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

Re: OK, player rankings 2001

Expand Messages
  • mstenby@spacestar.net
    Dean, You re obviously a very bright guy and I enjoyed reading your ratings and comments very much. Just a comment about Ben Wallace -- how can a guy that
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dean,
      You're obviously a very bright guy and I enjoyed reading your ratings
      and comments very much. Just a comment about Ben Wallace -- how can a
      guy that grabbed over 1000 rebounds and also led his team in steals
      and blocks end up last on your list? I know he's a non-scorer and
      poor outside shooter (33% at the line), but he was near 50% from the
      field. Perhaps your ratings do not give enough credit for the "non-
      scoring" stats. Would be interested to hear your reply and thanks
      again for your interesting contribution.

      -Mark
    • Dean Oliver
      ... ratings ... a ... the ... I hate ratings. HATE. Passionately. Can I underline that? Wallace did an outstanding job rebounding and playing D on a team
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 13, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., mstenby@s... wrote:
        > Dean,
        > You're obviously a very bright guy and I enjoyed reading your
        ratings
        > and comments very much. Just a comment about Ben Wallace -- how can
        a
        > guy that grabbed over 1000 rebounds and also led his team in steals
        > and blocks end up last on your list? I know he's a non-scorer and
        > poor outside shooter (33% at the line), but he was near 50% from
        the
        > field. Perhaps your ratings do not give enough credit for the "non-
        > scoring" stats. Would be interested to hear your reply and thanks
        > again for your interesting contribution.
        >

        I hate ratings. HATE. Passionately. Can I underline that?

        Wallace did an outstanding job rebounding and playing D on a team
        that exceeded expectations. If I'm on a team that needs rebounding,
        I definitely look for Wallace. If I'm on a team that already has 3
        scorers, I look for Wallace. If I'm on the Bulls, a team that has no
        scorers (Brand is getting there), Wallace is a liability. It is that
        last thing that is reflected in the negative #.

        In the follow-up post, I put both versions of Net Pts and you'll
        notice that Wallace was actually positive in version 1. That version
        says that Wallace's offensive rating was higher than his defensive
        rating and that, if you look only at that and the possessions he
        used, his net point contribution is positive, nicely so.

        If you look at version 2, though, you see that Wallace simply
        contributed so little offensively (606 pts created) to not make up
        for his time on the court. Version 2 compares that 606 to the
        estimated # of points he "allowed" while on the court. Wallace was
        on the court 2760 minutes. Each Piston "faced" about 0.4 possessions
        per minute (once every 2.5 minutes, Wallace was involved in a
        defensive play). On those possessions, Wallace allowed 91.3 points
        per 100 (a very good figure). But multiplying those out, I
        calculated that he allowed 1012 pts. That's a net -406 pts, IF YOU
        LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.

        So both of these are calculations of an imaginary number. In a team
        game, individual net points is theoretically difficult (if not
        impossible) to define. Both of these methods sum up to the team
        total (one better than the other - can you guess which?). They
        reflect the interplay of efficiency vs. number of scores. My first
        shot at balancing the 2 is this.

        So is Wallace bad? Yeah. He ain't great. He is a role player,
        playing the roles of rebounder/defender. Neither of those are the
        most valuable roles in the league (relative to scoring). But, one of
        my favorite questions is -- Could he be a part of a championship
        team? Yes, he could be. The Pistons need a lot more efficient
        scoring (and/or much more efficient team D) to approach a
        championship. Wallace is not going to get them there. Nor is he the
        best in the league at what he does. The numbers quantify this to a
        reasonable degree.

        As for whether the ratings give "enough credit to non-scoring stats"
        -- it's a subjective call. I would never use a rating for personnel
        decisions. If I ever figure out a good theoretical definition of
        individual net points, I'll call it an estimate, not a rating.

        Complete Detroit calculated stats below. Ben had a higher offensive
        rating than D rating in 43 of 80 games (Game-by-game Win-Loss
        record). I like that number personally. It implies the guy is doing
        his job 43/80 days, no matter how small it is. (He was 47-33 in
        2000.)


        . Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points Game-by-Game
        Player Poss. . Pct. . Prod. Win% Wins Loss
        Stacke 1056 2222 0.475 103.5 2299 0.475 38 42
        Wil'msn 182 341 0.534 105.5 360 0.667 18 9
        Smith 405 827 0.490 99.8 825 0.435 30 39
        Atkins 438 1004 0.436 97.8 982 0.358 29 52
        Barros 203 429 0.473 105.0 450 0.517 31 29
        Wil'ms 130 261 0.497 99.9 260 0.515 17 16
        BWallac 310 631 0.492 96.1 606 0.538 43 37
        JWallac 106 241 0.441 89.7 216 0.300 12 28
        Ceballo 29 70 0.423 98.4 68 0.417 5 7
        Cleaves 230 547 0.421 85.6 468 0.244 19 59
        Curry 177 364 0.486 100.5 366 0.433 29 38
        Moore 182 358 0.508 102.2 365 0.481 38 41
        Owens 113 259 0.437 88.0 228 0.378 17 28
        Buechle 77 166 0.465 109.6 182 0.566 30 23
        Montros 58 151 0.380 75.2 114 0.225 9 31
        Cardina 16 42 0.395 76.9 32 0.143 2 12
        David 10 23 0.439 88.7 20 0.444 4 5
        TEAM 3722 7933 0.469 98.8 7841 0.428 371 496

        . Defensive Stops Def. Net Net Net
        Player Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
        Stackhouse 573 0.178 0.443 102.3 0.547 10.0 8.3
        Williamson 170 0.213 0.530 98.8 0.746 2.4 0.8
        Joe Smith 413 0.213 0.529 98.8 0.541 4.9 4.1
        Chucky Atkins 389 0.165 0.410 103.6 0.278 3.0 7.7
        Dana Barros 184 0.171 0.425 103.0 0.577 2.1 1.5
        Jerome Williams 198 0.246 0.612 95.5 0.677 1.8 0.8
        Ben Wallace 797 0.289 0.719 91.3 0.700 7.4 3.1
        John Wallace 103 0.196 0.488 100.5 0.132 0.3 1.7
        Cedric Ceballos 33 0.201 0.500 100.0 0.431 0.3 0.3
        Mateen Cleaves 230 0.181 0.452 101.9 0.053 0.3 4.5
        Michael Curry 232 0.156 0.389 104.4 0.346 1.9 3.7
        Mikki Moore 262 0.227 0.565 97.4 0.688 2.5 1.1
        Billy Owens 171 0.216 0.537 98.5 0.134 0.4 2.5
        Jud Buechler 137 0.185 0.461 101.6 0.779 1.5 0.4
        Eric Montross 122 0.215 0.535 98.6 0.011 0.0 2.2
        Brian Cardinal 28 0.220 0.548 98.1 0.018 0.0 0.4
        Kornel David 17 0.245 0.610 95.6 0.224 0.0 0.2
        TEAM 4057 0.204 0.509 100.0 0.470 38.5 43.5

        Dean Oliver
        Journal of Basketball Studies
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.