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

they did it again

Expand Messages
  • Michael Stewart
    Zach Randolph won the Most Improved Player award, continuing a string a ridiculousness in the voting for this award. Is there anyone in this group who has
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 22, 2004
      Zach Randolph won the Most Improved Player award, continuing a string a
      ridiculousness in the voting for this award. Is there anyone in this
      group who has that Randolph improved at all, much less more than any other
      player in the league? My vote would have gone to James Posey, I think.
    • Andy Finkelstein
      I d ve voted for Carlos Boozer of Cleveland.... - Andy
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 22, 2004
        I'd've voted for Carlos Boozer of Cleveland....

        - Andy

        Michael Stewart wrote:

         Zach Randolph won the Most Improved Player award, continuing a string a
        ridiculousness in the voting for this award.  Is there anyone in this
        group who has that Randolph improved at all, much less more than any other
        player in the league?  My vote would have gone to James Posey, I think.

      • Mike G
        ... string a ... this ... any other ... think. My numbers have Zach improving quite a bit. He s an example of a player doing better with more minutes. Here s
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 23, 2004
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Michael Stewart
          <mlstewar@f...> wrote:
          > Zach Randolph won the Most Improved Player award, continuing a
          string a
          > ridiculousness in the voting for this award. Is there anyone in
          this
          > group who has that Randolph improved at all, much less more than
          any other
          > player in the league? My vote would have gone to James Posey, I
          think.

          My numbers have Zach improving quite a bit. He's an example of a
          player doing better with more minutes.

          Here's what I've got for last year and this year:

          yr G Min Eff% Sco. Reb. Ast PF. Stl TO. Blk - TRate
          03 77 17 .553 17.0 `9.1 1.0 3.3 1.0 1.5 0.3 - 26.8
          04 81 38 .526 21.6 11.4 2.2 2.8 0.8 3.0 0.5 - 33.4

          It's not unusual for a player to make strides from his 2nd to his
          3rd year. This award tends to go to a player who suddenly becomes
          a "star", which Zach was this year; last year, he wasn't.

          Last year, he was too good to be playing only 17 minutes. I sort of
          doubt he would have doubled his production last year, if his minutes
          had been doubled. This year, he did just that.


          Just a few days ago, I posted a list of 'most improved players':

          http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/message/3758
        • John Hollinger
          Definitely Posey. Of the top five vote-getters, Boozer improved a little, Posey improved a lot, and the other three didn t improve at all. ... string ... this
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 23, 2004
            Definitely Posey. Of the top five vote-getters, Boozer improved a
            little, Posey improved a lot, and the other three didn't improve at
            all.


            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Andy Finkelstein <andyf@b...>
            wrote:
            > I'd've voted for Carlos Boozer of Cleveland....
            >
            > - Andy
            >
            > Michael Stewart wrote:
            >
            > > Zach Randolph won the Most Improved Player award, continuing a
            string
            > > a
            > > ridiculousness in the voting for this award. Is there anyone in
            this
            > > group who has that Randolph improved at all, much less more than
            any
            > > other
            > > player in the league? My vote would have gone to James Posey, I
            > > think.
            > >
            > > --------------------------------------------------------------
            -
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/
            > >
            > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > > Service.
            > >
          • John Hollinger
            I don t understand how you rate Randolph as better than last year. Does your method inherently credit players for playing more minutes? Zach s 40-minute
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 23, 2004
              I don't understand how you rate Randolph as better than last year.
              Does your method inherently credit players for playing more minutes?
              Zach's 40-minute averages aren't much different and his FG% declined
              a fair amount.



              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
              > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Michael Stewart
              > <mlstewar@f...> wrote:
              > > Zach Randolph won the Most Improved Player award, continuing a
              > string a
              > > ridiculousness in the voting for this award. Is there anyone in
              > this
              > > group who has that Randolph improved at all, much less more than
              > any other
              > > player in the league? My vote would have gone to James Posey, I
              > think.
              >
              > My numbers have Zach improving quite a bit. He's an example of a
              > player doing better with more minutes.
              >
              > Here's what I've got for last year and this year:
              >
              > yr G Min Eff% Sco. Reb. Ast PF. Stl TO. Blk - TRate
              > 03 77 17 .553 17.0 `9.1 1.0 3.3 1.0 1.5 0.3 - 26.8
              > 04 81 38 .526 21.6 11.4 2.2 2.8 0.8 3.0 0.5 - 33.4
              >
              > It's not unusual for a player to make strides from his 2nd to his
              > 3rd year. This award tends to go to a player who suddenly becomes
              > a "star", which Zach was this year; last year, he wasn't.
              >
              > Last year, he was too good to be playing only 17 minutes. I sort
              of
              > doubt he would have doubled his production last year, if his
              minutes
              > had been doubled. This year, he did just that.
              >
              >
              > Just a few days ago, I posted a list of 'most improved players':
              >
              > http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/message/3758
            • Mike G
              ... minutes? ... declined ... If you play excellent ball for 17 minutes a game, you are giving your team quality minutes -- but only 17 a game. If you can play
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 23, 2004
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
                <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                > I don't understand how you rate Randolph as better than last year.
                > Does your method inherently credit players for playing more
                minutes?
                > Zach's 40-minute averages aren't much different and his FG%
                declined
                > a fair amount.

                If you play excellent ball for 17 minutes a game, you are giving
                your team quality minutes -- but only 17 a game.

                If you can play 37 minutes at the same high productivity, you are
                delivering a lot more for your team's investment in you.

                25 home runs in 300 at bats is not as good as 50 in 600.

                16 pass completions in 22 attempts, for 2 touchdowns, is better than
                8 in 11, for 1 score.

                A 20-8 pitching record is better than a 10-4 record.

                The player who can't play a whole game (or 3/4 of a game) generally
                has some flaws in his game. You might ask Mo Cheeks why he couldn't
                find Zach more time last year. I know Mo thinks Zach improved a lot
                this year.

                It's a likely consensus that the young man improved during the
                course of last season, and was coming into his own by playoff time.
                After an offseason of major workouts, he was much fitter for prime
                time this year.

                Surely we all agree the trivial example of a player stepping onto
                the court for one minute and scoring one point doesn't make him a 48
                PPG player. So at just what point are minutes entirely scaleable to
                the whole game?

                In 1986, Craig Ehlo averaged 2.7 pts in 5.5 MPG. This scales to 24
                in 48. The following year he averaged 20 minutes, at 15 P/48.

                Zach Randolph is one of only 5 players I could find (out of 47) with
                that kind of production in <20 MPG, who followed with a more
                productive year in more minutes. Of 47 player-seasons, 12 followed
                with fewer minutes; of the 35 whose MPG increased, 30 had reduced
                per-minute rates.







                >
                >
                >
                > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Michael Stewart
                > > <mlstewar@f...> wrote:
                > > > Zach Randolph won the Most Improved Player award, continuing a
                > > string a
                > > > ridiculousness in the voting for this award. Is there anyone
                in
                > > this
                > > > group who has that Randolph improved at all, much less more
                than
                > > any other
                > > > player in the league? My vote would have gone to James Posey,
                I
                > > think.
                > >
                > > My numbers have Zach improving quite a bit. He's an example of
                a
                > > player doing better with more minutes.
                > >
                > > Here's what I've got for last year and this year:
                > >
                > > yr G Min Eff% Sco. Reb. Ast PF. Stl TO. Blk - TRate
                > > 03 77 17 .553 17.0 `9.1 1.0 3.3 1.0 1.5 0.3 - 26.8
                > > 04 81 38 .526 21.6 11.4 2.2 2.8 0.8 3.0 0.5 - 33.4
                > >
                > > It's not unusual for a player to make strides from his 2nd to
                his
                > > 3rd year. This award tends to go to a player who suddenly
                becomes
                > > a "star", which Zach was this year; last year, he wasn't.
                > >
                > > Last year, he was too good to be playing only 17 minutes. I
                sort
                > of
                > > doubt he would have doubled his production last year, if his
                > minutes
                > > had been doubled. This year, he did just that.
                > >
                > >
                > > Just a few days ago, I posted a list of 'most improved players':
                > >
                > > http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/message/3758
              • Stephen Greenwell
                16 pass completions in 22 attempts, for 2 touchdowns, is better than 8 in 11, for 1 score. Not necessarily. In football, clock management is arguably more
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 24, 2004
                  16 pass completions in 22 attempts, for 2 touchdowns, is better than
                  8 in 11, for 1 score.

                  Not necessarily.  In football, clock management is arguably more important.  Therefore, 8 for 11 could be better, provided you killed the clock and won the game in the process.


                  A 20-8 pitching record is better than a 10-4 record.

                  Actually, pitching record is almost always team dependant, but let's not get into baseball right now.

                  The player who can't play a whole game (or 3/4 of a game) generally
                  has some flaws in his game.  You might ask Mo Cheeks why he couldn't
                  find Zach more time last year.  I know Mo thinks Zach improved a lot
                  this year. It's a likely consensus that the young man improved during the
                  course of last season, and was coming into his own by playoff time. 
                  After an offseason of major workouts, he was much fitter for prime
                  time this year.


                  I'd argue that Rasheed Wallace, Sabonis, and Dale Davis had a lot to do with Randolph not being discovered last year.  The Trailblazers are not an organization known for stability, and the talent recognition skills of their coach and front office are not perfect.  Randolph should have gotten the minutes that were going to Sabonis and Davis; that's a big reason why his numbers shot up.  With increased minutes in the playoffs of 03, he managed 13.9 ppg and 8.7 rebs in 29.3 mins.  Account for the natural decline due to the playoffs, and I bet that line is pretty similar to what he posted this year.

                  I view the PER as a tool to help determine what players might be unfairly buried in a team's rotation.  There's plenty of examples of low MPG players being projected to bigger and better things - Marquis Daniels, Michael Redd, and Zack Randolph to name three.  At the other end of the spectrum, it can also be used to identify players like Michael Curry who are no longer carrying their own weight.

                  Surely we all agree the trivial example of a player stepping onto
                  the court for one minute and scoring one point doesn't make him a 48
                  PPG player.  So at just what point are minutes entirely scaleable to
                  the whole game? 

                  I think finding this sort of "break even" point is necessary.  Hollinger puts it at 500 minutes, for which your Ehlo example wouldn't work.  500 minutes per season breaks out to about 6 per game; one shift a game if you want to break it down even further.  I personally would consider around ten minutes a good time selection, since it's more likely to produce "rotation" players.

                  Stephen Greenwell
                • tajallie@hotmail.com
                  ... I went back and checked the PER rating for the last five from 1997- 1998 to 2002-2003 season to see who successfully made jumps from not playing but being
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 27, 2004
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
                    <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                    > Definitely Posey. Of the top five vote-getters, Boozer improved a
                    > little, Posey improved a lot, and the other three didn't improve at
                    > all.
                    >
                    >

                    I went back and checked the PER rating for the last five from 1997-
                    1998 to 2002-2003 season to see who successfully made jumps from not
                    playing but being very effective to playing lots and maintianing that
                    level. The were 28 player seasons who averaged less than 10PPG and
                    still finished in the top 50 for that seasons PER rating.

                    Clearly a number of these players were on the downside (Shawn
                    Bradley, Sabonis, Mark Jackson, Dana Barros) rather than the upside
                    of their careers and one player - Ben Wallace - was an all-star level
                    performer (13 rpg) despite his low offensive contribution. Of the
                    remianing players, not a single one went from a top 50 per level in
                    limited minutes to All Star the following season in extended minutes.
                    Two players T-Mac (2 years later) and Brad Miller (3 years later) did
                    improve to All-Star performance in following seasons.

                    The case of high PER rating for young players who don't make the jump
                    included:

                    97-98
                    Mark Strickland
                    Brevin Knight
                    Tyus Edney

                    98-99
                    Brad Miller
                    T-Mac
                    Malik Rose
                    Jerome Williams

                    99-00
                    Fortson
                    Brad Miller
                    Moochie
                    Lawerance Funderbunke
                    Aarron Williams

                    00-01
                    Nazr Mohammand
                    Carlos Rogers
                    Todd MacCulloch
                    Eddie Robinson

                    01-02
                    Jamaar Magloire (yes an All-Star this year, but really a function of
                    his conference)
                    Jon Barry (borderline on age, but arguable still on upside of career)
                    Ben Wallace (All-Star)

                    02-03
                    Zach
                    Swift

                    I agree that both Posey and Boozer had great years and impressive
                    improvement (neither was in the top 50 PER in 02-03), but making the
                    jump from a all-star PER in limited minutes to all start PER in
                    starter minutes seems harder than it would appear. This year there
                    are a number of players - Marquis and Antonio Daniels, Brian
                    Cardinal, Swift (again), and Memhet Okur who fit that criteria. I
                    doubt any of the them will be all-star level next year, although if I
                    had to guess I would take Okur playing for someone other than Detroit.

                    PS I know that Zach was not an all-star but I think it reasonable to
                    assume that Zach and Brand were the last two snubs and both were
                    certainly as deserving as Jamaar (or IMO Brad Miller who I beleive
                    benefits greatly from playing at Sac, although last night he sure
                    looked better than Webber).

                    > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Andy Finkelstein <andyf@b...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > I'd've voted for Carlos Boozer of Cleveland....
                    > >
                    > > - Andy
                    > >
                    > > Michael Stewart wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > Zach Randolph won the Most Improved Player award, continuing a
                    > string
                    > > > a
                    > > > ridiculousness in the voting for this award. Is there anyone
                    in
                    > this
                    > > > group who has that Randolph improved at all, much less more
                    than
                    > any
                    > > > other
                    > > > player in the league? My vote would have gone to James Posey, I
                    > > > think.
                    > > >
                    > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
                    --
                    > -
                    > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > >
                    > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/
                    > > >
                    > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > > > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > > >
                    > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                    > > > Service.
                    > > >
                  • Kevin Pelton
                    I think both of the recent discussions here come down to one thing: context. One aspect of Harrington s context has already been alluded to -- the level of
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 27, 2004
                      I think both of the recent discussions here come down to one thing:
                      context.

                      One aspect of Harrington's context has already been alluded to --
                      the level of opposition. There are many more differences between his
                      performance and Prince's, however.

                      Al Harrington has been in the NBA for six seasons, and while he's
                      come off the bench, he's been a regular player. We know more or less
                      what he's capable of and where he is as a player. Tayshaun Prince,
                      on the other hand, barely played during the regular seaosn as a
                      rookie, and his ability to contribute at the NBA level largely
                      remained a question mark.

                      Along the same lines, Harrington's production isn't so far from
                      expectations for him as Prince becoming a major contributor was.

                      Context also matters for Zach Randolph. I think you do yourself a
                      major disservice to lump all players whose productivity exceeds
                      their production (that is, good performance in limited minutes)
                      together, as there are numerous reasons for this.

                      In Randolph's case, we're talking about a second-year player on a
                      veteran, competitive team, playing behind a former All-Star not far
                      removed from his prime. From my outside perspective, it doesn't seem
                      that Maurice Cheeks really accepted the possibility of playing
                      Randolph and Wallace together until injuries necessitated it during
                      the playoffs -- when Randolph continued to be as outstanding as he
                      was in limited regular-season minutes and was a major factor in the
                      Blazers coming back to take the Mavericks the distance.

                      Given those facts, it seems reasonable to me that Randolph's ability
                      was better than his playing time indicated, and he was a breakout
                      candidate.

                      This is not the case with other players. Stromile Swift might be a
                      good example. At center, Swift is behind an adequate but certainly
                      not outstanding starter in Lorenzen Wright, with plenty of playing
                      time available because he can also play power forward.

                      Swift rates very well by our systems, but my observation has been
                      that he is one of the least intelligent players in the league, a
                      major reason he doesn't play more than he does.

                      Looking at the players listed this season, besides Swift, we see
                      other players whose "breakout" credentials are limited at best.

                      Antonio Daniels is a 29-year-old who never previously approximated
                      this level of performance in six NBA seasons. I don't think anyone
                      who followed him this season -- not even me, one of his biggest
                      fans -- would say that the statistics we calculate for Daniels
                      really reflect his performance on the court.

                      Brian Cardinal is an intriguing case, as a 26-year-old who had
                      barely played during his first three seasons. I think he will
                      continue to be a contributor next season, but repeating this year's
                      performance seems unlikely.

                      Mehmet Okur is already a starter who, barring a change of team, is
                      unlikely to see his role change significantly next season.

                      Marquis Daniels is the most similar player to Randolph, as a young
                      player on a competing team. Unlike Randolph, Daniels has gotten a
                      chance to be a major contributor, although it has not come until
                      late in the season, which means his overall per-game statistics are
                      relatively poor. He's the best test of the hypothesis next season.
                      If he stays in Dallas, he seems a good bet to maintain his
                      performance as a starter...

                      Hmm, now I actually look at his performance as a starter for the
                      first time since Dallas played the Sonics April 10, and I realize
                      it's a lot better than I realized -- 17.9 points, 5.6 rebounds, 4.5
                      assists, 51.8% shooting. That will be tough to keep up. But it
                      wouldn't be a surprise to see him make a run like Randolph at MIP if
                      a team was smart enough to offer him more money than the Mavericks
                      are willing to match.

                      One interesting player your analysis misses because he averaged 10.9
                      points per game is last season's MIP, the reason this post is
                      titled "Re: they did it _again_", Gilbert Arenas. Arenas may not
                      have been mentioned in All-Star discussions last season, but it's my
                      opinion he was every bit as effective as Randolph this season.

                      An alternative method to identifying Randolph-type players is
                      provided by Kevin Broom of RealGM.com, who sent me his system a few
                      weeks ago. I've made some slight alterations. Using any per-minute
                      rating you like, the formula is:

                      (EFF*48) - (EFF/G) + (EFF-LGEFF)*48,

                      where LGEFF is the league average per-minute by that rating. I've
                      then cut down the lists by excluding

                      a) Players who played more than 25 mpg, and thus can already be
                      considered regulars
                      b) Players who played less than 500 min
                      c) Players over 25 years of age

                      Kevin described this, and I agree, as a "shopping list" of sorts for
                      GMs -- you want to go through and do the analysis I've done above to
                      see if these guys are statistical flukes or really potential
                      breakout players.

                      Here are some top players by year:

                      2003-04
                      18.9 - Rodney White
                      18.6 - Marquis Daniels
                      18.6 - David West
                      17.5 - Stromile Swift
                      17.3 - Rasual Butler

                      2002-03
                      20.4 - Zach Randolph
                      18.6 - Etan Thomas
                      18.4 - Eddy Curry (ouch)
                      17.5 - Jerome Moiso (ouch)
                      16.8 - Lonny Baxter

                      2001-02
                      20.6 - Stanislav Medvedenko
                      19.1 - Jamaal Magloire
                      18.6 - Michael Redd
                      18.6 - Etan Thomas
                      18.1 - Jake Voskuhl

                      2000-01
                      24.8 - Todd MacCulloch
                      19.4 - Nazr Mohammed
                      19.1 - Paul McPherson (I'm going to sign this guy when I get a team)
                      17.8 - Eddie Robinson (ouch)
                      17.0 - Corey Maggette
                    • tajallie@hotmail.com
                      Don t rule out White, a unrestricted free agent . . .in the right place despite certain weaknesses in his game he could certainly be pretty interesting. After
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 27, 2004
                        Don't rule out White, a unrestricted free agent . . .in the right
                        place despite certain weaknesses in his game he could certainly be
                        pretty interesting.

                        After watching Daniels in the playoffs, I wonder if he isn't a great
                        comp; but if you recall Eddie Robinson pulled a similiar stunt (one
                        good season of production with low minutes, young player, good
                        playoffs) signed a big contract (Chicago) and disappeared. Granted
                        he was injured and that might explain the drop off.

                        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton"
                        <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                        > I think both of the recent discussions here come down to one
                        thing:
                        > context.
                        >
                        > One aspect of Harrington's context has already been alluded to --
                        > the level of opposition. There are many more differences between
                        his
                        > performance and Prince's, however.
                        >
                        > Al Harrington has been in the NBA for six seasons, and while he's
                        > come off the bench, he's been a regular player. We know more or
                        less
                        > what he's capable of and where he is as a player. Tayshaun Prince,
                        > on the other hand, barely played during the regular seaosn as a
                        > rookie, and his ability to contribute at the NBA level largely
                        > remained a question mark.
                        >
                        > Along the same lines, Harrington's production isn't so far from
                        > expectations for him as Prince becoming a major contributor was.
                        >
                        > Context also matters for Zach Randolph. I think you do yourself a
                        > major disservice to lump all players whose productivity exceeds
                        > their production (that is, good performance in limited minutes)
                        > together, as there are numerous reasons for this.
                        >
                        > In Randolph's case, we're talking about a second-year player on a
                        > veteran, competitive team, playing behind a former All-Star not
                        far
                        > removed from his prime. From my outside perspective, it doesn't
                        seem
                        > that Maurice Cheeks really accepted the possibility of playing
                        > Randolph and Wallace together until injuries necessitated it
                        during
                        > the playoffs -- when Randolph continued to be as outstanding as he
                        > was in limited regular-season minutes and was a major factor in
                        the
                        > Blazers coming back to take the Mavericks the distance.
                        >
                        > Given those facts, it seems reasonable to me that Randolph's
                        ability
                        > was better than his playing time indicated, and he was a breakout
                        > candidate.
                        >
                        > This is not the case with other players. Stromile Swift might be a
                        > good example. At center, Swift is behind an adequate but certainly
                        > not outstanding starter in Lorenzen Wright, with plenty of playing
                        > time available because he can also play power forward.
                        >
                        > Swift rates very well by our systems, but my observation has been
                        > that he is one of the least intelligent players in the league, a
                        > major reason he doesn't play more than he does.
                        >
                        > Looking at the players listed this season, besides Swift, we see
                        > other players whose "breakout" credentials are limited at best.
                        >
                        > Antonio Daniels is a 29-year-old who never previously approximated
                        > this level of performance in six NBA seasons. I don't think anyone
                        > who followed him this season -- not even me, one of his biggest
                        > fans -- would say that the statistics we calculate for Daniels
                        > really reflect his performance on the court.
                        >
                        > Brian Cardinal is an intriguing case, as a 26-year-old who had
                        > barely played during his first three seasons. I think he will
                        > continue to be a contributor next season, but repeating this
                        year's
                        > performance seems unlikely.
                        >
                        > Mehmet Okur is already a starter who, barring a change of team, is
                        > unlikely to see his role change significantly next season.
                        >
                        > Marquis Daniels is the most similar player to Randolph, as a young
                        > player on a competing team. Unlike Randolph, Daniels has gotten a
                        > chance to be a major contributor, although it has not come until
                        > late in the season, which means his overall per-game statistics
                        are
                        > relatively poor. He's the best test of the hypothesis next season.
                        > If he stays in Dallas, he seems a good bet to maintain his
                        > performance as a starter...
                        >
                        > Hmm, now I actually look at his performance as a starter for the
                        > first time since Dallas played the Sonics April 10, and I realize
                        > it's a lot better than I realized -- 17.9 points, 5.6 rebounds,
                        4.5
                        > assists, 51.8% shooting. That will be tough to keep up. But it
                        > wouldn't be a surprise to see him make a run like Randolph at MIP
                        if
                        > a team was smart enough to offer him more money than the Mavericks
                        > are willing to match.
                        >
                        > One interesting player your analysis misses because he averaged
                        10.9
                        > points per game is last season's MIP, the reason this post is
                        > titled "Re: they did it _again_", Gilbert Arenas. Arenas may not
                        > have been mentioned in All-Star discussions last season, but it's
                        my
                        > opinion he was every bit as effective as Randolph this season.
                        >
                        > An alternative method to identifying Randolph-type players is
                        > provided by Kevin Broom of RealGM.com, who sent me his system a
                        few
                        > weeks ago. I've made some slight alterations. Using any per-minute
                        > rating you like, the formula is:
                        >
                        > (EFF*48) - (EFF/G) + (EFF-LGEFF)*48,
                        >
                        > where LGEFF is the league average per-minute by that rating. I've
                        > then cut down the lists by excluding
                        >
                        > a) Players who played more than 25 mpg, and thus can already be
                        > considered regulars
                        > b) Players who played less than 500 min
                        > c) Players over 25 years of age
                        >
                        > Kevin described this, and I agree, as a "shopping list" of sorts
                        for
                        > GMs -- you want to go through and do the analysis I've done above
                        to
                        > see if these guys are statistical flukes or really potential
                        > breakout players.
                        >
                        > Here are some top players by year:
                        >
                        > 2003-04
                        > 18.9 - Rodney White
                        > 18.6 - Marquis Daniels
                        > 18.6 - David West
                        > 17.5 - Stromile Swift
                        > 17.3 - Rasual Butler
                        >
                        > 2002-03
                        > 20.4 - Zach Randolph
                        > 18.6 - Etan Thomas
                        > 18.4 - Eddy Curry (ouch)
                        > 17.5 - Jerome Moiso (ouch)
                        > 16.8 - Lonny Baxter
                        >
                        > 2001-02
                        > 20.6 - Stanislav Medvedenko
                        > 19.1 - Jamaal Magloire
                        > 18.6 - Michael Redd
                        > 18.6 - Etan Thomas
                        > 18.1 - Jake Voskuhl
                        >
                        > 2000-01
                        > 24.8 - Todd MacCulloch
                        > 19.4 - Nazr Mohammed
                        > 19.1 - Paul McPherson (I'm going to sign this guy when I get a
                        team)
                        > 17.8 - Eddie Robinson (ouch)
                        > 17.0 - Corey Maggette
                      • Mike G
                        ... As a Pacer fan, I d surely like to know what to expect from Harrington. Before 2 weeks ago, he had no playoff contributions to speak of. He had in his
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 28, 2004
                          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton"
                          <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                          > ...Harrington's production isn't so far from
                          > expectations...

                          As a Pacer fan, I'd surely like to know what to expect from
                          Harrington.

                          Before 2 weeks ago, he had no playoff contributions to speak of.

                          He had in his career made 9 of 46 shots (.196), with 26 rebounds in
                          143 minutes.

                          In 4 games, he hit 24 of 47, with 39 rebounds in 126 minutes.

                          Is he a superstar? Or is he a CBA guy?


                          > ...
                          > Antonio Daniels is a 29-year-old who never previously approximated
                          > this level of performance in six NBA seasons. I don't think anyone
                          > who followed him this season -- not even me, one of his biggest
                          > fans -- would say that the statistics we calculate for Daniels
                          > really reflect his performance on the court.

                          I'm curious what performance aspect are not reflected in his stats?

                          Also, Daniels career looks to be back on track, after 2 bad years.
                          One bad year (last year in Portland) appears to have been injury-
                          affected. The previous year (in SA), I don't know.

                          His 3-point shot abandoned him during those 2 seasons. Now he's
                          back to .400 at the arc. He also gets to the line more. His TO's
                          have dropped, consistent with a maturing player.

                          He's also got more assists in his new role. In all, he appears very
                          similar to the Antonio of 2001.

                          >
                          > Brian Cardinal is an intriguing case, as a 26-year-old who had
                          > barely played during his first three seasons. I think he will
                          > continue to be a contributor next season, but repeating this
                          year's
                          > performance seems unlikely.

                          Didn't he cool off somewhat during the season? Maybe the surprise
                          element wore off, and opponents took him more seriously. One might
                          look at his 2nd-half stats as a better predictor.

                          >
                          > Mehmet Okur is already a starter who, barring a change of team, is
                          > unlikely to see his role change significantly next season.

                          Lotta big men in Detroit.

                          >
                          > Marquis Daniels is the most similar player to Randolph, as a young
                          > player on a competing team. Unlike Randolph, Daniels has gotten a
                          > chance to be a major contributor,

                          Marquis got his MPG up to about 19, so they're comparable.

                          In the playoffs, he's averaging 40. But his shooting has tanked,
                          while TO have soared. He's still better than Finley, but Jamison is
                          better.
                        • Kevin Pelton
                          ... Agreed. I was going to add him to my discussion of Daniels, but something went haywire between my brain and the keyboard. ... Robinson had two really good
                          Message 12 of 14 , Apr 28, 2004
                            > Don't rule out White, a unrestricted free agent . . .in the right
                            > place despite certain weaknesses in his game he could certainly be
                            > pretty interesting.

                            Agreed. I was going to add him to my discussion of Daniels, but
                            something went haywire between my brain and the keyboard.

                            > After watching Daniels in the playoffs, I wonder if he isn't a great
                            > comp; but if you recall Eddie Robinson pulled a similiar stunt (one
                            > good season of production with low minutes, young player, good
                            > playoffs) signed a big contract (Chicago) and disappeared. Granted
                            > he was injured and that might explain the drop off.

                            Robinson had two really good years as a low-minutes contributor, so I
                            certainly would have thought he would have continued to play well in
                            Chicago.

                            Besides MacCulloch, that was a bad year for "breakout" free agents.
                            Nazr Mohammed didn't exactly shine in Atlanta, and lurking somewhere
                            below the top ten is your friend and mine, Calvin Booth.

                            > Before 2 weeks ago, he had no playoff contributions to speak of.
                            >
                            > He had in his career made 9 of 46 shots (.196), with 26 rebounds in
                            > 143 minutes.
                            >
                            > In 4 games, he hit 24 of 47, with 39 rebounds in 126 minutes.
                            >
                            > Is he a superstar? Or is he a CBA guy?

                            That's assuming an awfully high amount of variability between playoff
                            performance and regular-season performance. Certainly some guys
                            perform relatively better in the postseason, but no quality player is
                            going to become "a CBA guy" just because the calendar changes. 143
                            minutes screams "sample size!"

                            > I'm curious what performance aspect are not reflected in his stats?

                            The appropriate word I should have used is "value". He rates as one
                            of the top guards in the league, and I don't know anyone who thought
                            he was the best point guard on the Sonics.

                            > He's also got more assists in his new role. In all, he appears
                            > very similar to the Antonio of 2001.

                            Perhaps the changes in any one category are minor, but when you add
                            them up, I think the overall difference in (statistical) production
                            is pretty significant.

                            > Didn't he cool off somewhat during the season? Maybe the surprise
                            > element wore off, and opponents took him more seriously. One might
                            > look at his 2nd-half stats as a better predictor.

                            He finished the season pretty strong, and his second-half numbers
                            were similar to his overall performance. Courtesy Doug (
                            http://www.dougstats.com/03-04/GSWarriorsLF.html ), he averaged 10.7
                            points and 4.1 rebounds on 46% shooting, 46.4% from downtown and
                            87.2% from the line for 25.87 "tendex" points per 48 minutes.

                            Overall, he was at 9.6, 4.2, 47.2%, 44.4%, 87.8%, 24.64 tendex/48.
                          • tajallie@hotmail.com
                            It occurred to me last night laying bed agonizing over Melo s non- appearance in a game where 4-16 would probably have been enough to scare the s_ _t out of
                            Message 13 of 14 , Apr 28, 2004
                              It occurred to me last night laying bed agonizing over 'Melo's non-
                              appearance in a game where 4-16 would probably have been enough to
                              scare the s_ _t out of MN that we are mixing two distinct issues:
                              projected beak-out years and MIP.

                              Furthurmore, on second thought, I wondered if Gilbert was really a
                              good comp to Zach for MIP. Arenas played a pretty important role at
                              Arizona and was their best player on the team that lost in the
                              championship game. He dropped to the second round in draft, but was
                              really a decent player from the get-go. Zach, only played a single
                              year in college (MSU, a final-four year) and averaged 20 minutes a
                              game. He was still basically a high school kids and hadn't quite
                              finished developing physically (kind of pudgy, remember the Shawn
                              Kemp - Zach jokes).His improvement from when he came into the league
                              to Dallas series was pretty extraordinary, much greater than anything
                              Posey, Boozer, or Arenas did . . .more comparable to J O'Neal
                              (although O'Neal got stuck on the Blazer bench for an extra year when
                              he was ready to contribute).
                            • John Hollinger
                              I completely disagree on Swift. He was used as a backup center, but he s 6-9 and 225 pounds. In other words, he s a power forward whose minutes are blocked by
                              Message 14 of 14 , Apr 30, 2004
                                I completely disagree on Swift. He was used as a backup center, but
                                he's 6-9 and 225 pounds. In other words, he's a power forward whose
                                minutes are blocked by Pau Gasol. Hubie just used him at backup
                                center because they didn't have anyone else. I think he's very
                                similar to Randolph in terms of being a guy who would give 20 and 10
                                with marginal defense as a starter.



                                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton" <kpelton08@h...>
                                wrote:
                                > I think both of the recent discussions here come down to one thing:
                                > context.
                                >
                                > One aspect of Harrington's context has already been alluded to --
                                > the level of opposition. There are many more differences between
                                his
                                > performance and Prince's, however.
                                >
                                > Al Harrington has been in the NBA for six seasons, and while he's
                                > come off the bench, he's been a regular player. We know more or
                                less
                                > what he's capable of and where he is as a player. Tayshaun Prince,
                                > on the other hand, barely played during the regular seaosn as a
                                > rookie, and his ability to contribute at the NBA level largely
                                > remained a question mark.
                                >
                                > Along the same lines, Harrington's production isn't so far from
                                > expectations for him as Prince becoming a major contributor was.
                                >
                                > Context also matters for Zach Randolph. I think you do yourself a
                                > major disservice to lump all players whose productivity exceeds
                                > their production (that is, good performance in limited minutes)
                                > together, as there are numerous reasons for this.
                                >
                                > In Randolph's case, we're talking about a second-year player on a
                                > veteran, competitive team, playing behind a former All-Star not far
                                > removed from his prime. From my outside perspective, it doesn't
                                seem
                                > that Maurice Cheeks really accepted the possibility of playing
                                > Randolph and Wallace together until injuries necessitated it during
                                > the playoffs -- when Randolph continued to be as outstanding as he
                                > was in limited regular-season minutes and was a major factor in the
                                > Blazers coming back to take the Mavericks the distance.
                                >
                                > Given those facts, it seems reasonable to me that Randolph's
                                ability
                                > was better than his playing time indicated, and he was a breakout
                                > candidate.
                                >
                                > This is not the case with other players. Stromile Swift might be a
                                > good example. At center, Swift is behind an adequate but certainly
                                > not outstanding starter in Lorenzen Wright, with plenty of playing
                                > time available because he can also play power forward.
                                >
                                > Swift rates very well by our systems, but my observation has been
                                > that he is one of the least intelligent players in the league, a
                                > major reason he doesn't play more than he does.
                                >
                                > Looking at the players listed this season, besides Swift, we see
                                > other players whose "breakout" credentials are limited at best.
                                >
                                > Antonio Daniels is a 29-year-old who never previously approximated
                                > this level of performance in six NBA seasons. I don't think anyone
                                > who followed him this season -- not even me, one of his biggest
                                > fans -- would say that the statistics we calculate for Daniels
                                > really reflect his performance on the court.
                                >
                                > Brian Cardinal is an intriguing case, as a 26-year-old who had
                                > barely played during his first three seasons. I think he will
                                > continue to be a contributor next season, but repeating this year's
                                > performance seems unlikely.
                                >
                                > Mehmet Okur is already a starter who, barring a change of team, is
                                > unlikely to see his role change significantly next season.
                                >
                                > Marquis Daniels is the most similar player to Randolph, as a young
                                > player on a competing team. Unlike Randolph, Daniels has gotten a
                                > chance to be a major contributor, although it has not come until
                                > late in the season, which means his overall per-game statistics are
                                > relatively poor. He's the best test of the hypothesis next season.
                                > If he stays in Dallas, he seems a good bet to maintain his
                                > performance as a starter...
                                >
                                > Hmm, now I actually look at his performance as a starter for the
                                > first time since Dallas played the Sonics April 10, and I realize
                                > it's a lot better than I realized -- 17.9 points, 5.6 rebounds, 4.5
                                > assists, 51.8% shooting. That will be tough to keep up. But it
                                > wouldn't be a surprise to see him make a run like Randolph at MIP
                                if
                                > a team was smart enough to offer him more money than the Mavericks
                                > are willing to match.
                                >
                                > One interesting player your analysis misses because he averaged
                                10.9
                                > points per game is last season's MIP, the reason this post is
                                > titled "Re: they did it _again_", Gilbert Arenas. Arenas may not
                                > have been mentioned in All-Star discussions last season, but it's
                                my
                                > opinion he was every bit as effective as Randolph this season.
                                >
                                > An alternative method to identifying Randolph-type players is
                                > provided by Kevin Broom of RealGM.com, who sent me his system a few
                                > weeks ago. I've made some slight alterations. Using any per-minute
                                > rating you like, the formula is:
                                >
                                > (EFF*48) - (EFF/G) + (EFF-LGEFF)*48,
                                >
                                > where LGEFF is the league average per-minute by that rating. I've
                                > then cut down the lists by excluding
                                >
                                > a) Players who played more than 25 mpg, and thus can already be
                                > considered regulars
                                > b) Players who played less than 500 min
                                > c) Players over 25 years of age
                                >
                                > Kevin described this, and I agree, as a "shopping list" of sorts
                                for
                                > GMs -- you want to go through and do the analysis I've done above
                                to
                                > see if these guys are statistical flukes or really potential
                                > breakout players.
                                >
                                > Here are some top players by year:
                                >
                                > 2003-04
                                > 18.9 - Rodney White
                                > 18.6 - Marquis Daniels
                                > 18.6 - David West
                                > 17.5 - Stromile Swift
                                > 17.3 - Rasual Butler
                                >
                                > 2002-03
                                > 20.4 - Zach Randolph
                                > 18.6 - Etan Thomas
                                > 18.4 - Eddy Curry (ouch)
                                > 17.5 - Jerome Moiso (ouch)
                                > 16.8 - Lonny Baxter
                                >
                                > 2001-02
                                > 20.6 - Stanislav Medvedenko
                                > 19.1 - Jamaal Magloire
                                > 18.6 - Michael Redd
                                > 18.6 - Etan Thomas
                                > 18.1 - Jake Voskuhl
                                >
                                > 2000-01
                                > 24.8 - Todd MacCulloch
                                > 19.4 - Nazr Mohammed
                                > 19.1 - Paul McPherson (I'm going to sign this guy when I get a team)
                                > 17.8 - Eddie Robinson (ouch)
                                > 17.0 - Corey Maggette
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.