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

Individual W/L and production

Expand Messages
  • ssims22000
    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
    View Source
    • 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
    • monepeterson
      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
      View Source
      • 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?




        Moné
      • ssims22000
        ... 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
        View Source
        • 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"
          really is dead.
          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
          Tracy McGrady had the most losses (3.5). The best Defensive rating:
          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).
        • Mike G
          ... 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
          View Source
          • 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
            made
            > 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
            3 Miller,Brad 19
            41 George,Devean 105
            8 Bryant,Kobe 26
            28 Mobley,Cuttino 66
            11 Ginobili,Emanuel 27
            14 Artest,Ron 31
            36 Nesterovic,Rados 74
            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?
          • ssims22000
            ... 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
            View Source
            • 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
              inflation of their values, while those on bad teams (McGrady, for
              instance) will see theirs deflate.

              > SS . player . . MG
              > 7 Wallace,Ben 43
              > 24 Finley,Michael 81
              > 3 Miller,Brad 19
              > 41 George,Devean 105
              > 8 Bryant,Kobe 26
              > 28 Mobley,Cuttino 66
              > 11 Ginobili,Emanuel 27
              > 14 Artest,Ron 31
              > 36 Nesterovic,Rados 74
              > 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.
            • Mike G
              ... 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
              View Source
              • 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.

                One thing I like about your win-relative rankings is that the
                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.