## Minkoff Player Rating?

Expand Messages
• I m sure some of you recall this. Other than some broken links and a few minor references in the group archives, I m at a loss. Can anybody expand on this or
Message 1 of 4 , Aug 30, 2003
I'm sure some of you recall this. Other than some broken links and a
few minor references in the group archives, I'm at a loss. Can
anybody expand on this or provide some actual analysis as to how it
was constructed?
• I found this in an old newsgroup post: First, minutes/game for each player is fit to a linear sum of that player s per-minute statistics. The resulting
Message 2 of 4 , Sep 1, 2003
I found this in an old newsgroup post:

"First, minutes/game for each player is fit to a linear
sum of that player's per-minute statistics. The resulting
weights indicate how valuable NBA coaches think various
statistical categories are, as expressed by their
willingness to give more minutes to players who excel
at them.

The Raw Minkoff Player Rating is determined by summing
the weighted per-minute statistics, thus determining how
many minutes/game each player "earned". In practice,
some bit-part players will seem to deserve an amazing
number of minutes (eg, a player who played 1 minute and
shot 1-1 from the field would "deserve" 105 minutes/game).
To combat this, one uses the Minkoff Player Rating
defined as (MPR) = (RMPR)**(2/3) * (min/gm)**(1/3).
That is, a player's final rating is two parts statistical
and one part empirical, based on how many minutes he
actually did play. MPR's below about 13 denote players
not of NBA quality, barring special circumstances
(e.g. Terry Cummings)."

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "cwfrizzell" <cwfrizzell@y...>
wrote:
> I'm sure some of you recall this. Other than some broken links and
a
> few minor references in the group archives, I'm at a loss. Can
> anybody expand on this or provide some actual analysis as to how it
> was constructed?
• ... I hadn t heard this last part. Actually, I remember Tony suggesting a straight linear average of RMPR and min/gm, which I never liked. This weighting is
Message 3 of 4 , Sep 2, 2003
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "dlirag" <dlirag@h...> wrote:
> I found this in an old newsgroup post:
>
> "First, minutes/game for each player is fit to a linear
> sum of that player's per-minute statistics. The resulting
> weights indicate how valuable NBA coaches think various
> statistical categories are, as expressed by their
> willingness to give more minutes to players who excel
> at them.
>
> The Raw Minkoff Player Rating is determined by summing
> the weighted per-minute statistics, thus determining how
> many minutes/game each player "earned". In practice,
> some bit-part players will seem to deserve an amazing
> number of minutes (eg, a player who played 1 minute and
> shot 1-1 from the field would "deserve" 105 minutes/game).
> To combat this, one uses the Minkoff Player Rating
> defined as (MPR) = (RMPR)**(2/3) * (min/gm)**(1/3).
> That is, a player's final rating is two parts statistical
> and one part empirical, based on how many minutes he
> actually did play. MPR's below about 13 denote players
> not of NBA quality, barring special circumstances
> (e.g. Terry Cummings)."

I hadn't heard this last part. Actually, I remember Tony suggesting
a straight linear average of RMPR and min/gm, which I never liked.
This weighting is interesting. The cutoff of 13 min/g hints at the
old question of replacement level. The reference to Cummings reminds
us that it is a pain to actually determine.

DeanO
• ... From: Dean Oliver [mailto:deano@rawbw.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:10 AM ... [...] ... Yeah, I d forgotten about that too. It s a weighted
Message 4 of 4 , Sep 2, 2003
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Oliver [mailto:deano@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:10 AM

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "dlirag" <dlirag@h...> wrote:

[...]

>> To combat this, one uses the Minkoff Player Rating
>> defined as (MPR) = (RMPR)**(2/3) * (min/gm)**(1/3).
>
>I hadn't heard this last part. Actually, I remember Tony suggesting
>a straight linear average of RMPR and min/gm, which I never liked.
>This weighting is interesting. The cutoff of 13 min/g hints at the

Yeah, I'd forgotten about that too. It's a weighted geometric mean,
probably a very good idea, for dealing with those 1 minute played,
1-1 players Minkoff mentioned in his example. An arithmetic mean
would still show those players with high "value"; a geometric mean
cuts down the ratings of players with low actual minutes/game (or
low RMPR scores).

--MKT
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.