Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3681Re: Dampier (was Article from _The Economist_)

Expand Messages
  • John Hollinger
    Apr 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > i don't know exactly what PER is (page 11 of his 03-04 book), but
      if it does
      > not show dampier's 03-04 performance as being significantly better
      per minute
      > than last season, and even more significantly better than his
      average
      > production from 96-97 to 02-03, i don't know if i would trust that
      rating system. that
      > does not mean his rating system is any worse or better than what i
      use, it
      > just means that by the methods i use i see it differently. his 03-
      04 book has
      > sam cassell rated better than jason kidd by PER in 02-03, i clearly
      have jason
      > kidd as being better per minute (by about 10%)...
      >
      > but i suggest we let JohnH say for himself


      Gladly. First, an aside on Kidd and Cassell: I'm assuming the
      difference is because your rating attempted more defensive accounting
      (i.e., going beyond steals/blocks) than mine. Lemme know if I'm
      mistaken.

      As for Dampier, as Kevin points out, I had him rated as a Fluke year
      candidate. The other seven players -- Shawn Bradley, Howard Eisley,
      Grant Hill, Jason Kidd, Toni Kukoc, Brian Grant and David Wesley --
      are more than doing their part to prove the rule.

      But Dampier is now going to be a DOUBLE FLUKE -- he's going to
      quality again this year. I have to go back through my data and see if
      there's even been one of these before. I have no idea what the hell
      happened, although certainly replacing Murphy with Clifford Robinson
      gave him more rebounds.

      Regardless, in next year's player comments, I will be sure to note
      that the Brits consider Dampier quite flashy.
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic