--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
, "ssims22000" <ssims2@i...>
>... there are several ways of calculating individual win-loss
Can we see what kind of rankings you get if you just ignore the
individual losses? I tried some correlations of your win #'s , but
I don't have the comprehensive list.
For example, if McGrady is 4-7, his net of -3 makes him look like a
weaker player than Devean George. But if McGrady played alongside 4
I look for stats to be less context-dependent. I'm pretty sure we
could build a team of guys NOT in your list that would whip 5 guys
who are ON the list.
> Think of mine as a crude
> measure of the combination between the efficiency with which a
> player performs his roles on a team and the importance of that
> to his team's success. My W/L ratings are designed to match up to
> team W/L ratings, and so players on good teams will see some
> inflation of their values, while those on bad teams (McGrady, for
> instance) will see theirs deflate.
I actually am all for this connection to team success. A team that
wins 60 games splits those 60 wins among the players. Players on a
20-win team have a lot less "spoils" to go around.
But these damn Losses are what just makes no sense to me. A loss is
zero wins. That should be bad enough.
My bet is that by ignoring losses from your formula, you'll get a
better ranking : one that is more consistent with minutes played,
general perception, and common sense.
> > Devean George is a good player; but he is no Tracy McGrady.
> Right, but he is playing very well in his role (59% true
> percentage and a good defensive rating), and he gets a
> high % of touches on a team as loaded with superstars as the
> Lakers. A lot of players would do as well in his spot, but many
> more wouldn't.
All fair statements. But isn't a lot of his improvement this year
attributable to his status as a 5th-option player? I mean, he's got
to be open a Lot.
Fisher is also shooting a lot this year; he just can't hit his shots.
One thing I like about your win-relative rankings is that the
Lakers' Big 4 all appear to be greatly reduced this year in my
rankings; and much more similar to last year in yours. Consistency
in spite of drastic context change usually is a sign of a good
> This comes back to the classic problem of evaluating role
> (like George) vs. stars (like McGrady). Who is better - the role
> player performing at high efficiency, but who couldn't
> carry a big load, or the star who is struggling with low
> but whose ability to carry the load helps out his teammates (or,
> McGrady's case, would help out his teammates if any of them could
> actually play). You could make arguments either way.
> > > And, here are the top rookies
> > >
> > > Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL%
> > > C. Anthony 97.0 18.8 26 99.4 49 2.4 2.3 51
> > > C. Bosh 104.9 12.9 18 99.2 52 1.8 1.7 51
> > > D. Wade 99.7 19.2 25 101.3 50 1.8 2.6 41
> > > J. Howard 101.1 8.8 20 97.9 62 1.4 0.8 64
> > > L. James 97.5 21.2 26 101.5 50 2.0 3.3 37
> > Does anyone think switching Lebron and Carmello would make
> > less successful or Cleveland better?
> Not me. Carmelo and Lebron shoulder a comparable burden on
> offense, and Lebron is actually slightly more efficient (though
> are below their teams' average efficiency). Anthony has better
> teammates, especially on defense (which makes his defensive rating
> better, despite a lower stop%). I did note that Lebron's win% was
> almost exactly the same as Cleveland's projected win% - as Lebron
> goes, so do the Cavs. Anthony's win% is lower than his team's -
> isn't as important to their success. Anthony Miller and Marcus
> Camby come across as the Nugget MVP's, so far. For whatever it's
> worth, I like Lebron better as a player. These ratings don't
> change that, when taken in context.