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

Most Improved Players from last year,

Expand Messages
  • Mike G
    Yes, it s early; some of these guys are playing beyond their capabilities. But to give credit where it s due, here s my take on MIP, so far: 20.7 Murray,Ronald
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, it's early; some of these guys are playing beyond their
      capabilities.

      But to give credit where it's due, here's my take on MIP, so far:

      20.7 Murray,Ronald Sea
      14.8 Arroyo,Carlos Uta
      13.9 Cardinal,Brian GS (Was)
      12.1 Baker,Vin Bos
      11.9 Ginobili,Emanuel SA
      11.5 Foster,Jeff Ind
      11.0 Davis,Baron NO
      10.2 Randolph,Zach Por
      9.6 Bell,Raja Uta (Dal)
      8.9 Dunleavy,Mike GS
      8.9 Richardson,Jason GS
      8.5 Mcinnis,Jeff Por
      8.4 Salmons,John Phi
      8.4 Booth,Calvin Sea
      8.2 Hoiberg,Fred Min (Chi)
      7.8 Gadzuric,Dan Mil
      7.6 Richardson,Quent LAC
      7.6 Dampier,Erick GS
      7.5 Mihm,Chris Cle
      6.8 Prince,Tayshaun Det
      6.7 Chandler,Tyson Chi
      6.4 Thomas,Etan Was

      The number is just my rating from this year, minus last year's.

      May as well do the bottom of the list (minimum 100 minutes this
      year):

      -16.0 Butler,Caron Mia
      -8.7 Nowitzki,Dirk Dal
      -8.5 Howard,Juwan Orl (Den)
      -8.4 Person,Wesley Mem
      -8.2 Mcgrady,Tracy Orl
      -7.5 James,Jerome Sea
      -7.3 Harvey,Donnell Orl (Den)
      -7.2 Bremer,J.R. Cle (Bos)
      -7.0 Williams,Alvin Tor
      -7.0 Bryant,Kobe LAL
      -6.9 O'Neal,Shaquille LAL
      -6.6 Williams,Shammond Orl (Bos,Den)
      -6.3 Hunter,Lindsey Det (Tor)
      -6.2 Nash,Steve Dal
      -6.2 Williamson,Corli Det
      -6.2 Grant,Brian Mia
      -6.1 Rose,Jalen Chi

      Of 263 players, there are 138 who are 'improved' and 125 'losers'.
      Yet the average gain for all players is +0.46

      If I erase the net for Murray and Cardinal (neither had 100 min.
      last year), the discrepancy drops to +0.33
    • wimpds
      Is this a per minute rating? Per game?
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Is this a per minute rating? Per game?


        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > Yes, it's early; some of these guys are playing beyond their
        > capabilities.
        >
        > But to give credit where it's due, here's my take on MIP, so far:
        >
        > 20.7 Murray,Ronald Sea
        > 14.8 Arroyo,Carlos Uta
        > 13.9 Cardinal,Brian GS (Was)
        > 12.1 Baker,Vin Bos
        > 11.9 Ginobili,Emanuel SA
        > 11.5 Foster,Jeff Ind
        > 11.0 Davis,Baron NO
        > 10.2 Randolph,Zach Por
        > 9.6 Bell,Raja Uta (Dal)
        > 8.9 Dunleavy,Mike GS
        > 8.9 Richardson,Jason GS
        > 8.5 Mcinnis,Jeff Por
        > 8.4 Salmons,John Phi
        > 8.4 Booth,Calvin Sea
        > 8.2 Hoiberg,Fred Min (Chi)
        > 7.8 Gadzuric,Dan Mil
        > 7.6 Richardson,Quent LAC
        > 7.6 Dampier,Erick GS
        > 7.5 Mihm,Chris Cle
        > 6.8 Prince,Tayshaun Det
        > 6.7 Chandler,Tyson Chi
        > 6.4 Thomas,Etan Was
        >
        > The number is just my rating from this year, minus last year's.
        >
        > May as well do the bottom of the list (minimum 100 minutes this
        > year):
        >
        > -16.0 Butler,Caron Mia
        > -8.7 Nowitzki,Dirk Dal
        > -8.5 Howard,Juwan Orl (Den)
        > -8.4 Person,Wesley Mem
        > -8.2 Mcgrady,Tracy Orl
        > -7.5 James,Jerome Sea
        > -7.3 Harvey,Donnell Orl (Den)
        > -7.2 Bremer,J.R. Cle (Bos)
        > -7.0 Williams,Alvin Tor
        > -7.0 Bryant,Kobe LAL
        > -6.9 O'Neal,Shaquille LAL
        > -6.6 Williams,Shammond Orl (Bos,Den)
        > -6.3 Hunter,Lindsey Det (Tor)
        > -6.2 Nash,Steve Dal
        > -6.2 Williamson,Corli Det
        > -6.2 Grant,Brian Mia
        > -6.1 Rose,Jalen Chi
        >
        > Of 263 players, there are 138 who are 'improved' and 125 'losers'.
        > Yet the average gain for all players is +0.46
        >
        > If I erase the net for Murray and Cardinal (neither had 100 min.
        > last year), the discrepancy drops to +0.33
      • Mike G
        ... A fair question, and I ll try my best to give a satisfactory answer. I ve arbitrarily designated 36 minutes as a full game . Some guys play more, most
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "wimpds" <wimpds@y...> wrote:
          > Is this a per minute rating? Per game?

          A fair question, and I'll try my best to give a satisfactory answer.

          I've arbitrarily designated 36 minutes as a "full game". Some guys
          play more, most play less; but most players are capable of going 36,
          and I shoot for estimating their production in 36 minutes.

          Rather than just scale every component of 'production' to 36 minutes
          in a linear fashion (i.e., 10 pts in 18 min = 20 in 36), I've
          devised a method of "squashing" the ratios to favor players who
          actually do/can play big minutes, relative to players who don't.

          This involves a 4th root. The upshot is that a player who plays 30
          min gets almost as much credit (for his per-minute production) as a
          player who plays 40 min.

          But a 9-minute guy gets a lot less than 4X his credits (scaled to 36
          min.)

          I don't like straight per-minute lists that equate a scrub with a
          true star. Nor do I like straight per-game lists that give undue
          credit to guys on bad teams.

          Per-minute lists are usually cut off below 24 mpg, or 22 mpg, or
          wherever. I don't have to do that; it takes care of itself.

          So I've synthesized the two concepts. Hybridized.

          Per-minute lists are usually cut off below 24 mpg, or 22 mpg, or
          wherever. I don't have to do that; it takes care of itself.

          And it's not merely per-minute production I start with; it's all
          relative to the abundance of points and rebounds (allowed) for each
          team.


          > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
          > > Yes, it's early; some of these guys are playing beyond their
          > > capabilities.
          > >
          > > But to give credit where it's due, here's my take on MIP, so far:
          > >
          > > 20.7 Murray,Ronald Sea
          > > 14.8 Arroyo,Carlos Uta
          > > 13.9 Cardinal,Brian GS (Was)
          > > 12.1 Baker,Vin Bos
          > > 11.9 Ginobili,Emanuel SA
          > > 11.5 Foster,Jeff Ind
          > > 11.0 Davis,Baron NO
          > > 10.2 Randolph,Zach Por
          ...
          > >
          > > The number is just my rating from this year, minus last year's.
          > >
        • wimpds
          If a team has played 20 games how does a guy who s played 360 minutes in 10 games compare to a guy who s played 720 minutes in 20 games?
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            If a team has played 20 games how does a guy who's played 360 minutes
            in 10 games compare to a guy who's played 720 minutes in 20 games?



            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "wimpds" <wimpds@y...> wrote:
            > > Is this a per minute rating? Per game?
            >
            > A fair question, and I'll try my best to give a satisfactory answer.
            >
            > I've arbitrarily designated 36 minutes as a "full game". Some guys
            > play more, most play less; but most players are capable of going 36,
            > and I shoot for estimating their production in 36 minutes.
            >
            > Rather than just scale every component of 'production' to 36 minutes
            > in a linear fashion (i.e., 10 pts in 18 min = 20 in 36), I've
            > devised a method of "squashing" the ratios to favor players who
            > actually do/can play big minutes, relative to players who don't.
            >
            > This involves a 4th root. The upshot is that a player who plays 30
            > min gets almost as much credit (for his per-minute production) as a
            > player who plays 40 min.
            >
            > But a 9-minute guy gets a lot less than 4X his credits (scaled to 36
            > min.)
            >
            > I don't like straight per-minute lists that equate a scrub with a
            > true star. Nor do I like straight per-game lists that give undue
            > credit to guys on bad teams.
            >
            > Per-minute lists are usually cut off below 24 mpg, or 22 mpg, or
            > wherever. I don't have to do that; it takes care of itself.
            >
            > So I've synthesized the two concepts. Hybridized.
            >
            > Per-minute lists are usually cut off below 24 mpg, or 22 mpg, or
            > wherever. I don't have to do that; it takes care of itself.
            >
            > And it's not merely per-minute production I start with; it's all
            > relative to the abundance of points and rebounds (allowed) for each
            > team.
            >
            >
            > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
            > > > Yes, it's early; some of these guys are playing beyond their
            > > > capabilities.
            > > >
            > > > But to give credit where it's due, here's my take on MIP, so far:
            > > >
            > > > 20.7 Murray,Ronald Sea
            > > > 14.8 Arroyo,Carlos Uta
            > > > 13.9 Cardinal,Brian GS (Was)
            > > > 12.1 Baker,Vin Bos
            > > > 11.9 Ginobili,Emanuel SA
            > > > 11.5 Foster,Jeff Ind
            > > > 11.0 Davis,Baron NO
            > > > 10.2 Randolph,Zach Por
            > ...
            > > >
            > > > The number is just my rating from this year, minus last year's.
            > > >
          • Mike G
            ... minutes ... games? I d call them equal, in the scale that purports to measure how productive they are. Productivity , as I use the term, implies
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "wimpds" <wimpds@y...> wrote:
              > If a team has played 20 games how does a guy who's played 360
              minutes
              > in 10 games compare to a guy who's played 720 minutes in 20
              games?

              I'd call them equal, in the scale that purports to measure
              how "productive" they are.

              "Productivity", as I use the term, implies production on a per-
              minute basis, within a scoring/rebounding milieu.

              "Production", on the other hand is what I'd use to predict/suggest
              an MVP, an all-league player, and it's very minutes-dependant.

              After I've got my "standardized" (relative to arbitrary standards,
              like 100 pts, 44 rebounds, per game) rates for a player, I often
              multiply by minutes to get their "equivalent production". It's kind
              of like reconstituting dried food.

              That number is really just their raw totals, adjusted for the
              relative abundance of pts and reb.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.