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

DuPree's Rankings

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Pelton
    Nobody s mentioned it, but David DuPree came out with his annual statistical rankings for last season earlier this week. Nothing quite as embarrassingly
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Nobody's mentioned it, but David DuPree came out with his
      annual "statistical" "rankings" for last season earlier this week.
      Nothing quite as embarrassingly bad as ranking Brent Barry the #1
      point guard (or Rashard Lewis the #2 small forward - last year was
      quite favorable to the Sonics). This year's "big story" was Brad
      Miller beating out Shaq. Miller, when asked, joked that his agent
      should have known this during the summer when he was a free agent.

      I, of course, was reminded of the "Shaq" rule which I coined looking
      at DuPree's ratings last year. If you don't have Shaq at the top of
      the league (at least on a per-minute basis), there's something wrong
      with your rankings. (Of course it's not this literal, and I'm sure
      our Spurs-loving friend CharlieB wouldn't agree, but you get the
      point). Hard to believe the Kings have the advantage at center when
      they play the Lakers.

      Here's the link in case anyone else is interested:
      http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2003-10-28-power-
      ranking.htm
    • wimpds
      How do they get away with this stuff?! SI did the same thing a few years ago to show Terrell Brandon was the best point guard. ... looking ... of ... wrong
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        How do they get away with this stuff?! SI did the same thing a few
        years ago to show Terrell Brandon was the best point guard.

        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton"
        <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
        > Nobody's mentioned it, but David DuPree came out with his
        > annual "statistical" "rankings" for last season earlier this week.
        > Nothing quite as embarrassingly bad as ranking Brent Barry the #1
        > point guard (or Rashard Lewis the #2 small forward - last year was
        > quite favorable to the Sonics). This year's "big story" was Brad
        > Miller beating out Shaq. Miller, when asked, joked that his agent
        > should have known this during the summer when he was a free agent.
        >
        > I, of course, was reminded of the "Shaq" rule which I coined
        looking
        > at DuPree's ratings last year. If you don't have Shaq at the top
        of
        > the league (at least on a per-minute basis), there's something
        wrong
        > with your rankings. (Of course it's not this literal, and I'm sure
        > our Spurs-loving friend CharlieB wouldn't agree, but you get the
        > point). Hard to believe the Kings have the advantage at center
        when
        > they play the Lakers.
        >
        > Here's the link in case anyone else is interested:
        > http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2003-10-28-power-
        > ranking.htm
      • Michael Tamada
        ... From: Kevin Pelton [mailto:kpelton08@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:37 PM [...] ... I like the more organic laugh test which just sort of
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Kevin Pelton [mailto:kpelton08@...]
          Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:37 PM

          [...]

          >I, of course, was reminded of the "Shaq" rule which I coined looking
          >at DuPree's ratings last year. If you don't have Shaq at the top of
          >the league (at least on a per-minute basis), there's something wrong
          >with your rankings. (Of course it's not this literal, and I'm sure

          I like the more organic "laugh test" which just sort of arose here
          by mutual consent a couple of years ago, I think it was in the context
          of a discussion of Dave Berri's rankings, which had Dennis Rodman as
          the top player from some late 1990s season. The Shaq rule will become
          obsolete someday, when Shaq no longer rules the NBA (or if you're a
          CharlesB type who says Duncan has already been ruling it). But the
          laugh test will work forever.


          --MKT
        • Mike G
          ... context ... as ... become ... The laugh test is somewhat subject to the general tenor of the discussion. Just as in real life, one person laughing becomes
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
            wrote:
            > I like the more organic "laugh test" which just sort of arose here
            > by mutual consent a couple of years ago, I think it was in the
            context
            > of a discussion of Dave Berri's rankings, which had Dennis Rodman
            as
            > the top player from some late 1990s season. The Shaq rule will
            become
            > obsolete someday, when Shaq no longer rules the NBA (or if you're a
            > CharlesB type who says Duncan has already been ruling it). But the
            > laugh test will work forever.

            The laugh test is somewhat subject to the general tenor of the
            discussion. Just as in real life, one person laughing becomes 2
            laughing, becomes a room full of laughers, sometimes.

            Now the joke may have been truly funny, or it may have just struck
            the first laugher a certain way. In any case, it's always better if
            the idea being laughed at is truly funny (or ridiculous).

            When I listed Terry Cummings in the Alltime Top 50 (he's since
            slipped out, due to the rise of Iverson, Kidd, Bryant, Garnett..),
            it's because he shares statistical attributes with everyone else in
            that range.

            I feel the burden is on others to explain why the rebounds and
            points that Cummings got are not due the consideration of the same
            points and rebounds gotten by a more glamorous player. I'm never
            going to penalize a player due to his lack of popularity.

            I don't think I'll ever be convinced that Artis Gilmore isn't
            deserving of the Hall of Fame. He was never in an NBA Finals;
            neither was Cummings. So what? They still had long, productive
            careers.

            Artis and Shawn Kemp were both rather turnover-prone players.
            Lately, I've weighted TO's a bit heavier (-1.25, rather than -1).
            It doesn't push Kemp from #38 to #138; rather to #39.

            Now I've gone and referred to Kemp in the past tense again.

            As long as we listen to one another, and don't blow off the whole
            body of work because of one surprise finding, we can continue to
            find value in unlikely places. Over the years, we find the
            idiosyncracies, strengths/weaknesses in personalities, as well as
            cold methods.
          • Dean Oliver
            ... Just FYI -- my book does have some of my reasons for not thinking that Cummings is so great. Not having time to put them down now (mainly because my brain
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
              > When I listed Terry Cummings in the Alltime Top 50 (he's since
              > slipped out, due to the rise of Iverson, Kidd, Bryant, Garnett..),
              > it's because he shares statistical attributes with everyone else in
              > that range.
              >
              > I feel the burden is on others to explain why the rebounds and
              > points that Cummings got are not due the consideration of the same
              > points and rebounds gotten by a more glamorous player. I'm never
              > going to penalize a player due to his lack of popularity.

              Just FYI -- my book does have some of my reasons for not thinking
              that Cummings is so great. Not having time to put them down now
              (mainly because my brain is still at work), I'll move on...

              >
              > I don't think I'll ever be convinced that Artis Gilmore isn't
              > deserving of the Hall of Fame. He was never in an NBA Finals;
              > neither was Cummings. So what? They still had long, productive
              > careers.

              I don't have the ABA numbers for Artis. Those years were apparently
              much better than his NBA years. One of the things I noticed in a
              quick study of Artis (and that's all I had time for) was that he
              typically used around 20% of team possessions offensively.
              Defensively he was pretty good. Other guys get into the Hall who are
              like this, including Parish and Worthy. I don't have a strong
              feeling either way, other than the bias that I hold (and I think
              MikeT does at least) against inaugurating so many good players. My
              bar for HOF would be higher than most -- that's a better way of
              saying it.

              > As long as we listen to one another, and don't blow off the whole
              > body of work because of one surprise finding, we can continue to
              > find value in unlikely places. Over the years, we find the
              > idiosyncracies, strengths/weaknesses in personalities, as well as
              > cold methods.

              You'll see the surprise finding I have with Cummings is that he
              wasn't contributing that many more wins than losses per year. In a
              couple years, he did. But most years he didn't. His overall win-
              loss record was 95-67 (0.586). Per 82 game season (18 of 'em),
              that's only 5-4 or so. If you take out his last 8 years where he
              mostly hung out, got hurt, produced only a few points per game, and
              played D, you get 79-47 (0.626) or an annual record of about 8-5.
              That's definitely good, but not what I'd consider stellar (his best
              years were stellar, 11-3 was his top). But adding on 8 years of sub
              0.500 contributions shouldn't, in my opinion, be considered
              significant towards going into the HOF.

              Suggestion: one of James' things is to look only at the top N
              seasons of a player. Do that with your rankings.

              DeanO

              ps -- I do think turnovers are one of the biggest differences between
              methodologies. My system ain't linear weights, so I can't suggest
              how to reconcile it, but I do notice that the biggest difference
              between what I do and what linear weights do typically is associated
              with very high or very low turnover guys.
            • Charlie Board
              ... Well, I dunno....my version would be If you have Shaq at the top, your rating system either undervalues defense, undervalues actual time on the court - or
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 4, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
                wrote:
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Kevin Pelton [mailto:kpelton08@h...]
                > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:37 PM
                >
                > [...]
                >
                > >I, of course, was reminded of the "Shaq" rule which I coined looking
                > >at DuPree's ratings last year. If you don't have Shaq at the top of
                > >the league (at least on a per-minute basis), there's something wrong
                > >with your rankings. (Of course it's not this literal, and I'm sure


                Well, I dunno....my version would be "If you have Shaq at the top,
                your rating system either undervalues defense, undervalues actual
                time on the court - or overvalues All-Interview Team selections,
                bad rapping and atrocious movies". <grin>

                Seriously, my "sniff test" is basically something along the lines
                of "If you don't have Shaq, Duncan and Garnett in the top 6 -
                preferably with at least 2 of them among the top three - for
                each of the last 3 years then I'm not gonna spend much time looking
                at your system"

                >
                > I like the more organic "laugh test" which just sort of arose here
                > by mutual consent a couple of years ago, I think it was in the context
                > of a discussion of Dave Berri's rankings, which had Dennis Rodman as
                > the top player from some late 1990s season. The Shaq rule will become
                > obsolete someday, when Shaq no longer rules the NBA (or if you're a
                > CharlesB type who says Duncan has already been ruling it).

                Geez...I know I'm vocal, but it's not like I'm out on a limb by
                myself. 120 or so voters *have* picked Duncan ahead of Shaq for
                four of the last five years (they - and I - may be wrong, but
                they *do exist*), and he is the reigning two-time MVP.

                And NBA GM's picked Duncan over Shaq by a two to one margin when asked
                who they would sign to be the cornerstone of a franchise. [
                http://www.nba.com/preview2003/gm_survey_031024.html ] (The one that
                really surprised me was the 95%-5% margin Tim got for "best post
                moves")

                But I'm gonna try to shut up on the topic. Particularly since he
                hasn't blocked a shot since I crowed about the 14 in the first
                two games. :)

                Just got my Prospectus and have too much reading to do anyway...
              • Stephen Greenwell
                Well, I dunno....my version would be If you have Shaq at the top, your rating system either undervalues defense, undervalues actual time on the court - or
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 4, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, I dunno....my version would be "If you have Shaq at the top,
                  your rating system either undervalues defense, undervalues actual
                  time on the court - or overvalues All-Interview Team selections,
                  bad rapping and atrocious movies".  <grin>

                  Seriously, my "sniff test" is basically something along the lines
                  of "If you don't have Shaq, Duncan and Garnett in the top 6 -
                  preferably with at least 2 of them among the top three - for
                  each of the last 3 years then I'm not gonna spend much time looking
                  at your system"

                  >
                  > I like the more organic "laugh test" which just sort of arose here
                  > by mutual consent a couple of years ago, I think it was in the context
                  > of a discussion of Dave Berri's rankings, which had Dennis Rodman as
                  > the top player from some late 1990s season.  The Shaq rule will become
                  > obsolete someday, when Shaq no longer rules the NBA (or if you're a
                  > CharlesB type who says Duncan has already been ruling it). 

                  Geez...I know I'm vocal, but it's not like I'm out on a limb by
                  myself. 120 or so voters *have* picked Duncan ahead of Shaq for
                  four of the  last five years (they - and I - may be wrong, but
                  they *do exist*), and he is the reigning two-time MVP.

                  I think if you're not going to vote Shaq, then Duncan is the only reasonable alternative, assuming that one of the other two top echelon players (McGrady and Garnett) don't play completely out of their minds.  Over the course of the season, Duncan probably is more valuable, simply because he plays more games and minutes then Shaq.  I view it much like the argument of Zito/Halladay vs. Pedro Martinez for the Cy Young - Do you take peak performance (Shaq) or the extra games (Duncan)?

                  And NBA GM's picked Duncan over Shaq by a two to one margin when asked
                  who they would sign to be the cornerstone of a franchise. [
                  http://www.nba.com/preview2003/gm_survey_031024.html ] (The one that
                  really surprised me was the 95%-5% margin Tim got for "best post
                  moves")

                  Two different arguments.  A general manager has to think primarily about the *future* of the franchise; Shaq has a gimpy toe and he's on the wrong side of 30 now.  At best, he's going to give you two more completely healthy and dominating years.  Duncan is on pace to be the greatest power forward of all-time, or at least in the discussion with Karl Malone.  He's also only 27, and has the attitude that NBA GMs love - unquestioning and total devoted to the coach.

                  As for the post moves, Duncan may or may not have better post moves.  It doesn't matter, because Shaq is just so dominating in the post due to his unique combination of soft hands, massive bulk, and incredible footwork.  It's like a McGrady vs. Iverson argument for peremiter skills - Iverson has an incredible crossover, but even though McGrady's isn't that good, his superior athletic abilities enable him to be the more valuable offensive weapon.
                • john1974@u.washington.edu
                  ... This is certainly something deserving of more intense scrutiny, I ll agree with that much. My take on Cummings and Gilmore, based only on personal
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 4, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Mike G wrote:

                    > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > I like the more organic "laugh test" which just sort of arose here
                    > > by mutual consent a couple of years ago, I think it was in the
                    > context
                    > > of a discussion of Dave Berri's rankings, which had Dennis Rodman
                    > as
                    > > the top player from some late 1990s season. The Shaq rule will
                    > become
                    > > obsolete someday, when Shaq no longer rules the NBA (or if you're a
                    > > CharlesB type who says Duncan has already been ruling it). But the
                    > > laugh test will work forever.
                    >
                    > The laugh test is somewhat subject to the general tenor of the
                    > discussion. Just as in real life, one person laughing becomes 2
                    > laughing, becomes a room full of laughers, sometimes.
                    >
                    > Now the joke may have been truly funny, or it may have just struck
                    > the first laugher a certain way. In any case, it's always better if
                    > the idea being laughed at is truly funny (or ridiculous).
                    >
                    > When I listed Terry Cummings in the Alltime Top 50 (he's since
                    > slipped out, due to the rise of Iverson, Kidd, Bryant, Garnett..),
                    > it's because he shares statistical attributes with everyone else in
                    > that range.
                    >
                    > I feel the burden is on others to explain why the rebounds and
                    > points that Cummings got are not due the consideration of the same
                    > points and rebounds gotten by a more glamorous player. I'm never
                    > going to penalize a player due to his lack of popularity.
                    >
                    > I don't think I'll ever be convinced that Artis Gilmore isn't
                    > deserving of the Hall of Fame. He was never in an NBA Finals;
                    > neither was Cummings. So what? They still had long, productive
                    > careers.

                    This is certainly something deserving of more intense scrutiny, I'll agree with that much. My take on Cummings and Gilmore, based only on personal observation (more in Top Cat's case than in Gilmore's) and reading/hearing analysis of his play is that they're sort of basketball equivalents of Jim Kaat, Rusty Staub, Tommy John, or Jerry Reuss (more valuable than Reuss, but you get the idea). That is, they had very long careers of being 2nd tier stars. Is that kind of player HOF worthy? I don't know. It's a good question. Certainly they aren't as famous as a Bill Walton type who is incredible for a couple years and then gets hurt.

                    John Craven
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.