 50?
And 24 of the top 100 ?
Debate about where current players are ranked relative to one another?
Active players at this point essentially cover 20 years out of a 60 year old league. We should expect that this group would make up about 1/3rd of the top players by career's end if we simply go by dominance over contemporaries, so for them to make up 1/4th of the top players at this point doesn't seem at all unreasonable.
Debate about relative ranking?
Well the most obvious disagreement for me is Nash so low. From experience though, I'm guessing most people here don't see it like I do.
On a methodology level, a fundamental part of how I rate players' careers is the idea that 1+1 != 2+0. Meaning, a top 20 level player who played for 40 years is not going to end up #1 on my list. At the most quantifiable level this means considering value above replacement.
I'm guessing you aren't doing this, am I wrong?
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mathayus wrote:
Mike G wrote:
Referring back to the opening post, does it seem about right that there would be 12 current players among the all-time top 50?
And 24 of the top 100 ?
Debate about where current players are ranked relative to one another?
Active players at this point essentially cover 20 years out of a 60 year old league. We should expect that this group would make up about 1/3rd of the top players by career's end if we simply go by dominance over contemporaries, so for them to make up 1/4th of the top players at this point doesn't seem at all unreasonable.
Debate about relative ranking?
Well the most obvious disagreement for me is Nash so low. From experience though, I'm guessing most people here don't see it like I do.
On a methodology level, a fundamental part of how I rate players' careers is the idea that 1+1 != 2+0. Meaning, a top 20 level player who played for 40 years is not going to end up #1 on my list. At the most quantifiable level this means considering value above replacement.
I'm guessing you aren't doing this, am I wrong?
I don't know if this is a fair way to do things. The NBA currently has 30 teams and draws from a significantly broader population. (International game etc.) In the early 60s, for example, there were 8 teams. Being the 5th best player now is far more impressive then being the 5th best player in 1960, using that same logic.
It probably works better to shift the NBA into eras, similar to how Bref has it - pre shotclock, when basketball was truly a different game. pre 3pt line. and you could maybe divide the past 30 years in terms of pre lockout and post lockout.
Pre shotclock, you have a small group of guys who deserve to be on a top 100 list; something like Neil Johnston, Dolph Schayes, George Mikan. I don't know NBA history that well so maybe there are a few other greats who would make a fringe 100.
Current players "should" probably make up 40%+ of a top 100 list...
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 212
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:36 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
@BobboFitos. Oh, I'm not saying it is the perfect estimate, I just don't see anything ridiculous about it. I personally would only use pure statistical measurements as a baseline anyway, and would adjust further based on my perceptions of the change in competition level over eras among other things - though I realize that's an unsatisfactory approach to anyone trying to achieve a complete model through mathematics.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:53 am Post subject: Reply with quote
mathayus wrote:
... a top 20 level player who played for 40 years is not going to end up #1 on my list. At the most quantifiable level this means considering value above replacement.
I'm guessing you aren't doing this, am I wrong?
Not exactly. I generate career 'equivalent totals' and multiply the square root of eTotals by the T rate.
This product has no units, so they're just generic 'credits', or 'brownie points'.
If 2 players have identical productivity (T) and one player did it for twice as long (minutes), he won't have twice as many credits, but 1.414 times as many (Sqrt of 2).
He'd have to have 4 times as long a career to have twice as many career 'credits'.
Then there are playoff sub-careers. The norm is about 6-7% of minutes in playoffs; better players tend to 10%. That's a 9:1 ratio of RS to PO min/eTotals.
But when you use square roots, it becomes a 3:1 ratio -- playoffs then are 1/4 of a player's career, rather than 1/10.
For these reasons, LeBron ranks over Kidd, despite Kidd having more than twice as many games.
If both careers ended now, I'd rank LeBron's as the more significant career.
Using Win Shares, not counting playoffs, Nash ranks 9th among active players. If playoff WS are 1 or 2 times as important, he ranks 10th. If you weigh playoffs 3 or 4 times as heavily, he's 11th.
My system has him 14th, as less reward is given for high shooting%. I also don't think Nowitzki has been better than Garnett, nor Manu better than Kobe.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:13 am Post subject: Reply with quote
BobboFitos wrote:
... The NBA currently has 30 teams and draws from a significantly broader population. (International game etc.) ...
Current players "should" probably make up 40%+ of a top 100 list...
Would this be your assessment IF we know the extent of current players' ultimate careers? Which, of course, we don't know.
We can look back at a distant season, say 1979, and count how many Hall of Famers or top50s or whatever were active. But we can't do that now. The uncertainty isn't just in some arbitrary future voting, it's in the fact that the future isn't here yet.
Grant Hill, McGrady, Yao, didn't/won't have the future they might have had.
If you include players in an 'eventual' top100 that you wouldn't include if their careers ended today, you're speculating. Boozer, Carmelo, Paul, DWilliams, Bosh, Josh Smith ... may or may not eventually meet your standards.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 212
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Not exactly. I generate career 'equivalent totals' and multiply the square root of eTotals by the T rate.
This product has no units, so they're just generic 'credits', or 'brownie points'.
If 2 players have identical productivity (T) and one player did it for twice as long (minutes), he won't have twice as many credits, but 1.414 times as many (Sqrt of 2).
He'd have to have 4 times as long a career to have twice as many career 'credits'.
Then there are playoff sub-careers. The norm is about 6-7% of minutes in playoffs; better players tend to 10%. That's a 9:1 ratio of RS to PO min/eTotals.
But when you use square roots, it becomes a 3:1 ratio -- playoffs then are 1/4 of a player's career, rather than 1/10.
For these reasons, LeBron ranks over Kidd, despite Kidd having more than twice as many games.
If both careers ended now, I'd rank LeBron's as the more significant career.
Using Win Shares, not counting playoffs, Nash ranks 9th among active players. If playoff WS are 1 or 2 times as important, he ranks 10th. If you weigh playoffs 3 or 4 times as heavily, he's 11th.
My system has him 14th, as less reward is given for high shooting%. I also don't think Nowitzki has been better than Garnett, nor Manu better than Kobe.
Ah okay. I do think the square root method is a good compromise between avoiding too much emphasis on longevity and too much complexity which kills intuitive interpretation of the model.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
BobboFitos wrote:
... The NBA currently has 30 teams and draws from a significantly broader population. (International game etc.) ...
Current players "should" probably make up 40%+ of a top 100 list...
Would this be your assessment IF we know the extent of current players' ultimate careers? Which, of course, we don't know.
We can look back at a distant season, say 1979, and count how many Hall of Famers or top50s or whatever were active. But we can't do that now. The uncertainty isn't just in some arbitrary future voting, it's in the fact that the future isn't here yet.
Grant Hill, McGrady, Yao, didn't/won't have the future they might have had.
If you include players in an 'eventual' top100 that you wouldn't include if their careers ended today, you're speculating. Boozer, Carmelo, Paul, DWilliams, Bosh, Josh Smith ... may or may not eventually meet your standards.
True/good point about speculation with regard to the fringier guys - we can assume they will eventually be on a top 100 list, but probably aren't there yet.
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote
http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-ma ... -sale-now/
All-time top 500 NBA players list, put together by Ben Osborne and
Quote:
Russ Bengtson, Michael Bradley, Franklyn Calle, David Cassilo, Adam Figman, Ryne Nelson, Alan Paul, Khalid Salaam, Al Stark, Tzvi Twersky and Lang Whitaker.
Here are players current as of last season, with their Slam ranking, and then mine for comparison.
Code:
slam alltime ranks MG slam alltime ranks MG
4 Shaquille O'Neal 4 152 Shawn Marion 82
8 Tim Duncan 6 154 Yao Ming 133
10 Kobe Bryant 15 156 Rasheed Wallace 61
28 Jason Kidd 28 171 Chris Bosh 232
30 Kevin Garnett 14 174 Jermaine O'Neal 110
31 LeBron James 20 177 Elton Brand 86
40 Allen Iverson 40 183 Gilbert Arenas 219
49 Dwyane Wade 41 184 Joe Johnson 287
50 Steve Nash 60 199 Baron Davis 81
55 Dirk Nowitzki 25 201 Lamar Odom 84
77 Paul Pierce 33 206 Carlos Boozer 111
79 Ray Allen 71 208 Marcus Camby 140
86 Dwight Howard 78 223 Rip Hamilton 117
96 Pau Gasol 54 224 Michael Redd 365
97 Tracy McGrady 39 225 Peja Stojakovic 239
98 Grant Hill 75 230 Jason Richardson 240
99 Vince Carter 50 236 Antawn Jamison 168
105 Carmelo Anthony 142 244 Zydrunas Ilgauskas 154
107 Chris Paul 143 251 Mike Bibby 173
123 Ben Wallace 131 255 Andre Miller 149
124 Chauncey Billups 55 261 David West 327
128 Deron Williams 226 273 Zach Randolph 265
139 Tony Parker 104 287 Michael Finley 171
140 Ron Artest 215 295 Jerry Stackhouse 213
143 Manu Ginobili 70 299 Kenyon Martin 184
144 Amar'e Stoudemire 101 302 Rashard Lewis 174
I've also got Brad Miller, Josh Smith, and Mehmet Okur in my top 300, and Slam's 500 missed them.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:34 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
It may be that some of the big differences in my 'career' rank and Slam's 'best player' rank is explained by their arbitrary cutoff of 5 NBA seasons, vs my arbitrary cutoff of 10,000 equivalent points+rebounds+etc.
Slam experts say Michael Redd is a 'better player' than Stojakovic, Jamison, Ilgauskas, Bibby, Andre Miller, etc. And I say those players all have had better careers.
Carmelo surely can't have had almost as great a career as Carter; nor can Deron Williams' be that close to Billups'. If they haven't produced the career, how can they be as good?
And no clue how Artest > Manu, Amar'e, Marion, Brand, etc. Not in peak value, not in consistency, not anything.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Wade #49 vs McGrady #97, according to Slam.
TMac is twice as far from #1 ?
Win Shares: McGrady 93 (plus 4.6 playoff WS), Wade 80 (10 PO).
That's 72nd all-time (RS) vs #125 ; mitigated by playoff disparity.
Of the top 100 in WS, McGrady ranks 21st in PER, just behind Oscar, West, Baylor; ahead of Moses, Gasol, Erving (NBA), Schayes, Stockton, Gervin, Lanier...
Wade heads up the 2nd 100, followed by Chris Paul.
I have to wonder if a few bad years negates the good years, in these opinions.
http://bkref.com/tiny/8WYUX
McGrady actually has the higher playoff PER.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Kobe #10 and Garnett #30 ?
RS Win Shares: KG 173 (#11), Kobe 155 (19)
Playoffs to Kobe, 26-12
http://bkref.com/tiny/wVmK8
Identical RS PER (23.5), tied at #16.
Playoffs to Kobe, by a whisker (PER and WS/48).
Of course, KG's 'over the hill' years are over-represented in playoffs.
Career RS WS/48 : edge to KG, .191-.187, #20 vs #23.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 689
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:38 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are players current as of last season, with their Slam ranking, and then mine for comparison.
where does mo cheeks rank in your list vs theirs?
page 3
Author Message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3578
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:21 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
where does mo cheeks rank in your list vs theirs?
Pretty close; Slam has Mo at #122; I have him 115th (including vs ABA vets).
He was Top-100 as recently as 2005.
When he retired, he was 29th in career NBA WinShares (RS only).
http://bkref.com/tiny/uUrTS
Toggle to Playoffs, he was 19th.
Cheeks had 12% of his minutes in playoffs, and his PO/RS is a sterling 1.05.
If it were a more pedestrian .95, he'd drop about 17 spots.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
It may be that some of the big differences in my 'career' rank and Slam's 'best player' rank is explained by their arbitrary cutoff of 5 NBA seasons, vs my arbitrary cutoff of 10,000 equivalent points+rebounds+etc.
Slam experts say Michael Redd is a 'better player' than Stojakovic, Jamison, Ilgauskas, Bibby, Andre Miller, etc. And I say those players all have had better careers.
Carmelo surely can't have had almost as great a career as Carter; nor can Deron Williams' be that close to Billups'. If they haven't produced the career, how can they be as good?
And no clue how Artest > Manu, Amar'e, Marion, Brand, etc. Not in peak value, not in consistency, not anything.
I've never been impressed by Slam's lists in the past. This is a magazine that essentially had Iverson as its gold standard - they like volume scorers, slam dunks, and style.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3578
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mathayus wrote:
... they like volume scorers, slam dunks, and style.
Hence the name, I guess.
It's as though they assigned certain players into one echelon or another, and placed the others randomly.
Tall Eddie Johnson and Fast Eddie Johnson are #282 and 283. As though they couldn't be troubled to distinguish.
Brad Miller and Josh Smith are nowhere to be seen, but they've got the illustrious Dick Garmaker and John Shumate in the 300's.
It also looks as though hype is a major factor -- not in the negative.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
mathayus wrote:
... they like volume scorers, slam dunks, and style.
Hence the name, I guess.
It's as though they assigned certain players into one echelon or another, and placed the others randomly.
Tall Eddie Johnson and Fast Eddie Johnson are #282 and 283. As though they couldn't be troubled to distinguish.
Brad Miller and Josh Smith are nowhere to be seen, but they've got the illustrious Dick Garmaker and John Shumate in the 300's.
It also looks as though hype is a major factor -- not in the negative.
I think that's a perceptive way to put it, and I'd say any list that is 500 long not strongly based around quantifiable data will probably be that weak.
Obviously on RealGM, when we did 100 player long lists, it took us months of progressive discussion that I doubt Slam ever did in a similar manner, and our results once you get deep in are still sketchy enough it's hard to imagine defending them to you.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3578
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:35 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
100 is perhaps imagined to be a manageable number, but then there are some really good players who are excluded. By the time you get to #500, how many people really care?
It's actually easier to do a more comprehensive list without a cutoff rank. Everyone's on a continuum.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
100 is perhaps imagined to be a manageable number, but then there are some really good players who are excluded. By the time you get to #500, how many people really care?
It's actually easier to do a more comprehensive list without a cutoff rank. Everyone's on a continuum.
Yup. Running projects in general that go on for months on the internet, if there's any natural falloff in the interest in the content as it develops, people are going to stop putting as much thought into it and/or stop participating altogether. This absolutely happens with a 100 list, and I don't think there is any group of people so hard core that they'd hold interest to 500.
Using the round number of course gives participants a feel of credibility, and having that number be 100 means you go beyond the classic NBA 50 and also means pretty much everyone learns something.
You're right though, when you're forced to keep going to reach a certain number, that means you lose out on organically identifying tiers of players which is a shame.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Author Message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3583
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:07 am Post subject: All-Time rankings of current players. Reply with quote
Somehow I came upon this article:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6231 ... ive-career
Quote:
Even more amazing is that if Kobe Bryant’s career followed in similar footsteps to Tim Duncan’s (being a primary scoring option from the first game of his career and not having such a dominant scoring teammate as Shaquille O’Neal), Kobe’s averages would likely rival Michael Jordan’s
Quote:
Yet, one area where Kobe shines above Duncan is clutch ability. During crunch time, Tim Duncan may be effective, but Kobe Bryant is a cold-blooded assassin.
Ugh, and double Ugh.
We know better, don't we? Or do we?
What do people think about the all-time rankings of current and recent players?
Do people here think about it?
How about this list, showing rank after last season (players who were active) and the year before. Some active players are slipping, due to being passed by 'more active' players.
Based on statistics alone, extra weight on playoffs, with a bonus for titles.
Rates are relative to standards of 100 pts and 44 reb per team per game.
Playoff numbers are included. Also note po%, which is % of minutes in playoffs. And po/rs, ratio of career playoff T rate to regular-season T.
T is a weighted sum of other standardized rates.
Code:
2010 '09 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk T po/rs po%
4 4 Shaquille O'Neal 1383 36 .569 28.0 12.2 2.7 .6 3.0 2.4 43.0 .97 .16
6 7 Tim Duncan 1147 37 .544 25.1 12.7 3.4 .8 2.8 2.4 42.2 .99 .16
14 14 Kevin Garnett 1220 37 .540 21.5 11.6 4.3 1.3 2.4 1.6 39.0 .95 .08
15 17 Kobe Bryant 1218 37 .545 27.0 5.5 4.5 1.5 2.9 .6 36.6 .96 .17
20 25 Lebron James 619 41 .552 28.8 7.2 6.2 1.6 3.0 .8 42.8 1.01 .12
25 27 Dirk Nowitzki 1023 37 .572 25.7 9.1 2.6 .9 1.9 1.0 37.6 .98 .11
28 29 Jason Kidd 1308 37 .501 13.8 7.0 9.1 2.0 3.1 .3 31.3 .98 .10
33 39 Paul Pierce 985 38 .556 24.6 6.4 3.8 1.5 3.0 .6 34.2 .94 .11
39 37 Tracy McGrady 852 35 .514 24.0 6.6 5.1 1.4 2.5 1.0 36.7 1.06 .05
40 40 Allen Iverson 985 41 .507 25.1 3.5 5.6 2.0 3.2 .2 34.0 1.03 .07
41 53 Dwyane Wade 536 38 .555 27.9 5.2 6.1 1.8 3.7 .9 39.1 .97 .13
50 52 Vince Carter 908 37 .529 24.4 5.7 4.2 1.2 2.3 .7 34.4 .98 .06
54 74 Pau Gasol 728 36 .569 21.0 9.5 3.1 .6 2.4 1.8 34.0 .98 .11
55 57 Chauncey Billups 1061 33 .571 20.3 3.6 6.4 1.2 2.3 .2 30.4 1.04 .14
60 75 Steve Nash 1128 32 .598 18.9 3.5 8.8 .8 3.3 .1 30.1 .99 .11
2010 '09 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk T po/rs po%
61 62 Rasheed Wallace 1264 33 .530 17.7 8.1 2.1 1.1 1.7 1.5 29.0 .93 .14
70 79 Manu Ginobili 670 28 .581 23.3 5.6 4.7 1.9 2.7 .4 33.9 .92 .20
71 69 Ray Allen 1123 37 .571 22.5 4.6 3.6 1.2 2.3 .2 30.1 .91 .10
75 76 Grant Hill 906 35 .541 20.0 7.4 4.8 1.4 2.7 .6 32.1 .90 .04
78 126 Dwight Howard 540 36 .583 20.7 14.2 1.4 .9 3.1 2.2 36.0 1.04 .09
81 83 Baron Davis 794 35 .499 17.7 4.3 7.3 2.0 2.9 .5 30.3 1.18 .06
82 80 Shawn Marion 891 37 .539 17.6 9.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.3 31.4 .88 .08
84 105 Lamar Odom 839 36 .529 15.5 9.6 4.0 .9 2.7 1.0 28.6 .98 .11
86 85 Elton Brand 731 37 .545 20.5 10.4 2.5 .9 2.4 2.0 34.3 1.09 .02
101 124 Amare Stoudemire 568 35 .595 25.5 9.7 1.2 .9 2.8 1.5 35.5 1.01 .09
104 108 Tony Parker 800 34 .534 21.2 3.6 6.2 1.0 2.8 .1 30.1 .87 .18
Apologies to those with narrower screens.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philosopher
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 74
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:49 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Ugh, and double Ugh.
We know better, don't we? Or do we?
I agree. Bryant has never approached Jordan's peak. Not even close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EvanZ
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:57 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Chris Paul doesn't make it on there? I guess he needs a few more years.
If I were retrospectively drafting active players, I think it would look something like this:
1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. James
4. Howard
5. Garnett
6. Wade
7. Nash
8. Paul
9. Kobe
10. Gasol
_________________
http://www.thecity2.com
http://www.ibb.gatech.edu/evan-zamir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3583
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Chris Paul had only played 362 games through last year's playoffs.
The next-fewest of any active player ranked above Paul (#143) was Yao Ming (133), with 507 games.
By year's end, Paul will have passed (or gained on) Carmelo, Camby, Yao, Ben, Rip, Boozer, and Jermaine. None of those are pushing Top100, other than 'Melo.
Evan, I presume your list includes speculations about the future. Still, you expect Nash to have a career greater than Kobe's? You realize he's older.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DSMok1
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 608
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
EvanZ wrote:
Chris Paul doesn't make it on there? I guess he needs a few more years.
If I were retrospectively drafting active players, I think it would look something like this:
1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. James
4. Howard
5. Garnett
6. Wade
7. Nash
8. Paul
9. Kobe
10. Gasol
I've been mulling over a method for rating all careers in the NBA, sort of as a response to the ELO system that Justin set up over at BBRef. There has been a ton of work done in baseball on evaluating players historically, perhaps we can draw from that.
_________________
GodismyJudgeOK.com/DStats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
EvanZ
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:47 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Evan, I presume your list includes speculations about the future. Still, you expect Nash to have a career greater than Kobe's? You realize he's older.
No, I mean if I could draft each of these players now, but as a rookie. So, choosing between a 21 or 22 year old Nash vs. 18 year old Kobe. In other words, going back in time and starting a team from scratch.
_________________
http://www.thecity2.com
http://www.ibb.gatech.edu/evan-zamir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3583
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:12 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
You're just comparing their rookie seasons?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I was shocked...shocked...to see this article was written by "Ethan S (Lakers Featured Columnist)". Superficial analysis and an unsurprising conclusion. I wouldn't put Kobe in a top 5 all-time. Top 5 right now? Yeah, probably.
I like watching Kobe play, but he's not Jordan. He's not close to Jordan.
Is scoring really "the most important part of the game of basketball"?
Do big men really have it easier than perimeter players?
Is/was Kobe really a better clutch player than Duncan?
In order, I would say no, no and no. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 195
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: All-Time rankings of current players. Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Somehow I came upon this article:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6231 ... ive-career
Quote:
Even more amazing is that if Kobe Bryant’s career followed in similar footsteps to Tim Duncan’s (being a primary scoring option from the first game of his career and not having such a dominant scoring teammate as Shaquille O’Neal), Kobe’s averages would likely rival Michael Jordan’s
Quote:
Yet, one area where Kobe shines above Duncan is clutch ability. During crunch time, Tim Duncan may be effective, but Kobe Bryant is a cold-blooded assassin.
Ugh, and double Ugh.
We know better, don't we? Or do we?
What do people think about the all-time rankings of current and recent players?
Do people here think about it?
How about this list, showing rank after last season (players who were active) and the year before. Some active players are slipping, due to being passed by 'more active' players.
Based on statistics alone, extra weight on playoffs, with a bonus for titles.
Rates are relative to standards of 100 pts and 44 reb per team per game.
Playoff numbers are included. Also note po%, which is % of minutes in playoffs. And po/rs, ratio of career playoff T rate to regular-season T.
T is a weighted sum of other standardized rates.
Code:
2010 '09 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk T po/rs po%
4 4 Shaquille O'Neal 1383 36 .569 28.0 12.2 2.7 .6 3.0 2.4 43.0 .97 .16
6 7 Tim Duncan 1147 37 .544 25.1 12.7 3.4 .8 2.8 2.4 42.2 .99 .16
14 14 Kevin Garnett 1220 37 .540 21.5 11.6 4.3 1.3 2.4 1.6 39.0 .95 .08
15 17 Kobe Bryant 1218 37 .545 27.0 5.5 4.5 1.5 2.9 .6 36.6 .96 .17
20 25 Lebron James 619 41 .552 28.8 7.2 6.2 1.6 3.0 .8 42.8 1.01 .12
25 27 Dirk Nowitzki 1023 37 .572 25.7 9.1 2.6 .9 1.9 1.0 37.6 .98 .11
28 29 Jason Kidd 1308 37 .501 13.8 7.0 9.1 2.0 3.1 .3 31.3 .98 .10
33 39 Paul Pierce 985 38 .556 24.6 6.4 3.8 1.5 3.0 .6 34.2 .94 .11
39 37 Tracy McGrady 852 35 .514 24.0 6.6 5.1 1.4 2.5 1.0 36.7 1.06 .05
40 40 Allen Iverson 985 41 .507 25.1 3.5 5.6 2.0 3.2 .2 34.0 1.03 .07
41 53 Dwyane Wade 536 38 .555 27.9 5.2 6.1 1.8 3.7 .9 39.1 .97 .13
50 52 Vince Carter 908 37 .529 24.4 5.7 4.2 1.2 2.3 .7 34.4 .98 .06
54 74 Pau Gasol 728 36 .569 21.0 9.5 3.1 .6 2.4 1.8 34.0 .98 .11
55 57 Chauncey Billups 1061 33 .571 20.3 3.6 6.4 1.2 2.3 .2 30.4 1.04 .14
60 75 Steve Nash 1128 32 .598 18.9 3.5 8.8 .8 3.3 .1 30.1 .99 .11
2010 '09 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk T po/rs po%
61 62 Rasheed Wallace 1264 33 .530 17.7 8.1 2.1 1.1 1.7 1.5 29.0 .93 .14
70 79 Manu Ginobili 670 28 .581 23.3 5.6 4.7 1.9 2.7 .4 33.9 .92 .20
71 69 Ray Allen 1123 37 .571 22.5 4.6 3.6 1.2 2.3 .2 30.1 .91 .10
75 76 Grant Hill 906 35 .541 20.0 7.4 4.8 1.4 2.7 .6 32.1 .90 .04
78 126 Dwight Howard 540 36 .583 20.7 14.2 1.4 .9 3.1 2.2 36.0 1.04 .09
81 83 Baron Davis 794 35 .499 17.7 4.3 7.3 2.0 2.9 .5 30.3 1.18 .06
82 80 Shawn Marion 891 37 .539 17.6 9.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.3 31.4 .88 .08
84 105 Lamar Odom 839 36 .529 15.5 9.6 4.0 .9 2.7 1.0 28.6 .98 .11
86 85 Elton Brand 731 37 .545 20.5 10.4 2.5 .9 2.4 2.0 34.3 1.09 .02
101 124 Amare Stoudemire 568 35 .595 25.5 9.7 1.2 .9 2.8 1.5 35.5 1.01 .09
104 108 Tony Parker 800 34 .534 21.2 3.6 6.2 1.0 2.8 .1 30.1 .87 .18
Apologies to those with narrower screens.
I wouldn't mind having the braintrust around here create our own top 100 list or something like that.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
EvanZ
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 274
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:16 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
You're just comparing their rookie seasons?
I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining. The question is: if you could go back in time and draft a player, who would you draft, given what we know now? My previous list is my answer to that question.
_________________
http://www.thecity2.com
http://www.ibb.gatech.edu/evan-zamir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I think it would be fascinating to see how this group did a GOAT list.
I'd also be interested to know what y'all thought of projects we have like this over at RealGM:
Top 100 as of 2008
Retro POY project through 2010
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 687
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
great to see sidney moncrief listed high on your top 100 list...
but it also has steve nash listed as high as 39th, yet maurice cheeks isn't even on the list?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 195
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mathayus wrote:
I think it would be fascinating to see how this group did a GOAT list.
I'd also be interested to know what y'all thought of projects we have like this over at RealGM:
Top 100 as of 2008
Retro POY project through 2010
Isiah Thomas at 25 is terrible, he really shouldn't be on this list at all.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:47 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
great to see sidney moncrief listed high on your top 100 list...
but it also has steve nash listed as high as 39th, yet maurice cheeks isn't even on the list?...
Huh. You're surprised that a 4 time all-star who never made all-NBA didn't crack the top 100? Care to expound? Not saying you're wrong at all (I personally loved his game), there are just others with more accolades that didn't make the cut.
For point of reference, on the 2006 list, Mo landed the 100th spot and I was among those who had been lobbying for him. I wasn't as involved in 2008, so I don't know off hand how close he came to making the cut.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 687
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
You're surprised that a 4 time all-star who never made all-NBA didn't crack the top 100?
no, just the cheeks vs. nash comparison, since the list had nash rated so high...
Care to expound?
---g------min--ScFG%--ast-----st------to----player
1101--34845--56.2--7392--2310--2268---cheeks
1073--33606--59.7--9055--0813--3038---nash
each has played 15 years, close to the same number of minutes. nash has 1663 more assists, cheeks had 1497 more steals with 770 less turnovers, or 2267 more zero point team possessions. each team possession is worth approximately 1 point, so that's 2267 less team possession points for nash. from a team perspective an assist is certainly not worth anywhere near a point...
nash may have scored more but when cheeks did not score does not mean his team did not score. but a zero point team possession costs your team a possession/point, and cheeks is up on nash 2267 team zero point possessions, or about 2.1 per game over their entire careers...
this not to mention that outside of steals, blocked shots, and def rebs cheeks was the vastly superior defender (4 times all-D 1st team, 1 time all-D 2nd team), and this was during the days of great defensive guards like dennis johnson, michael cooper, and t.r. dunn in their prime...
for the 8 year period of 78-79 to 85-86, the 76ers were the league's 2nd best defensive team (lowest pts/poss allowed, milwaukee was 1st), and cheeks played 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes (2nd most minutes to erving). i'd say he was a key reason why they were so dominant defensively for so long...
nash was in the league for 8 seasons (96-97 to 03-04, ages 22-30) before he won his first mvp. how many people would consider him an all-time great based on what he did his first 8 years in the league?...
also he got a ton of votes for mvp from 04-05 to 07-08. but from 08-09 to 10-11 he got few. yet his stats for both 3 year stretchs were virtually identical...
page 2
Author Message
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 212
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
You're surprised that a 4 time all-star who never made all-NBA didn't crack the top 100?
no, just the cheeks vs. nash comparison, since the list had nash rated so high...
Care to expound?
---g------min--ScFG%--ast-----st------to----player
1101--34845--56.2--7392--2310--2268---cheeks
1073--33606--59.7--9055--0813--3038---nash
each has played 15 years, close to the same number of minutes. nash has 1663 more assists, cheeks had 1497 more steals with 770 less turnovers, or 2267 more zero point team possessions. each team possession is worth approximately 1 point, so that's 2267 less team possession points for nash. from a team perspective an assist is certainly not worth anywhere near a point...
nash may have scored more but when cheeks did not score does not mean his team did not score. but a zero point team possession costs your team a possession/point, and cheeks is up on nash 2267 team zero point possessions, or about 2.1 per game over their entire careers...
this not to mention that outside of steals, blocked shots, and def rebs cheeks was the vastly superior defender (4 times all-D 1st team, 1 time all-D 2nd team), and this was during the days of great defensive guards like dennis johnson, michael cooper, and t.r. dunn in their prime...
for the 8 year period of 78-79 to 85-86, the 76ers were the league's 2nd best defensive team (lowest pts/poss allowed, milwaukee was 1st), and cheeks played 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes (2nd most minutes to erving). i'd say he was a key reason why they were so dominant defensively for so long...
nash was in the league for 8 seasons (96-97 to 03-04, ages 22-30) before he won his first mvp. how many people would consider him an all-time great based on what he did his first 8 years in the league?...
also he got a ton of votes for mvp from 04-05 to 07-08. but from 08-09 to 10-11 he got few. yet his stats for both 3 year stretchs were virtually identical...
Interesting. Good to hear your perspective.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:05 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know if there's any way to do it, but I wonder if we might at least attempt to :
1) think about current careers, or at least (recent) players who played with and against current players.
2) judge players by what they've done, not by what they might do eventually.
3) judge players by their individual merits as players, not by how well they might fit into your Dream Team lineup.
#3 may mean you judge their effectiveness in the lineups they've actually served, not in some hypothetical. This should make it easier?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:33 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Referring back to the opening post, does it seem about right that there would be 12 current players among the all-time top 50?
And 24 of the top 100 ?
Debate about where current players are ranked relative to one another?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 212
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:56 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Referring back to the opening post, does it seem about right that there would be 12 current players among the all-time top 50?
And 24 of the top 100 ?
Debate about where current players are ranked relative to one another?
Active players at this point essentially cover 20 years out of a 60 year old league. We should expect that this group would make up about 1/3rd of the top players by career's end if we simply go by dominance over contemporaries, so for them to make up 1/4th of the top players at this point doesn't seem at all unreasonable.
Debate about relative ranking?
Well the most obvious disagreement for me is Nash so low. From experience though, I'm guessing most people here don't see it like I do.
On a methodology level, a fundamental part of how I rate players' careers is the idea that 1+1 != 2+0. Meaning, a top 20 level player who played for 40 years is not going to end up #1 on my list. At the most quantifiable level this means considering value above replacement.
I'm guessing you aren't doing this, am I wrong?
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mathayus wrote:
Mike G wrote:
Referring back to the opening post, does it seem about right that there would be 12 current players among the all-time top 50?
And 24 of the top 100 ?
Debate about where current players are ranked relative to one another?
Active players at this point essentially cover 20 years out of a 60 year old league. We should expect that this group would make up about 1/3rd of the top players by career's end if we simply go by dominance over contemporaries, so for them to make up 1/4th of the top players at this point doesn't seem at all unreasonable.
Debate about relative ranking?
Well the most obvious disagreement for me is Nash so low. From experience though, I'm guessing most people here don't see it like I do.
On a methodology level, a fundamental part of how I rate players' careers is the idea that 1+1 != 2+0. Meaning, a top 20 level player who played for 40 years is not going to end up #1 on my list. At the most quantifiable level this means considering value above replacement.
I'm guessing you aren't doing this, am I wrong?
I don't know if this is a fair way to do things. The NBA currently has 30 teams and draws from a significantly broader population. (International game etc.) In the early 60s, for example, there were 8 teams. Being the 5th best player now is far more impressive then being the 5th best player in 1960, using that same logic.
It probably works better to shift the NBA into eras, similar to how Bref has it - pre shotclock, when basketball was truly a different game. pre 3pt line. and you could maybe divide the past 30 years in terms of pre lockout and post lockout.
Pre shotclock, you have a small group of guys who deserve to be on a top 100 list; something like Neil Johnston, Dolph Schayes, George Mikan. I don't know NBA history that well so maybe there are a few other greats who would make a fringe 100.
Current players "should" probably make up 40%+ of a top 100 list...
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 212
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:36 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
@BobboFitos. Oh, I'm not saying it is the perfect estimate, I just don't see anything ridiculous about it. I personally would only use pure statistical measurements as a baseline anyway, and would adjust further based on my perceptions of the change in competition level over eras among other things - though I realize that's an unsatisfactory approach to anyone trying to achieve a complete model through mathematics.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:53 am Post subject: Reply with quote
mathayus wrote:
... a top 20 level player who played for 40 years is not going to end up #1 on my list. At the most quantifiable level this means considering value above replacement.
I'm guessing you aren't doing this, am I wrong?
Not exactly. I generate career 'equivalent totals' and multiply the square root of eTotals by the T rate.
This product has no units, so they're just generic 'credits', or 'brownie points'.
If 2 players have identical productivity (T) and one player did it for twice as long (minutes), he won't have twice as many credits, but 1.414 times as many (Sqrt of 2).
He'd have to have 4 times as long a career to have twice as many career 'credits'.
Then there are playoff sub-careers. The norm is about 6-7% of minutes in playoffs; better players tend to 10%. That's a 9:1 ratio of RS to PO min/eTotals.
But when you use square roots, it becomes a 3:1 ratio -- playoffs then are 1/4 of a player's career, rather than 1/10.
For these reasons, LeBron ranks over Kidd, despite Kidd having more than twice as many games.
If both careers ended now, I'd rank LeBron's as the more significant career.
Using Win Shares, not counting playoffs, Nash ranks 9th among active players. If playoff WS are 1 or 2 times as important, he ranks 10th. If you weigh playoffs 3 or 4 times as heavily, he's 11th.
My system has him 14th, as less reward is given for high shooting%. I also don't think Nowitzki has been better than Garnett, nor Manu better than Kobe.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:13 am Post subject: Reply with quote
BobboFitos wrote:
... The NBA currently has 30 teams and draws from a significantly broader population. (International game etc.) ...
Current players "should" probably make up 40%+ of a top 100 list...
Would this be your assessment IF we know the extent of current players' ultimate careers? Which, of course, we don't know.
We can look back at a distant season, say 1979, and count how many Hall of Famers or top50s or whatever were active. But we can't do that now. The uncertainty isn't just in some arbitrary future voting, it's in the fact that the future isn't here yet.
Grant Hill, McGrady, Yao, didn't/won't have the future they might have had.
If you include players in an 'eventual' top100 that you wouldn't include if their careers ended today, you're speculating. Boozer, Carmelo, Paul, DWilliams, Bosh, Josh Smith ... may or may not eventually meet your standards.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 212
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Not exactly. I generate career 'equivalent totals' and multiply the square root of eTotals by the T rate.
This product has no units, so they're just generic 'credits', or 'brownie points'.
If 2 players have identical productivity (T) and one player did it for twice as long (minutes), he won't have twice as many credits, but 1.414 times as many (Sqrt of 2).
He'd have to have 4 times as long a career to have twice as many career 'credits'.
Then there are playoff sub-careers. The norm is about 6-7% of minutes in playoffs; better players tend to 10%. That's a 9:1 ratio of RS to PO min/eTotals.
But when you use square roots, it becomes a 3:1 ratio -- playoffs then are 1/4 of a player's career, rather than 1/10.
For these reasons, LeBron ranks over Kidd, despite Kidd having more than twice as many games.
If both careers ended now, I'd rank LeBron's as the more significant career.
Using Win Shares, not counting playoffs, Nash ranks 9th among active players. If playoff WS are 1 or 2 times as important, he ranks 10th. If you weigh playoffs 3 or 4 times as heavily, he's 11th.
My system has him 14th, as less reward is given for high shooting%. I also don't think Nowitzki has been better than Garnett, nor Manu better than Kobe.
Ah okay. I do think the square root method is a good compromise between avoiding too much emphasis on longevity and too much complexity which kills intuitive interpretation of the model.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
BobboFitos wrote:
... The NBA currently has 30 teams and draws from a significantly broader population. (International game etc.) ...
Current players "should" probably make up 40%+ of a top 100 list...
Would this be your assessment IF we know the extent of current players' ultimate careers? Which, of course, we don't know.
We can look back at a distant season, say 1979, and count how many Hall of Famers or top50s or whatever were active. But we can't do that now. The uncertainty isn't just in some arbitrary future voting, it's in the fact that the future isn't here yet.
Grant Hill, McGrady, Yao, didn't/won't have the future they might have had.
If you include players in an 'eventual' top100 that you wouldn't include if their careers ended today, you're speculating. Boozer, Carmelo, Paul, DWilliams, Bosh, Josh Smith ... may or may not eventually meet your standards.
True/good point about speculation with regard to the fringier guys - we can assume they will eventually be on a top 100 list, but probably aren't there yet.
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote
http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-ma ... -sale-now/
All-time top 500 NBA players list, put together by Ben Osborne and
Quote:
Russ Bengtson, Michael Bradley, Franklyn Calle, David Cassilo, Adam Figman, Ryne Nelson, Alan Paul, Khalid Salaam, Al Stark, Tzvi Twersky and Lang Whitaker.
Here are players current as of last season, with their Slam ranking, and then mine for comparison.
Code:
slam alltime ranks MG slam alltime ranks MG
4 Shaquille O'Neal 4 152 Shawn Marion 82
8 Tim Duncan 6 154 Yao Ming 133
10 Kobe Bryant 15 156 Rasheed Wallace 61
28 Jason Kidd 28 171 Chris Bosh 232
30 Kevin Garnett 14 174 Jermaine O'Neal 110
31 LeBron James 20 177 Elton Brand 86
40 Allen Iverson 40 183 Gilbert Arenas 219
49 Dwyane Wade 41 184 Joe Johnson 287
50 Steve Nash 60 199 Baron Davis 81
55 Dirk Nowitzki 25 201 Lamar Odom 84
77 Paul Pierce 33 206 Carlos Boozer 111
79 Ray Allen 71 208 Marcus Camby 140
86 Dwight Howard 78 223 Rip Hamilton 117
96 Pau Gasol 54 224 Michael Redd 365
97 Tracy McGrady 39 225 Peja Stojakovic 239
98 Grant Hill 75 230 Jason Richardson 240
99 Vince Carter 50 236 Antawn Jamison 168
105 Carmelo Anthony 142 244 Zydrunas Ilgauskas 154
107 Chris Paul 143 251 Mike Bibby 173
123 Ben Wallace 131 255 Andre Miller 149
124 Chauncey Billups 55 261 David West 327
128 Deron Williams 226 273 Zach Randolph 265
139 Tony Parker 104 287 Michael Finley 171
140 Ron Artest 215 295 Jerry Stackhouse 213
143 Manu Ginobili 70 299 Kenyon Martin 184
144 Amar'e Stoudemire 101 302 Rashard Lewis 174
I've also got Brad Miller, Josh Smith, and Mehmet Okur in my top 300, and Slam's 500 missed them.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:34 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
It may be that some of the big differences in my 'career' rank and Slam's 'best player' rank is explained by their arbitrary cutoff of 5 NBA seasons, vs my arbitrary cutoff of 10,000 equivalent points+rebounds+etc.
Slam experts say Michael Redd is a 'better player' than Stojakovic, Jamison, Ilgauskas, Bibby, Andre Miller, etc. And I say those players all have had better careers.
Carmelo surely can't have had almost as great a career as Carter; nor can Deron Williams' be that close to Billups'. If they haven't produced the career, how can they be as good?
And no clue how Artest > Manu, Amar'e, Marion, Brand, etc. Not in peak value, not in consistency, not anything.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Wade #49 vs McGrady #97, according to Slam.
TMac is twice as far from #1 ?
Win Shares: McGrady 93 (plus 4.6 playoff WS), Wade 80 (10 PO).
That's 72nd all-time (RS) vs #125 ; mitigated by playoff disparity.
Of the top 100 in WS, McGrady ranks 21st in PER, just behind Oscar, West, Baylor; ahead of Moses, Gasol, Erving (NBA), Schayes, Stockton, Gervin, Lanier...
Wade heads up the 2nd 100, followed by Chris Paul.
I have to wonder if a few bad years negates the good years, in these opinions.
http://bkref.com/tiny/8WYUX
McGrady actually has the higher playoff PER.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3612
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Kobe #10 and Garnett #30 ?
RS Win Shares: KG 173 (#11), Kobe 155 (19)
Playoffs to Kobe, 26-12
http://bkref.com/tiny/wVmK8
Identical RS PER (23.5), tied at #16.
Playoffs to Kobe, by a whisker (PER and WS/48).
Of course, KG's 'over the hill' years are over-represented in playoffs.
Career RS WS/48 : edge to KG, .191-.187, #20 vs #23.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 689
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:38 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are players current as of last season, with their Slam ranking, and then mine for comparison.
where does mo cheeks rank in your list vs theirs?
page 3
Author Message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3578
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:21 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
where does mo cheeks rank in your list vs theirs?
Pretty close; Slam has Mo at #122; I have him 115th (including vs ABA vets).
He was Top-100 as recently as 2005.
When he retired, he was 29th in career NBA WinShares (RS only).
http://bkref.com/tiny/uUrTS
Toggle to Playoffs, he was 19th.
Cheeks had 12% of his minutes in playoffs, and his PO/RS is a sterling 1.05.
If it were a more pedestrian .95, he'd drop about 17 spots.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
It may be that some of the big differences in my 'career' rank and Slam's 'best player' rank is explained by their arbitrary cutoff of 5 NBA seasons, vs my arbitrary cutoff of 10,000 equivalent points+rebounds+etc.
Slam experts say Michael Redd is a 'better player' than Stojakovic, Jamison, Ilgauskas, Bibby, Andre Miller, etc. And I say those players all have had better careers.
Carmelo surely can't have had almost as great a career as Carter; nor can Deron Williams' be that close to Billups'. If they haven't produced the career, how can they be as good?
And no clue how Artest > Manu, Amar'e, Marion, Brand, etc. Not in peak value, not in consistency, not anything.
I've never been impressed by Slam's lists in the past. This is a magazine that essentially had Iverson as its gold standard - they like volume scorers, slam dunks, and style.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3578
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mathayus wrote:
... they like volume scorers, slam dunks, and style.
Hence the name, I guess.
It's as though they assigned certain players into one echelon or another, and placed the others randomly.
Tall Eddie Johnson and Fast Eddie Johnson are #282 and 283. As though they couldn't be troubled to distinguish.
Brad Miller and Josh Smith are nowhere to be seen, but they've got the illustrious Dick Garmaker and John Shumate in the 300's.
It also looks as though hype is a major factor -- not in the negative.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
mathayus wrote:
... they like volume scorers, slam dunks, and style.
Hence the name, I guess.
It's as though they assigned certain players into one echelon or another, and placed the others randomly.
Tall Eddie Johnson and Fast Eddie Johnson are #282 and 283. As though they couldn't be troubled to distinguish.
Brad Miller and Josh Smith are nowhere to be seen, but they've got the illustrious Dick Garmaker and John Shumate in the 300's.
It also looks as though hype is a major factor -- not in the negative.
I think that's a perceptive way to put it, and I'd say any list that is 500 long not strongly based around quantifiable data will probably be that weak.
Obviously on RealGM, when we did 100 player long lists, it took us months of progressive discussion that I doubt Slam ever did in a similar manner, and our results once you get deep in are still sketchy enough it's hard to imagine defending them to you.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3578
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:35 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
100 is perhaps imagined to be a manageable number, but then there are some really good players who are excluded. By the time you get to #500, how many people really care?
It's actually easier to do a more comprehensive list without a cutoff rank. Everyone's on a continuum.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 197
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
100 is perhaps imagined to be a manageable number, but then there are some really good players who are excluded. By the time you get to #500, how many people really care?
It's actually easier to do a more comprehensive list without a cutoff rank. Everyone's on a continuum.
Yup. Running projects in general that go on for months on the internet, if there's any natural falloff in the interest in the content as it develops, people are going to stop putting as much thought into it and/or stop participating altogether. This absolutely happens with a 100 list, and I don't think there is any group of people so hard core that they'd hold interest to 500.
Using the round number of course gives participants a feel of credibility, and having that number be 100 means you go beyond the classic NBA 50 and also means pretty much everyone learns something.
You're right though, when you're forced to keep going to reach a certain number, that means you lose out on organically identifying tiers of players which is a shame.
_________________
http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/