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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Ray Allen's PER vs Clydes?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Greenwell
    I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and even possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good argument/comparison). I remember Clyde
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and even
      possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good
      argument/comparison). I remember Clyde had seasons of 25-7-6 or
      better at times.  Are Ray and Reggie close in ratings because they
      turned the ball over less and shot a greater percentage in general?

      Does the PER slightly favor good shooters over overall players who
      might be slightly less efficient when it comes to shooting/scoring?

      As with Isiah Thomas, who I believe you also asked about, publicity really frames how we think about certain players.  Drexler played on a very prolific college team, and had a flashier style then Allen and Miller.  Excluding their penchants for acting (Allen) and clutch shots (Miller), both are the quiet players who do less noticable things (outstanding shooters, less turnovers, game based on shooting and not explosiveness to the basket) than more "hyped" players like Drexler, Thomas, Latrell Sprewell, etc.  I'm purposely excluding defense here though; I know Allen and Miller don't have great defensive reps, but I'm unsure about Drexler, since I was around six during his peak.

      I think everyone who posts to this group is a fan, of course.  Part of being a fan is realizing that you *can* be fooled by appearances or hype every once in a while.  To me, that's where the numbers come in.  PER ratings help to equalize two players with vastly different styles and tells us why they're both equally effective.

      Stephen Greenwell
    • Mike G
      ... even ... Every rating system will have some players looking overrated relative to others. Part of it is your perception, and part of it is the system.
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...>
        wrote:
        >... I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and
        even
        > possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good
        > argument/comparison). I remember Clyde had seasons of 25-7-6 or
        > better at times. Are Ray and Reggie close in ratings because they
        > turned the ball over less and shot a greater percentage in general?
        >
        > Does the PER slightly favor good shooters over overall players who
        > might be slightly less efficient when it comes to shooting/scoring?

        Every rating system will have some players looking overrated
        relative to others. Part of it is your perception, and part of it
        is the system.

        Someday, a stat-head will list Tremaine Fowlkes up there with the
        best. But meanwhile, I'd agree with your assessment that Drexler >
        Allen, and >>> greater than Reggie, in their primes.

        As with the Isiah Thomas thread earlier, I'll list my guard rankings
        for the '90s. I've made my first 'weight' adjustment in a while:
        boosting the relative importance of Steals by 50%, on account of
        DanR's findings.

        My cutoff is 35.0 -- in my system, a hands-down allstar -- and you
        may consider 40.0 to be a bonafide superstar.

        Since 1990, only 7 different guards have hit the 40 mark. This
        includes McGrady, who is usually listed as a SF. Again, I'm not
        distinguishing PG and SG, and include those listed as G-F.

        1990
        50.0 Michael Jordan Chi
        44.1 Magic Johnson LA
        39.7 John Stockton Uta
        37.1 Kevin Johnson Phe
        36.7 Clyde Drexler Por
        35.0 Mark Price Cle

        1991
        50.8 Michael Jordan Chi
        43.1 Magic Johnson LA
        39.8 John Stockton Uta
        38.4 Kevin Johnson Phe
        36.7 Clyde Drexler Por
        35.5 Mark Price Cle
        35.1 Terry Porter Por

        1992
        46.9 Michael Jordan Chi
        40.4 Clyde Drexler Por
        38.3 John Stockton Uta
        35.6 Mark Price Cle

        1993
        48.6 Michael Jordan Chi
        36.1 Mark Price Cle
        35.1 John Stockton Uta

        1994
        37.8 John Stockton Uta
        36.5 Mark Price Cle

        1995
        39.1 (Michael Jordan Chi)
        38.8 John Stockton Uta
        37.2 Clyde Drexler Hou
        36.0 Rod Strickland Por

        1996
        48.5 Michael Jordan Chi
        40.0 Terrell Brandon Cle
        38.8 Anfernee Hardaway Orl
        36.3 John Stockton Uta
        35.7 Kevin Johnson Phe

        1997
        45.9 Michael Jordan Chi
        37.3 Gary Payton Sea
        37.0 Terrell Brandon Cle
        36.7 Tim Hardaway Mia
        36.7 Scottie Pippen Chi
        36.6 Kevin Johnson Phe
        36.5 John Stockton Uta
        35.3 Mitch Richmond Sac

        1998
        41.8 Michael Jordan Chi
        36.2 Gary Payton Sea
        35.5 Tim Hardaway Mia
        35.2 Scottie Pippen Chi

        1999
        37.2 Jason Kidd Phe
        36.8 Allen Iverson Phl
        36.4 Gary Payton Sea
        35.3 Darrel Armstrong Orl

        2000
        39.0 Gary Payton Sea
        37.8 Vince Carter Tor
        36.7 Kobe Bryant LAL

        2001
        39.7 Allen Iverson Phl
        39.6 Tracy McGrady Orl
        39.5 Vince Carter Tor
        38.8 Kobe Bryant LAL
        36.9 Paul Pierce Bos
        35.9 Jerry Stackhouse Det
        35.9 Ray Allen Mil
        35.7 Stephon Marbury NJ
        35.6 Gary Payton Sea
        35.0 Jason Kidd Phe

        2002
        40.7 Allen Iverson Phl
        40.0 Tracy McGrady Orl
        38.1 Kobe Bryant LAL
        37.8 Gary Payton Sea
        37.6 Paul Pierce Bos
        37.1 Michael Jordan Was
        35.6 Jason Kidd NJ
        35.5 Vince Carter Tor
        35.3 Andre Miller Cle

        2003
        45.8 Tracy Mcgrady Orl
        42.4 Kobe Bryant LAL
        39.0 Jason Kidd NJ
        38.6 Paul Pierce Bos
        36.6 Allen Iverson Phl

        Kidd's 2003 is much better than his much-hyped 2002.

        McGrady's 2003 is the most Jordanesque year anyone's put up, ever.

        What looks like a glut of top guards in 2001-2002 is partly just a
        lot of guys who land in the 35-36 range. Other years, several guys
        just miss.

        Stockton never hits 40.0; just missing a couple of times.

        Terrell Brandon's 1996 is by far the best performance that did not
        earn an all-NBA spot.

        Guys who haven't hit the 35 mark, and their closest approach:

        34.8 Steve Francis Hou 2001
        34.3 Dana Barros Phl 1995
        34.2 Mookie Blaylock Atl 1997
        34.2 Michael Adams Den 1991
        34.1 Ron Harper SD 1990
        33.8 Sam Cassell Mil 2002
        33.5 Reggie Miller Ind 1997
        33.5 Rickey Pierce Mil 1990
        33.3 Steve Nash Dal 2003
        33.1 Baron Davis Cha 2002
        33.0 Eddie Jones Cha 2000
      • carlos12155
        ... Well, part of the problem is that we are comparing players in different eras. Maybe John is measuring how effective are players relative to average
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
          > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...>
          > wrote:
          > >... I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and
          > even
          > > possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good
          > > argument/comparison). I remember Clyde had seasons of 25-7-6 or
          > > better at times. Are Ray and Reggie close in ratings because they
          > > turned the ball over less and shot a greater percentage in general?
          > >
          > > Does the PER slightly favor good shooters over overall players who
          > > might be slightly less efficient when it comes to shooting/scoring?
          >
          > Every rating system will have some players looking overrated
          > relative to others. Part of it is your perception, and part of it
          > is the system.
          >
          > Someday, a stat-head will list Tremaine Fowlkes up there with the
          > best. But meanwhile, I'd agree with your assessment that Drexler >
          > Allen, and >>> greater than Reggie, in their primes.
          >


          Well, part of the problem is that we are comparing players in
          different eras. Maybe John is measuring how effective are players
          relative to average efficiency. In that case the ratings are not
          really saying that Allen was the equal of Drexler, but that at his
          time Allen's production was as much above average production as
          Drexler's was in his.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.