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

Re: Ray Allen's PER vs Clydes?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.