## Individual W/L and production

Expand Messages
• These individual ratings are based on Dean Oliver s formulas for individual offensive and defensive ratings. The only change I made was to adjust for schedule
Message 1 of 6 , Dec 30, 2003
• 0 Attachment
These individual ratings are based on Dean Oliver's formulas for
individual offensive and defensive ratings. The only change I made
was to adjust for schedule strength. I calculate individual wins &
losses using a modified version of Dean's formula, as follows:

Wins = Tm Games * (0.5 * Off. W% * %Poss + 0.5 * Def. W% * %Stops)
Losses = Tm Games * (0.5 * (1 - Off W%) * %Poss + 0.5 *(1 - Def W%)
* %Stops)

Off. W% I calculate by a pythagorean approximation using player
Offensive rating and Team Defensive rating. Def. W% is similarly
calculated using Team Offensive rating and player Defensive rating.
This has the virtue that the sum of a team's individual wins and
losses should equal the win total projected by a team pythagorean
projection.

Offensive & Defensive ratings are adjusted to league average.
Pro/G is my attempt to gauge value over replacement. I set
replacement value as equal to 10% win%, so Production is equal to
Wins * 9 - Losses. Pro/G is a per game average multiplied by 20.

PP/G is points produced per game, adjusted for schedule strength &
game pace. This is a good measure of raw offensive production. %
Pos, unlike the version used above, is the fraction of possessions
used while in the game. Stop% is another measure of defensive
prowess, more independent of team than the defensive rating itself.

Ratings are through Dec. 24.

Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL% Pro/G
K. Garnett 108.9 26.9 30 90.0 73 5.3 1.0 84 34.77
T. Duncan 104.3 23.0 29 84.6 70 4.6 0.6 88 31.54
B. Miller 117.8 18.4 20 98.9 57 3.7 0.7 85 25.07
A. Kirilenko 111.5 18.4 22 94.0 69 4.0 1.1 78 24.95
S. O'Neal 106.0 21.0 26 95.3 61 3.4 1.0 76 24.46
P. Stojakovic 120.3 22.3 23 103.5 46 3.5 0.8 82 23.90
B. Wallace 98.1 12.3 15 87.4 73 3.6 1.2 76 22.90
K. Bryant 111.1 21.9 25 100.7 48 3.2 1.0 76 22.30
J. O'Neal 96.8 21.6 29 90.8 64 3.7 1.9 65 22.15
E. Brand 112.3 19.6 23 97.2 63 1.4 0.6 71 21.63
E. Ginobili 104.0 15.2 21 88.7 60 3.7 0.7 84 21.57
S. Cassell 111.6 22.6 27 101.3 74 3.3 1.1 74 21.18
B. Davis 102.3 26.7 30 98.3 55 3.7 2.6 59 21.10
R. Artest 99.6 19.4 24 93.1 58 3.3 1.6 68 20.99
K. Malone 110.9 15.1 20 95.4 61 2.8 0.6 82 20.83
Yao Ming 108.0 17.9 23 93.3 58 3.2 1.1 75 20.45
K. Martin 98.4 18.0 24 91.4 65 2.5 1.4 64 19.48
C. Billups 106.7 20.9 25 98.3 46 3.2 1.4 70 19.43
Z. Randolph 110.7 25.5 28 104.7 53 3.0 2.3 57 18.97
J. Kidd 100.7 20.8 26 95.9 54 2.9 1.8 61 18.34
D. Nowitzki 104.8 18.3 23 101.1 54 2.3 1.3 64 17.94
M. Bibby 112.4 17.6 22 104.5 44 2.7 0.9 75 17.76
P. Pierce 100.2 25.9 32 99.3 56 3.2 3.0 51 17.70
M. Finley 112.3 16.7 18 104.1 47 2.3 1.0 70 17.58
G. Payton 110.8 16.0 21 100.7 48 2.6 0.9 75 17.44
S. Marion 105.4 19.3 22 98.4 59 2.9 2.2 57 17.41
C. Maggette 117.6 20.8 24 104.3 46 2.4 1.2 67 17.29
C. Mobley 104.1 16.8 20 96.6 50 2.7 1.5 65 17.16
R. Hamilton 103.1 19.1 25 98.5 46 2.7 1.5 65 16.97
M. Redd 107.5 21.0 25 102.3 47 2.8 1.8 61 16.89
A. Miller 106.9 17.8 24 99.6 49 2.8 1.3 68 16.88
T. Parker 101.4 16.4 22 96.1 42 2.2 0.9 72 16.62
A. Jamison 118.1 15.4 21 102.9 50 2.6 0.8 77 16.58
A. Iverson 96.9 31.3 35 99.3 53 2.3 3.0 43 16.55
A. Walker 101.4 18.9 23 101.5 53 2.7 2.0 57 16.37
R. Nesterovic 95.4 10.7 18 88.4 60 2.7 0.9 75 15.86
S. Francis 95.6 20.9 27 96.1 51 2.6 2.4 53 15.84
R. Jefferson 102.5 16.7 21 97.0 52 2.6 1.6 61 15.82
P. Gasol 102.3 18.1 26 98.7 52 2.6 1.7 60 15.60
M. Harpring 108.3 18.4 22 103.5 47 2.5 1.6 61 15.43
D. George 109.4 10.5 16 97.3 56 2.3 0.7 78 15.40
E. Dampier 104.5 13.5 19 97.2 61 2.3 1.4 63 15.14
M. Camby 98.8 8.4 15 89.9 72 2.2 0.8 73 15.03

And, here are the top rookies

Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL% Pro/G
C. Anthony 97.0 18.8 26 99.4 49 2.4 2.3 51 13.55
C. Bosh 104.9 12.9 18 99.2 52 1.8 1.7 51 10.66
D. Wade 99.7 19.2 25 101.3 50 1.8 2.6 41 10.24
J. Howard 101.1 8.8 20 97.9 62 1.4 0.8 64 10.21
L. James 97.5 21.2 26 101.5 50 2.0 3.3 37 10.21
• Dean, your work has been grailed! Seriously, I am always impressed with the mathematical facilities of this bunch. I tried to work out Dean s offensive and
Message 2 of 6 , Dec 30, 2003
• 0 Attachment
Dean, your work has been "grailed!"

Seriously, I am always impressed with the mathematical facilities of
this bunch. I tried to work out Dean's offensive and defensive winning
percentages in Excel and got hopelessly lost. I love the book, though.
Couldn't put it down.

So my usual question when greeted with new statistical formulae. What
do these numbers reveal, if anything?

• ... Here I was, expecting to see someone complaining that I had Brad Miller rated as better than Shaq. I guess the Shaq test really is dead. I explained
Message 3 of 6 , Dec 31, 2003
• 0 Attachment
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "ssims22000" <ssims2@i...>
wrote:
> Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL% Pro/G
> K. Garnett 108.9 26.9 30 90.0 73 5.3 1.0 84 34.77
> T. Duncan 104.3 23.0 29 84.6 70 4.6 0.6 88 31.54
> B. Miller 117.8 18.4 20 98.9 57 3.7 0.7 85 25.07
> A. Kirilenko 111.5 18.4 22 94.0 69 4.0 1.1 78 24.95
> S. O'Neal 106.0 21.0 26 95.3 61 3.4 1.0 76 24.46

Here I was, expecting to see someone complaining that I had
Brad Miller rated as "better" than Shaq. I guess the "Shaq test"
I explained the math of the ratings in the last post. I'll make
some comments now. Dean says repeatedly in his book and here that
he doesn't believe in the "Holy Grail" of player ratings - one
number that can tell you who is better. I must reluctantly agree.
I did it anyway, but I'm not really sure what this "Pro/G" actually
represents. It isn't net wins, it isn't points produced or net
points. All it really seems to be is a nice-looking number that
gives an approximate summation of 1) how well a player has played
within his role on his team and 2) how important that role is to
his team's success. However, it hides as much as it reveals, so
I didn't present it alone.
I arbitrarily set 10% as a "replacement level" winning %. No team
has ever won that few games (8.2 of 82), and no player I rated this
season came close to 10% - Milt Palacio at 13.3% was the lowest. So
I wonder what we should consider replacement level? Who in the
league today is a "replacement level" player?
I noted that I calculate WL% differently than Dean does in his
book. I basically "peg" the player's WL% to his team's. My
justification is that any player's performance is relative to his
team's performance. A great defensive team does not need to be as
efficient on offense, and a great offensive team does not need to be
so great defensively (in the regular season, at least). Conversely,
a poor defensive team demands much more offensive efficiency from
its players, just to keep up. A poor offensive team must play hard
on defense all the time to be competitive. The best example of the
last is last year's Denver team. The worst ever team offensively,
the Nuggets ranked in the top 5 defensively because they had to.
Anyway, my method calculates an offensive win% and a defensive win%,
determines the importance of each component to the team -
offensively by how many of the team's possessions the player
finished and defensively by how many of the opponent's possessions
he stops, and then combines the two components into a win-loss
record. WL% for a team's players will tend to cluster around the
team's calculated "expected" WL%. If a player significantly exceeds
this %, several questions arise. Is this player a role player? Is
he under-utilized? Are the other players significantly lower than
the team % (thus dragging the team down with them)?
Finally, I'll note a few extremes. I mentioned that Palacio (of
Toronto) had the lowest WL% at 13.3%. Tim Duncan had the highest,
88.2%. Kevin Garnett had the most wins (5.3), while Lamar Odom and
84.6 by Duncan. The worst: 109.5 by Tyronn Lue or Orlando. The
best Offensive rating: 151.8 by Richie Frahm of Seattle. The worst:
65.9 by Linton Johnson of Chicago. Offensive ratings have a much
greater variance because they are not directly tied to the team
rating. The leader in points produced per game? Allen Iverson at
31.3 (no one else is even close: Iverson has the highest usage of
his team's possessions - 35.3% - and the highest % of his team's
minutes - 90% when he plays).
• ... made ... Simmy, this is excellent. I ve tried to find time for a comprehensive reply. But before this info becomes too stale, I ll just blurt out some
Message 4 of 6 , Jan 3, 2004
• 0 Attachment
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "ssims22000" <ssims2@i...>
wrote:
> These individual ratings are based on Dean Oliver's formulas for
> individual offensive and defensive ratings. The only change I
> was to adjust for schedule strength.

...> Pro/G is my attempt to gauge value over replacement. ...>
> Ratings are through Dec. 24.

Simmy, this is excellent. I've tried to find time for a
comprehensive reply. But before this info becomes too stale, I'll
just blurt out some stuff.

I compared your team rankings to my team rankings, which are based
on sums of individual production. I found an average of 2% above
and below the norms for the West and East, respectively, in
individual production.

This 2% adjustment I used in lieu of team strength-of-schedule
adjustments. And then I compared my individual rankings to yours.
Here are our biggest discrepancies:

(If we assume yours are "correct", guys I have underrated:)

SS . player . . MG
7 Wallace,Ben 43
24 Finley,Michael 81
41 George,Devean 105
8 Bryant,Kobe 26
28 Mobley,Cuttino 66
11 Ginobili,Emanuel 27
14 Artest,Ron 31
29 Hamilton,Richard 60
6 Stojakovic,Predr 14
43 Camby,Marcus 70
25 Payton,Gary 49
18 Billups,Chauncey 30
15 Malone,Karl 21
4 Kirilenko,Andrei 7

The numbers are just your rankings, followed by mine. My method for
comparison isn't worth describing; but I'm offering the conclusions,
for general discussion.

Here are guys's I seem to be "overrating" by the same method:

SS . player . . MG
34 Iverson,Allen 11
19 Randolph,Zach 6
20 Kidd,Jason 9
39 Gasol,Pau 17
23 Pierce,Paul 12
10 Brand,Elton 4
2 Duncan,Tim 2
9 O'Neal,Jermaine 5
5 O'Neal,Shaquille 3

Duncan appears at #2 in both our summaries. But his composite
number is a lot closer to Garnett's in my rankings.

Pretty much all of the guys you've ranked much higher than I, play
for successful teams. And some of my "overranked" players play for
below-average teams.

I should add to the 2nd list names such as McGrady, Vince Carter,
Shareef, and Marbury, all of whom land in my Top 25, but fail to
make the cut for your top 43.

Devean George is a good player; but he is no Tracy McGrady.

>
> Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL% Pro/G
> K. Garnett 108.9 26.9 30 90.0 73 5.3 1.0 84 34.77
> T. Duncan 104.3 23.0 29 84.6 70 4.6 0.6 88 31.54
> B. Miller 117.8 18.4 20 98.9 57 3.7 0.7 85 25.07
> A. Kirilenko 111.5 18.4 22 94.0 69 4.0 1.1 78 24.95
> S. O'Neal 106.0 21.0 26 95.3 61 3.4 1.0 76 24.46
> P. Stojakovic 120.3 22.3 23 103.5 46 3.5 0.8 82 23.90
> B. Wallace 98.1 12.3 15 87.4 73 3.6 1.2 76 22.90
> K. Bryant 111.1 21.9 25 100.7 48 3.2 1.0 76 22.30
> J. O'Neal 96.8 21.6 29 90.8 64 3.7 1.9 65 22.15
> E. Brand 112.3 19.6 23 97.2 63 1.4 0.6 71 21.63
> E. Ginobili 104.0 15.2 21 88.7 60 3.7 0.7 84 21.57
> S. Cassell 111.6 22.6 27 101.3 74 3.3 1.1 74 21.18
> B. Davis 102.3 26.7 30 98.3 55 3.7 2.6 59 21.10
> R. Artest 99.6 19.4 24 93.1 58 3.3 1.6 68 20.99
> K. Malone 110.9 15.1 20 95.4 61 2.8 0.6 82 20.83
> Yao Ming 108.0 17.9 23 93.3 58 3.2 1.1 75 20.45
> K. Martin 98.4 18.0 24 91.4 65 2.5 1.4 64 19.48
> C. Billups 106.7 20.9 25 98.3 46 3.2 1.4 70 19.43
> Z. Randolph 110.7 25.5 28 104.7 53 3.0 2.3 57 18.97
> J. Kidd 100.7 20.8 26 95.9 54 2.9 1.8 61 18.34
> D. Nowitzki 104.8 18.3 23 101.1 54 2.3 1.3 64 17.94
> M. Bibby 112.4 17.6 22 104.5 44 2.7 0.9 75 17.76
> P. Pierce 100.2 25.9 32 99.3 56 3.2 3.0 51 17.70
> M. Finley 112.3 16.7 18 104.1 47 2.3 1.0 70 17.58
> G. Payton 110.8 16.0 21 100.7 48 2.6 0.9 75 17.44
> S. Marion 105.4 19.3 22 98.4 59 2.9 2.2 57 17.41
> C. Maggette 117.6 20.8 24 104.3 46 2.4 1.2 67 17.29
> C. Mobley 104.1 16.8 20 96.6 50 2.7 1.5 65 17.16
> R. Hamilton 103.1 19.1 25 98.5 46 2.7 1.5 65 16.97
> M. Redd 107.5 21.0 25 102.3 47 2.8 1.8 61 16.89
> A. Miller 106.9 17.8 24 99.6 49 2.8 1.3 68 16.88
> T. Parker 101.4 16.4 22 96.1 42 2.2 0.9 72 16.62
> A. Jamison 118.1 15.4 21 102.9 50 2.6 0.8 77 16.58
> A. Iverson 96.9 31.3 35 99.3 53 2.3 3.0 43 16.55
> A. Walker 101.4 18.9 23 101.5 53 2.7 2.0 57 16.37
> R. Nesterovic 95.4 10.7 18 88.4 60 2.7 0.9 75 15.86
> S. Francis 95.6 20.9 27 96.1 51 2.6 2.4 53 15.84
> R. Jefferson 102.5 16.7 21 97.0 52 2.6 1.6 61 15.82
> P. Gasol 102.3 18.1 26 98.7 52 2.6 1.7 60 15.60
> M. Harpring 108.3 18.4 22 103.5 47 2.5 1.6 61 15.43
> D. George 109.4 10.5 16 97.3 56 2.3 0.7 78 15.40
> E. Dampier 104.5 13.5 19 97.2 61 2.3 1.4 63 15.14
> M. Camby 98.8 8.4 15 89.9 72 2.2 0.8 73 15.03
>
> And, here are the top rookies
>
> Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL% Pro/G
> C. Anthony 97.0 18.8 26 99.4 49 2.4 2.3 51 13.55
> C. Bosh 104.9 12.9 18 99.2 52 1.8 1.7 51 10.66
> D. Wade 99.7 19.2 25 101.3 50 1.8 2.6 41 10.24
> J. Howard 101.1 8.8 20 97.9 62 1.4 0.8 64 10.21
> L. James 97.5 21.2 26 101.5 50 2.0 3.3 37 10.21

Does anyone think switching Lebron and Carmello would make Denver
less successful or Cleveland better?
• ... Thanks. I do want to inject some severe caution into using this rating I posted as any sort of true player rating. For one thing, there are several ways
Message 5 of 6 , Jan 3, 2004
• 0 Attachment
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "ssims22000" <ssims2@i...>
> wrote:
> ...> Pro/G is my attempt to gauge value over replacement. ...>
> > Ratings are through Dec. 24.
>
> Simmy, this is excellent. I've tried to find time for a
> comprehensive reply. But before this info becomes too stale, I'll
> just blurt out some stuff.
>

Thanks. I do want to inject some severe caution into using this
rating I posted as any sort of true player rating. For one thing,
there are several ways of calculating individual win-loss records,
and I'm not yet sure which one is the best. Each one will produce
sometimes significantly different results, so take all of this with
a grain of salt.

> I compared your team rankings to my team rankings, which are based
> on sums of individual production. I found an average of 2% above
> and below the norms for the West and East, respectively, in
> individual production.
>
> This 2% adjustment I used in lieu of team strength-of-schedule
> adjustments. And then I compared my individual rankings to
yours.
> Here are our biggest discrepancies:
>
> (If we assume yours are "correct", guys I have underrated:)
>

Once again, I doubt my ratings are any more "correct" than yours.
They really measure different things. Think of mine as a crude
measure of the combination between the efficiency with which a
player performs his roles on a team and the importance of that role
to his team's success. My W/L ratings are designed to match up to
team W/L ratings, and so players on good teams will see some
instance) will see theirs deflate.

> SS . player . . MG
> 7 Wallace,Ben 43
> 24 Finley,Michael 81
> 41 George,Devean 105
> 8 Bryant,Kobe 26
> 28 Mobley,Cuttino 66
> 11 Ginobili,Emanuel 27
> 14 Artest,Ron 31
> 29 Hamilton,Richard 60
> 6 Stojakovic,Predr 14
> 43 Camby,Marcus 70
> 25 Payton,Gary 49
> 18 Billups,Chauncey 30
> 15 Malone,Karl 21
> 4 Kirilenko,Andrei 7
>
All of these players (excepting Mobley) are on teams that project
to 50+ wins with my version of the pythagorean approximation. I've
recently changed the method I use to calculate the W/L values this
rating is based on, and this resulted in a significant drop in the
ratings for Sacramento and San Antonio players. I'll explain later.

>
> Here are guys's I seem to be "overrating" by the same method:
>
> SS . player . . MG
> 34 Iverson,Allen 11
> 19 Randolph,Zach 6
> 20 Kidd,Jason 9
> 39 Gasol,Pau 17
> 23 Pierce,Paul 12
> 10 Brand,Elton 4
> 2 Duncan,Tim 2
> 9 O'Neal,Jermaine 5
> 5 O'Neal,Shaquille 3
>

Some of these guys (Iverson, Randolph, Brand) are on teams that
project to sub-.500. For the others, I'm guessing the difference is
due to the greater focus on efficiency in Dean's ratings.

> Pretty much all of the guys you've ranked much higher than I, play
> for successful teams. And some of my "overranked" players play
for
> below-average teams.
>

OK, you noticed the same thing.

> I should add to the 2nd list names such as McGrady, Vince Carter,
> Shareef, and Marbury, all of whom land in my Top 25, but fail to
> make the cut for your top 43.
>

Shareef is the only one of these 4 who rates better than a .500
winning % (which, given how bad his team is playing, is pretty
impressive).

> Devean George is a good player; but he is no Tracy McGrady.
>

Right, but he is playing very well in his role (59% true shooting
percentage and a good defensive rating), and he gets a surprisingly
high % of touches on a team as loaded with superstars as the
Lakers. A lot of players would do as well in his spot, but many
more wouldn't.
This comes back to the classic problem of evaluating role players
(like George) vs. stars (like McGrady). Who is better - the role
player performing at high efficiency, but who couldn't successfully
carry a big load, or the star who is struggling with low efficiency,
but whose ability to carry the load helps out his teammates (or, in
McGrady's case, would help out his teammates if any of them could
actually play). You could make arguments either way.

>
>
> > And, here are the top rookies
> >
> > Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL%
Pro/G
> > C. Anthony 97.0 18.8 26 99.4 49 2.4 2.3 51
13.55
> > C. Bosh 104.9 12.9 18 99.2 52 1.8 1.7 51
10.66
> > D. Wade 99.7 19.2 25 101.3 50 1.8 2.6 41
10.24
> > J. Howard 101.1 8.8 20 97.9 62 1.4 0.8 64
10.21
> > L. James 97.5 21.2 26 101.5 50 2.0 3.3 37
10.21
>
>
> Does anyone think switching Lebron and Carmello would make Denver
> less successful or Cleveland better?

Not me. Carmelo and Lebron shoulder a comparable burden on
offense, and Lebron is actually slightly more efficient (though both
are below their teams' average efficiency). Anthony has better
teammates, especially on defense (which makes his defensive rating
better, despite a lower stop%). I did note that Lebron's win% was
almost exactly the same as Cleveland's projected win% - as Lebron
goes, so do the Cavs. Anthony's win% is lower than his team's - he
isn't as important to their success. Anthony Miller and Marcus
Camby come across as the Nugget MVP's, so far. For whatever it's
worth, I like Lebron better as a player. These ratings don't really
change that, when taken in context.
• ... records, ... Can we see what kind of rankings you get if you just ignore the individual losses? I tried some correlations of your win # s , but I don t
Message 6 of 6 , Jan 4, 2004
• 0 Attachment
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "ssims22000" <ssims2@i...>
wrote:

>... there are several ways of calculating individual win-loss
records, ...

Can we see what kind of rankings you get if you just ignore the
individual losses? I tried some correlations of your win #'s , but
I don't have the comprehensive list.

For example, if McGrady is 4-7, his net of -3 makes him look like a
weaker player than Devean George. But if McGrady played alongside 4
hall-of-famers?

I look for stats to be less context-dependent. I'm pretty sure we
could build a team of guys NOT in your list that would whip 5 guys
who are ON the list.

> Think of mine as a crude
> measure of the combination between the efficiency with which a
> player performs his roles on a team and the importance of that
role
> to his team's success. My W/L ratings are designed to match up to
> team W/L ratings, and so players on good teams will see some
> inflation of their values, while those on bad teams (McGrady, for
> instance) will see theirs deflate.

I actually am all for this connection to team success. A team that
wins 60 games splits those 60 wins among the players. Players on a
20-win team have a lot less "spoils" to go around.

But these damn Losses are what just makes no sense to me. A loss is
zero wins. That should be bad enough.

My bet is that by ignoring losses from your formula, you'll get a
better ranking : one that is more consistent with minutes played,
general perception, and common sense.

> > Devean George is a good player; but he is no Tracy McGrady.
> >
>
> Right, but he is playing very well in his role (59% true
shooting
> percentage and a good defensive rating), and he gets a
surprisingly
> high % of touches on a team as loaded with superstars as the
> Lakers. A lot of players would do as well in his spot, but many
> more wouldn't.

All fair statements. But isn't a lot of his improvement this year
attributable to his status as a 5th-option player? I mean, he's got
to be open a Lot.

Fisher is also shooting a lot this year; he just can't hit his shots.

Lakers' Big 4 all appear to be greatly reduced this year in my
rankings; and much more similar to last year in yours. Consistency
in spite of drastic context change usually is a sign of a good
ranking system.

> This comes back to the classic problem of evaluating role
players
> (like George) vs. stars (like McGrady). Who is better - the role
> player performing at high efficiency, but who couldn't
successfully
> carry a big load, or the star who is struggling with low
efficiency,
> but whose ability to carry the load helps out his teammates (or,
in
> McGrady's case, would help out his teammates if any of them could
> actually play). You could make arguments either way.
>
> >
> >
> > > And, here are the top rookies
> > >
> > > Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL%
> Pro/G
> > > C. Anthony 97.0 18.8 26 99.4 49 2.4 2.3 51
> 13.55
> > > C. Bosh 104.9 12.9 18 99.2 52 1.8 1.7 51
> 10.66
> > > D. Wade 99.7 19.2 25 101.3 50 1.8 2.6 41
> 10.24
> > > J. Howard 101.1 8.8 20 97.9 62 1.4 0.8 64
> 10.21
> > > L. James 97.5 21.2 26 101.5 50 2.0 3.3 37
> 10.21
> >
> >
> > Does anyone think switching Lebron and Carmello would make
Denver
> > less successful or Cleveland better?
>
> Not me. Carmelo and Lebron shoulder a comparable burden on
> offense, and Lebron is actually slightly more efficient (though
both
> are below their teams' average efficiency). Anthony has better
> teammates, especially on defense (which makes his defensive rating
> better, despite a lower stop%). I did note that Lebron's win% was
> almost exactly the same as Cleveland's projected win% - as Lebron
> goes, so do the Cavs. Anthony's win% is lower than his team's -
he
> isn't as important to their success. Anthony Miller and Marcus
> Camby come across as the Nugget MVP's, so far. For whatever it's
> worth, I like Lebron better as a player. These ratings don't
really
> change that, when taken in context.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.