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

Re: DuPree's Rankings

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.