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

Re: A Portrait of the Artis as an Old Man (was: DuPree's Rankings)

Expand Messages
  • Mike G
    ... These guys have similar career totals, it s true; and also true that Love got most of his credentials in a 7-year span -- and outside of that, very little.
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 5, 2003
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
      wrote:
      > the Jerome Kersey vs Bob
      > Love question: lots of stats accumulated over a long but not
      > outstanding career are not as good as the same quantity of stats
      > accumulated over a shorter period of time.

      These guys have similar career totals, it's true; and also true that
      Love got most of his credentials in a 7-year span -- and outside of
      that, very little.

      I still feel compelled to consider per-minute rates as well as per-
      game and per-season. Kersey's prime years were when he was on a
      very deep and top-tier Blazers unit; while Love averaged 40+ minutes
      with the Bulls, Kersey only got 32-36 minutes at best.

      But the real separation between the two is in their playoff
      careers. Kersey had a huge playoff portfolio.


      >
      > [..Cummings' last 8 seasons, during which he scored over 3,000 of
      his career points and got over 1,900 of his career rebounds, were
      marked by highs of 9.1 points per game, 5.5 rebounds per game, and
      1,777 minutes played in a season. He was in other words a backup
      player. A nice role player, but an easily replaceable one. Which
      is exactly what teams did six times during those 8 years: replace
      him, as he played for 6 different teams.]

      I'm not sure about using frequency of trades to determine value to a
      team; I know he was always diminished by his devastating knee injury
      of 1992; and always at risk for dying of the same thing that took
      Reggie Lewis.

      Since there was such a clear demarcation between his first 10 years
      and the last 8, I've broken it down to see "what if" TC had retired
      after '92.

      years Gms Min Pct. Sco. Reb Ast - Tot. POG% POG - HOF
      83-00 1285 29 .515 19.3 9.3 2.2 - 30.0 .080 .99 - 6474
      83-92 `829 34 .521 21.2 9.5 2.4 - 33.9 .077 1.01 - 6662

      Tot. is a total (linear weights) that is of dubious value in
      comparing players, but for a player relative to himself, means a lot.

      POG% is the percent of minutes which are in playoff games.

      POG is performance (Tot.) of PO/RS.

      HOF (hall of fame points) is generated by taking the square roots of
      regular season plus playoff equivalent-totals.

      In this analysis, Terry Cummings had a more remarkable career if
      he'd retired in 1992, rather than "hung around" for another 8
      years. Such a conclusion is certainly debatable. But the reduction
      in his per-minute rates is significant (as are the minutes).


      [> Artis who was at worst a starting quality center, and most often
      an All-star or even MVP caliber player.]

      That's right. In fact, I just re-re-did a list of who should've
      been MVP, and guess who tops 1978!

      Walton won it, but he missed 24 games! Kareem also missed a bunch.
      Gilmore's next up; but he played for a dreadful Bulls team.

      I don't rate Gilmore's ABA years as highly as his best NBA years.
      After 1 year of adjustment, he hit his peak and was right up there
      behind Kareem (and later Moses) at his position. Not bad company.


      [> you'll get no anti-Artis arguments from me as far as the Hall of
      Fame goes.]

      When you think about it, Fame is just that. It's hard to create
      Fame for a player, 20 years after the fact.


      >
      [> Cummings on the other hand was a very good player who had a long
      career. But it's supposed to be the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of
      the Very Good.]

      Just as guys are always booted out of any Alltime Top 50, by players
      on the rise, there's some feeling that the Halls of Fame should only
      hold so-many players.

      Not that this is worthy of serious consideration; but if you scan
      the list of members, you might find that many guys'
      apparent "worthiness" is that they played 10 years. Seriously. Try
      to find players from the 50s who played 10 years in the NBA who are
      not in the HOF. There aren't many.
    • Mike G
      ... lot. ... of ... Reading my own post, something is impossible here. Hall of Fame points is more involved than described above. Further, I d changed the
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 5, 2003
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > Tot. is a total (linear weights) that is of dubious value in
        > comparing players, but for a player relative to himself, means a
        lot.
        >
        > POG% is the percent of minutes which are in playoff games.
        >
        > POG is performance (Tot.) of PO/RS.
        >
        > HOF (hall of fame points) is generated by taking the square roots
        of
        > regular season plus playoff equivalent-totals.
        >
        > In this analysis, Terry Cummings had a more remarkable career if
        > he'd retired in 1992,

        Reading my own post, something is impossible here.

        "Hall of Fame points" is more involved than described above.
        Further, I'd changed the "Total" formula in one spreadsheet, but not
        the other. Here's the correct comparison:

        (If Terry Cummings had quit in 1992, how I would rate his career)

        years Gms Min Pct. Sco. Reb Ast - Total RegSe PlOf - HOF
        83-92 `829 34 .521 21.2 9.5 2.4 - 32.4 - 5133 2032 - 6340
        83-00 1285 29 .515 19.3 9.3 2.2 - 30.0 - 5328 2503 - 6474

        Total per-36 rate has been amended for the shortened version of his
        career.

        Under RegSe and PlOf are reg-season and playoff credits representing
        the square roots of his 'equivalent totals', multiplied by his per-
        36 total. HOF credits are the sum of those 2, with a versatility
        factor.

        Now it makes sense. Cummings' last 8 years were certainly of value,
        above replacement level, however you wish to describe it. But they
        don't add a huge amount to the assessment of his career.

        While he padded his totals by 25% in that time, his HOF total only
        went up 2%. I think the only guys who actually have their ranks
        drop are like Parish, who just cling to a job for years.

        Here's the milieu in which I have Cummings ranked, and their HOF
        credits. His imaginary abbreviated career is listed as well:

        HOF# rank
        6543 49 Jack Sikma
        6530 50 James Worthy
        6523 51 Alex English
        6474 52 Terry Cummings
        6437 53 Neil Johnston
        6424 54 Larry Nance
        6421 55 Kevin Johnson
        6398 56 Reggie Miller
        6340 57 Terry Cummings2
        6387 58 Jerry Lucas
        6355 59 Walt Bellamy
        6320 60 Alonzo Mourning

        Cummings didn't just hang around; he was a valuable backup. Teams
        that used him didn't lose much while he put in his 15-20 minutes.
        And he was good enough to fill in as a starter, most of that time.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.