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

Re: John Starks vs. Latrell Sprewell and the System? : How Does Subjectivity, Statis

Expand Messages
  • mrintp2000
    Well, like you showed in your other post their PER s weren t overly impressive. Spree s all time best PER was 19.22 in 96-97, his last year in GS. I m from the
    Message 1 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, like you showed in your other post their PER's weren't overly
      impressive. Spree's all time best PER was 19.22 in 96-97, his last
      year in GS. I'm from the Bay Area, he was actually my favorite
      player. But he ranked behind: MJ, Penny, Richmond, Drexler, and
      Miller at the 2. I think Spree sacrificed his own production playing
      the 3 in NY all those years when he is really a prototype 2. And by
      the time he got to NY he didn't have that freaky athleticism
      anymore. He really was a shutdown defender those first couple years
      in GS, too bad we don't have the PER's of opposing 2's to prove it.

      As for Starks, I never thought he was much of a player. He was
      feisty and I remember him being a decent passer. At his best he was
      maybe the 13th best 2 in the league, meaning at his best he was an
      average starter. He also missed a lot of games due to injury. If he
      didn't play for the Knicks nobody would even know his name, well we
      all would but you know what I mean.


      In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
      > Why are they overatted, from your subjective viewpoint?
    • nickouli5
      Well the thing with PER is guys like Marquis Daniels are in the Top 5. He defnetely was not a Top 5 SG this season. Maybe it points to his potential, but on
      Message 2 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Well the thing with PER is guys like Marquis Daniels are in the Top 5.

        He defnetely was not a Top 5 SG this season. Maybe it points to his
        potential, but on the other hand maybe he was just efficient in the
        Dallas HIGH Paced system. Maybe if he goes to the Detroit Pistons or
        Indiana Pacers he wouldn't even be a factor in a slow Paced offense.
        It wasn't like Marquis had blinding speed, was a great passer, great
        shooter etc... He seemed like a solid mid-range shooter who
        flourished in the open court game, and had above average
        athleticism. But Top 5 SG? I don't know if watching him in his
        rookie season you would get the impression he would be a Top 5 SG
        anytime in the near future.

        Regarding John Starks -- I think he could have been a pretty good
        player outside of NY if he went to a team that got in trasition a
        little bit more. He probably got more PUB due to being in NY, but I
        doubt scoring 19ppg 5apg and playing solid defense is just being an
        average starter when playing for a Top 5 team in the league. Oakley
        was solid, and so was Charlies Smith, and Mason in 1992-93, but
        Starks was the one who hit big shots down the stretch of games. He
        was the one who could take control of games with his tenacity. That
        won't show up in the stats, but there were more efficient guards, who
        underacheieved a lot more than Starks down the stretch of games. Is
        it fair to write off Starks who was a big part of their 60 win
        season? Ewing and Oakley alone weren't the ones getting them 60
        wins. Starks was a pretty big factor, efficient or not. I Say his
        best season he was a Top 8-11 SG.

        This is why I have somewhat of a problem with the PER, its too easy
        to dismiss the guys who DO RAISE THEIR GAME in the 4th quarter or
        play well against big teams like the Lakers. If I were to look at
        PER's I could also deduce Isiah Thomas was barely a Top 10 PG in any
        season -- but we all know in crunch time he could be the best PG in
        the game with Magic Johnson (better than the more efficient Mark
        Price or Kevin Johnson etc....).

        So what does that say about rating players? If we go by pure
        statisticals ratings such as PER its easy to dispell many players as
        ovveratted. Does that mean we also give credit to suprise players
        who are highly rated but for some reason still aren't given props,
        and they are simply random examples of those who create the "laugh
        test" in this type of rating schemes.

        Tony Parker didn't even graze the Top 20 PER and yet some are saying
        he is already a Top 10 PG or even Top 5! Why is that? There seems to
        be sort of a double standard and subjectivity, or at least most are't
        willing to say who they beleive are Top 10 calibur players of their
        positions.

        Do you mind if I ask you, based on all the rating schemes, stats,
        personal viewing of the playoffs, regular season games -- what would
        be your Top 10 SG List right now for the upcoming season? Without
        taking a look back at PER's or any other rating scheme.......

        Just curious.
      • mrintp2000
        ... He may turn out to be a very good player but I dont think Daniels was productive at all last year. Daniels is a good example of why I think the PER-diff
        Message 3 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          ---
          In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
          > Well the thing with PER is guys like Marquis Daniels are in the Top 5.
          >
          > He defnetely was not a Top 5 SG this season. Maybe it points to his
          > potential, but on the other hand maybe he was just efficient in the
          > Dallas HIGH Paced system.

          He may turn out to be a very good player but I dont' think Daniels was
          productive at all last year. Daniels is a good example of why I think
          the PER-diff is so much more valuable than the PER. He was actually
          -0.4 PER-diff at the 2 guard spot, he appears to be a bad defender. He
          also was at the bottom of the +/- rankings for his team.


          > Regarding John Starks -- I think he could have been a pretty good
          > player outside of NY if he went to a team that got in trasition a
          > little bit more. He probably got more PUB due to being in NY, but I
          > doubt scoring 19ppg 5apg and playing solid defense is just being an
          > average starter when playing for a Top 5 team in the league. Oakley
          > was solid, and so was Charlies Smith, and Mason in 1992-93, but
          > Starks was the one who hit big shots down the stretch of games. He
          > was the one who could take control of games with his tenacity. That
          > won't show up in the stats, but there were more efficient guards, who
          > underacheieved a lot more than Starks down the stretch of games. Is
          > it fair to write off Starks who was a big part of their 60 win
          > season? Ewing and Oakley alone weren't the ones getting them 60
          > wins. Starks was a pretty big factor, efficient or not. I Say his
          > best season he was a Top 8-11 SG.

          You may be right, but that still means at his best he wasn't an
          all-star. As far as him being clutch I'd like to see more stats to
          back that up.
          >
          > This is why I have somewhat of a problem with the PER, its too easy
          > to dismiss the guys who DO RAISE THEIR GAME in the 4th quarter or
          > play well against big teams like the Lakers. If I were to look at
          > PER's I could also deduce Isiah Thomas was barely a Top 10 PG in any
          > season -- but we all know in crunch time he could be the best PG in
          > the game with Magic Johnson (better than the more efficient Mark
          > Price or Kevin Johnson etc....).

          I doubt Isiah was not in the top five of PG's PER ranks during his
          best years. But honestly I don't know that he was a true superstar.
          >
          > So what does that say about rating players? If we go by pure
          > statisticals ratings such as PER its easy to dispell many players as
          > ovveratted. Does that mean we also give credit to suprise players
          > who are highly rated but for some reason still aren't given props,
          > and they are simply random examples of those who create the "laugh
          > test" in this type of rating schemes.
          >
          > Tony Parker didn't even graze the Top 20 PER and yet some are saying
          > he is already a Top 10 PG or even Top 5! Why is that? There seems to
          > be sort of a double standard and subjectivity, or at least most are't
          > willing to say who they beleive are Top 10 calibur players of their
          > positions.

          I've got Tony Parker rated as the tenth best PG in terms of PER-diff
          among guys who started at the point. Really I think that's about right
          based on his performance, he did step up in the playoffs but only to
          about the level that Billups and Cassell were at during the regular
          season.
          >
          > Do you mind if I ask you, based on all the rating schemes, stats,
          > personal viewing of the playoffs, regular season games -- what would
          > be your Top 10 SG List right now for the upcoming season? Without
          > taking a look back at PER's or any other rating scheme.......

          OK let me preface this by saying that Lebron James is a 3 and the Cavs
          are stupid if they play him at guard again. So I'm not going to
          include him. Here's my guess as to who will be the top ten SG's next
          season (in order)

          TMAC
          Kobe
          Ray Allen
          Pierce
          Carter
          Wade (he's not a PG!!!!!)
          Ginobili
          Redd
          Hamilton
          Iverson

          I also think Desmond Mason and Mickael Pietrus would crack the top ten
          if given starters minutes at the 2.

          How close is my list to yours?
        • Gabe Farkas
          seriously, i would think the opposite. if such a thing as intangibles can be measured, Spree gets points for it. ... __________________________________ Do
          Message 4 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            seriously, i would think the opposite. if such a thing
            as "intangibles" can be measured, Spree gets points
            for it.


            --- nickouli5 <NikoTMP@...> wrote:
            > Why are they overatted, from your subjective
            > viewpoint?
            >
            >





            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
            http://messenger.yahoo.com/
          • nickouli5
            He may turn out to be a very good player but I dont think Daniels was productive at all last year. Daniels is a good example of why I think the PER-diff is
            Message 5 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              "He may turn out to be a very good player but I dont' think
              Daniels
              was
              productive at all last year. Daniels is a good example of why I think
              the PER-diff is so much more valuable than the PER. He was actually
              -0.4 PER-diff at the 2 guard spot, he appears to be a bad defender. He
              also was at the bottom of the +/- rankings for his team."

              Just wondering, but do you have your own PER differential list or
              access to one? Or do you just go by memory and looking at the
              82games hundreds of profiles? Do you have access to a list where you
              can sort it, and see the top PER differentials amongst players in the
              league? Just curious, because if you do I would love to access it
              myself instead of going by memory or having to look at separate
              profiles of players at random times to see their PER differentials.

              Also the thing I want to ask about PER differentials is how accurate
              are they with guys like bench players or teams that have swingmen
              specialist defenders? For example Bruce Bowen usually guards the
              best perimeter player for SA, and pulls them to under their PER or
              scoring average – but of course even if he drastically lowers
              their
              efficiency, he still isn't scoring much. So does that mean Hedo
              Turkoglu and Manu Ginobili PER differentials are still solid? Is
              Bowen helping them a lot, or is it a WASH in this case, considering
              Bowen barely produces much on offense anyway? Does SA's +2.9 at
              the
              SG spot (their second Net Positive Gain PER after the C/PF position)
              have to do with the combination of Bowen's D and Ginobili's
              efficient
              offensive/defensive contributions? Who in this case keeps track if
              Bowen spent 39% of his time at SF and 27% at SG? Does someone keep
              track? What if Bowen guards the SF and Hedo guards the SG on a
              certain night? Does Hedo's differential still matchup against
              all
              the `3's who lineup against the Spurs during the season? That
              way at
              the end of the season, its all about PER production at the position
              not necessarily who the player was guarding most of the nights or not
              (not accounting if Hedo guarded the SG on some nights)?


              Do you also consider the ON COURT and OFF COURT stats at 82games.com
              and net Points Per 100 Possessions for their respective teams? Which
              is more accurate, PER Differential or ON and OFF court Stats (Net
              Points Per 100 Possessions) in your opinion?

              "You may be right, but that still means at his best he wasn't an
              all-star. As far as him being clutch I'd like to see more stats to
              back that up." (Starks reference)

              I guess he had the rep of hitting big shots and being a solid crunch
              time player. But just because there are no stats on it doesn't
              mean
              that he wasn't a guy who played better in the crunch time of most
              games more of often than not (Game 7, 94 finals aside). He was a
              reason that they got that 2-0 lead on Chicago in 1993 and put some
              fear in their minds. He did have some big games against the Bulls
              over the years. I guess that's all intangible stuff, but I think
              he
              was better than a few players who had more `efficient'
              scoring stats.
              Again this is where subjectivity meets Efficiency and Overall Player
              Rating Statistics. Very tough to argue these types of things when
              those who have access to statistics and look at the big picture
              having watched different teams at different frequencies. The
              familiarity with intangibles of certain players varies, depending on
              how much the person watches. Then again some players simply get more
              chances to look better on TV, therefore are perceived as being better
              than those who have less talented teammates. Messy situation when
              debates come into play.


              "I doubt Isiah was not in the top five of PG's PER ranks during
              his
              best years. But honestly I don't know that he was a true
              superstar."

              That's the thing, those who watch the game all the time or were
              involved during the time probably perceived Isiah as a Top 5 player
              when the playoffs came around. A guy who raised his game several
              notches and when he was in the zone could hang with anyone, including
              the Jordan's, Magic, Bird's. Wasn't as good overall, but
              if he had
              the better supporting cast, he could beat Jordan's team pretty
              easily. I just find it interesting that his PER wasn't solid the
              years he won a title.

              "I've got Tony Parker rated as the tenth best PG in terms of
              PER-diff
              among guys who started at the point. Really I think that's about right
              based on his performance, he did step up in the playoffs but only to
              about the level that Billups and Cassell were at during the regular
              season."

              Do you also know PER's and differentials for the playoffs? Where
              do
              you access them from?

              What are your Top 10 PG's, you don't go by PER differentials
              alone do
              you? Or is that one of a few factors when you do your PG and SG
              rankings?


              **As far as your Top 10 list goes, mine actually has most of those
              guys in there in sort of a similar order.**

              But I have a few questions. Do you mostly base these on PER
              differentials, or is that only part of the equation? Do you add
              subjectivity, overall talent, and statistics relative to teams role
              and success?

              **Other questions on the Top 10 SG list**

              Why is Ivy so low? Why isn't Rip a little higher now with his
              playoff
              performance as most would probably bump him up? Also what makes you
              think Ginobili can be a Top 6-7 caliber SG? Would anyone else around
              here even agree? I know some people who just consider him a Starks
              or Bobby Jackson type of player, who brings `energy' but not
              much
              else. Is it his stats, PER, or what? I'm curious to see what
              others
              on this forum think of him relative to most SG's, along with how
              good
              they think Iverson, and Hamilton really are?

              Would it be inappropriate to start a Positional Top 10-15 Thread for
              each position?

              Sorry for all the questions, answer them when you can – same goes
              for
              anyone else on this forum!

              -Nikos
            • mrintp2000
              ... this later on... I made an excel spreadsheet with the PER diff s and minutes played for all the players with a positive PER diff and plus 10% of their
              Message 6 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Playoffs are about to start but I'm looking forward to continuing
                this later on... I made an excel spreadsheet with the PER diff's and
                minutes played for all the players with a positive PER diff and plus
                10% of their teams minutes. I took it from 82games.com. If you want,
                I'll email it to you?

                In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
                > "He may turn out to be a very good player but I dont' think
                > Daniels
                > was
                > productive at all last year. Daniels is a good example of why I think
                > the PER-diff is so much more valuable than the PER. He was actually
                > -0.4 PER-diff at the 2 guard spot, he appears to be a bad defender. He
                > also was at the bottom of the +/- rankings for his team."
                >
                > Just wondering, but do you have your own PER differential list or
                > access to one? Or do you just go by memory and looking at the
                > 82games hundreds of profiles? Do you have access to a list where you
                > can sort it, and see the top PER differentials amongst players in the
                > league? Just curious, because if you do I would love to access it
                > myself instead of going by memory or having to look at separate
                > profiles of players at random times to see their PER differentials.
                >
                > Also the thing I want to ask about PER differentials is how accurate
                > are they with guys like bench players or teams that have swingmen
                > specialist defenders? For example Bruce Bowen usually guards the
                > best perimeter player for SA, and pulls them to under their PER or
                > scoring average – but of course even if he drastically lowers
                > their
                > efficiency, he still isn't scoring much. So does that mean Hedo
                > Turkoglu and Manu Ginobili PER differentials are still solid? Is
                > Bowen helping them a lot, or is it a WASH in this case, considering
                > Bowen barely produces much on offense anyway? Does SA's +2.9 at
                > the
                > SG spot (their second Net Positive Gain PER after the C/PF position)
                > have to do with the combination of Bowen's D and Ginobili's
                > efficient
                > offensive/defensive contributions? Who in this case keeps track if
                > Bowen spent 39% of his time at SF and 27% at SG? Does someone keep
                > track? What if Bowen guards the SF and Hedo guards the SG on a
                > certain night? Does Hedo's differential still matchup against
                > all
                > the `3's who lineup against the Spurs during the season? That
                > way at
                > the end of the season, its all about PER production at the position
                > not necessarily who the player was guarding most of the nights or not
                > (not accounting if Hedo guarded the SG on some nights)?
                >
                >
                > Do you also consider the ON COURT and OFF COURT stats at 82games.com
                > and net Points Per 100 Possessions for their respective teams? Which
                > is more accurate, PER Differential or ON and OFF court Stats (Net
                > Points Per 100 Possessions) in your opinion?
                >
                > "You may be right, but that still means at his best he wasn't an
                > all-star. As far as him being clutch I'd like to see more stats to
                > back that up." (Starks reference)
                >
                > I guess he had the rep of hitting big shots and being a solid crunch
                > time player. But just because there are no stats on it doesn't
                > mean
                > that he wasn't a guy who played better in the crunch time of most
                > games more of often than not (Game 7, 94 finals aside). He was a
                > reason that they got that 2-0 lead on Chicago in 1993 and put some
                > fear in their minds. He did have some big games against the Bulls
                > over the years. I guess that's all intangible stuff, but I think
                > he
                > was better than a few players who had more `efficient'
                > scoring stats.
                > Again this is where subjectivity meets Efficiency and Overall Player
                > Rating Statistics. Very tough to argue these types of things when
                > those who have access to statistics and look at the big picture
                > having watched different teams at different frequencies. The
                > familiarity with intangibles of certain players varies, depending on
                > how much the person watches. Then again some players simply get more
                > chances to look better on TV, therefore are perceived as being better
                > than those who have less talented teammates. Messy situation when
                > debates come into play.
                >
                >
                > "I doubt Isiah was not in the top five of PG's PER ranks during
                > his
                > best years. But honestly I don't know that he was a true
                > superstar."
                >
                > That's the thing, those who watch the game all the time or were
                > involved during the time probably perceived Isiah as a Top 5 player
                > when the playoffs came around. A guy who raised his game several
                > notches and when he was in the zone could hang with anyone, including
                > the Jordan's, Magic, Bird's. Wasn't as good overall, but
                > if he had
                > the better supporting cast, he could beat Jordan's team pretty
                > easily. I just find it interesting that his PER wasn't solid the
                > years he won a title.
                >
                > "I've got Tony Parker rated as the tenth best PG in terms of
                > PER-diff
                > among guys who started at the point. Really I think that's about right
                > based on his performance, he did step up in the playoffs but only to
                > about the level that Billups and Cassell were at during the regular
                > season."
                >
                > Do you also know PER's and differentials for the playoffs? Where
                > do
                > you access them from?
                >
                > What are your Top 10 PG's, you don't go by PER differentials
                > alone do
                > you? Or is that one of a few factors when you do your PG and SG
                > rankings?
                >
                >
                > **As far as your Top 10 list goes, mine actually has most of those
                > guys in there in sort of a similar order.**
                >
                > But I have a few questions. Do you mostly base these on PER
                > differentials, or is that only part of the equation? Do you add
                > subjectivity, overall talent, and statistics relative to teams role
                > and success?
                >
                > **Other questions on the Top 10 SG list**
                >
                > Why is Ivy so low? Why isn't Rip a little higher now with his
                > playoff
                > performance as most would probably bump him up? Also what makes you
                > think Ginobili can be a Top 6-7 caliber SG? Would anyone else around
                > here even agree? I know some people who just consider him a Starks
                > or Bobby Jackson type of player, who brings `energy' but not
                > much
                > else. Is it his stats, PER, or what? I'm curious to see what
                > others
                > on this forum think of him relative to most SG's, along with how
                > good
                > they think Iverson, and Hamilton really are?
                >
                > Would it be inappropriate to start a Positional Top 10-15 Thread for
                > each position?
                >
                > Sorry for all the questions, answer them when you can – same goes
                > for
                > anyone else on this forum!
                >
                > -Nikos
              • nickouli5
                Yes please email it to me! How large is the file? Will you continue this convo. at a later time though :) ?
                Message 7 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes please email it to me! How large is the file?

                  Will you continue this convo. at a later time though :) ?
                • mrintp2000
                  ... The file is tiny, what s your email address? The playoff PER s are on 82games.com as well
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
                    > Yes please email it to me! How large is the file?
                    >
                    > Will you continue this convo. at a later time though :) ?

                    The file is tiny, what's your email address?

                    The playoff PER's are on 82games.com as well
                  • nickouli5
                    Email adress is Nikotmp@go.com
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Email adress is Nikotmp@...
                    • nickouli5
                      ... Nikotmp @ go.com in case you cant read it. Also where are the TOTAL PER s in the playoffs? Do you have that stat as well?
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...>
                        wrote:
                        > Email adress is Nikotmp@g...

                        Nikotmp @ go.com in case you cant read it.

                        Also where are the TOTAL PER's in the playoffs? Do you have that stat
                        as well?
                      • mrintp2000
                        You ve got mail. PER Lakers playoff http://www.82games.com/034PLAL5.HTM Pistons http://www.82games.com/034PDET5.HTM
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          You've got mail.
                          PER Lakers playoff
                          http://www.82games.com/034PLAL5.HTM

                          Pistons
                          http://www.82games.com/034PDET5.HTM


                          In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
                          > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...>
                          > wrote:
                          > > Email adress is Nikotmp@g...
                          >
                          > Nikotmp @ go.com in case you cant read it.
                          >
                          > Also where are the TOTAL PER's in the playoffs? Do you have that stat
                          > as well?
                        • nickouli5
                          Oh by total I meant each players TOTAL, but I see its not on 82games.com. No biggie I guess. Thanks!
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Oh by total I meant each players TOTAL, but I see its not on
                            82games.com. No biggie I guess.
                            Thanks!
                          • mrintp2000
                            ... Also the thing I want to ask about PER differentials is how accurate ... The PER-diff is calculated by the production of both lineups on the floor. So in
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
                              >
                              Also the thing I want to ask about PER differentials is how accurate
                              > are they with guys like bench players or teams that have swingmen
                              > specialist defenders? For example Bruce Bowen usually guards the
                              > best perimeter player for SA, and pulls them to under their PER or
                              > scoring average – but of course even if he drastically lowers
                              > their
                              > efficiency, he still isn't scoring much. So does that mean Hedo
                              > Turkoglu and Manu Ginobili PER differentials are still solid? Is
                              > Bowen helping them a lot, or is it a WASH in this case, considering
                              > Bowen barely produces much on offense anyway? Does SA's +2.9 at
                              > the
                              > SG spot (their second Net Positive Gain PER after the C/PF position)
                              > have to do with the combination of Bowen's D and Ginobili's
                              > efficient
                              > offensive/defensive contributions? Who in this case keeps track if
                              > Bowen spent 39% of his time at SF and 27% at SG? Does someone keep
                              > track? What if Bowen guards the SF and Hedo guards the SG on a
                              > certain night? Does Hedo's differential still matchup against
                              > all
                              > the `3's who lineup against the Spurs during the season? That
                              > way at
                              > the end of the season, its all about PER production at the position
                              > not necessarily who the player was guarding most of the nights or not
                              > (not accounting if Hedo guarded the SG on some nights)?

                              The PER-diff is calculated by the production of both lineups on the
                              floor. So in the following lineup Nesterovic, Duncan, Turkoglu, Bowen,
                              Parker-Duncan's stats would be calculated at PF. With Nesterovic out
                              and Horry in, Duncan's stats would be calculated at C.

                              You're point about cross guarding is one of the reasons so many
                              posters on here don't value the PER-diff. We had a poll and there was
                              not a concesus, but the average came out to be that 70% of the time a
                              2 can be assumed to be guarding a 2, and so on. IMO, it's more like
                              90% but I don't think very many people here agree with me.

                              At any rate that doesn't mean the PER-diff is less valuable, it's just
                              less precise. To be safe we can add in maybe a 25% margin so that a
                              guy with a PER-diff of 6 could be considered in the same category as a
                              guy with a 4.5, but a guy with a 7.5 clearly had a significantly
                              better year. But I have no math background, there might be a better
                              way to view the margin of error. I use the PER-diff to group guys, it
                              takes a little subjective analysis too:)

                              >
                              >
                              > Do you also consider the ON COURT and OFF COURT stats at 82games.com
                              > and net Points Per 100 Possessions for their respective teams? Which
                              > is more accurate, PER Differential or ON and OFF court Stats (Net
                              > Points Per 100 Possessions) in your opinion?

                              I like to keep it simple, I just use PER-diff and plus/minus, the rest
                              is subjective.
                              >
                              >
                              > Again this is where subjectivity meets Efficiency and Overall Player
                              > Rating Statistics. Very tough to argue these types of things when
                              > those who have access to statistics and look at the big picture
                              > having watched different teams at different frequencies. The
                              > familiarity with intangibles of certain players varies, depending on
                              > how much the person watches. Then again some players simply get more
                              > chances to look better on TV, therefore are perceived as being better
                              > than those who have less talented teammates. Messy situation when
                              > debates come into play.

                              Agreed
                              >
                              >
                              > "I doubt Isiah was not in the top five of PG's PER ranks during
                              > his
                              > best years. But honestly I don't know that he was a true
                              > superstar."
                              >
                              > That's the thing, those who watch the game all the time or were
                              > involved during the time probably perceived Isiah as a Top 5 player
                              > when the playoffs came around. A guy who raised his game several
                              > notches and when he was in the zone could hang with anyone, including
                              > the Jordan's, Magic, Bird's. Wasn't as good overall, but
                              > if he had
                              > the better supporting cast, he could beat Jordan's team pretty
                              > easily. I just find it interesting that his PER wasn't solid the
                              > years he won a title.

                              Again, I'd like to see statistical confirmation that Isiah really
                              raised his game. I remember a couple great games of course. I believe
                              in John HOllingers book he showed that JOrdan didn't play better in
                              the playoff, maybe everyone else played worse?
                              >
                              > "I've got Tony Parker rated as the tenth best PG in terms of
                              > PER-diff
                              > among guys who started at the point. Really I think that's about right
                              > based on his performance, he did step up in the playoffs but only to
                              > about the level that Billups and Cassell were at during the regular
                              > season."
                              >

                              >
                              > What are your Top 10 PG's, you don't go by PER differentials
                              > alone do
                              > you? Or is that one of a few factors when you do your PG and SG
                              > rankings?

                              Here's my prediction for next season
                              Marbury
                              Davis
                              Kidd
                              Billups
                              Parker
                              Miller
                              Bibby
                              Nash
                              Cassell
                              Arroyo
                              >
                              >
                              > **As far as your Top 10 list goes, mine actually has most of those
                              > guys in there in sort of a similar order.**
                              >
                              > But I have a few questions. Do you mostly base these on PER
                              > differentials, or is that only part of the equation? Do you add
                              > subjectivity, overall talent, and statistics relative to teams role
                              > and success?

                              Absolutely
                              >
                              > **Other questions on the Top 10 SG list**
                              >
                              > Why is Ivy so low? Why isn't Rip a little higher now with his
                              > playoff
                              > performance as most would probably bump him up? Also what makes you
                              > think Ginobili can be a Top 6-7 caliber SG? Would anyone else around
                              > here even agree? I know some people who just consider him a Starks
                              > or Bobby Jackson type of player, who brings `energy' but not
                              > much
                              > else. Is it his stats, PER, or what? I'm curious to see what
                              > others
                              > on this forum think of him relative to most SG's, along with how
                              > good
                              > they think Iverson, and Hamilton really are?
                              >
                              I think you're right, maybe Rip should be bumped up based on his
                              playoff performance.

                              Shawn
                            • mrintp2000
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- Oh, that's there too, just go to each player and click on by position.

                                In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
                                > Oh by total I meant each players TOTAL, but I see its not on
                                > 82games.com. No biggie I guess.
                                > Thanks!
                              • nickouli5
                                Did you already bump Rip up before? Personally I don t think he deserves a HUGE bump unless he stays playing well againast LA. Reggie Miller and Kittles is
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Did you already bump Rip up before?

                                  Personally I don't think he deserves a HUGE bump unless he stays
                                  playing well againast LA. Reggie Miller and Kittles is different
                                  than the Lakers team and Kobe Bryant. Props if he can stay at the
                                  same level in the NBA finals.....I dont think he will though (and im
                                  not saying this based on the first half, I sort of expected this to
                                  some extent) Actually I figure Billups will be the main scorer....I
                                  could be wrong though.

                                  So where would you place Rip if he plays OK against LA? Still leave
                                  him at the lower tier of the Top 10?

                                  Also what is your take on Ginobili? Is he underratted by most? Im
                                  willing to bet not many others would put him in the Top 10-15 in SG's
                                  on this forum or in general. As I said most consider him an energy
                                  guy who can do a lot of things on the floor -- but not much else no?
                                • mrintp2000
                                  ... but he s top 10 for sure. Ginobili absolutely has an all around game, look at his production vs. opposing 2 guards this season, he has no weaknesses. He
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ---Yeah Rip doesn't quite have the all-around game like the best guys
                                    but he's top 10 for sure. Ginobili absolutely has an all around game,
                                    look at his production vs. opposing 2 guards this season, he has no
                                    weaknesses. He gets more assists, rebounds, trips to the line, and
                                    shoots a higher percentage...
                                    http://www.82games.com/03SAS8C.HTM


                                    And yet he only played 55% of his teams minutes in the playoffs,
                                    Popovitch should be fired,tarred and feathered, disbarred, for that
                                    alone. Maybe if Ginobili plays 90% of the minutes the Spurs are in
                                    finals right now? If I were a GM I'd be scratching a nice big check
                                    for Ginobili this offseason.


                                    In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
                                    > Did you already bump Rip up before?
                                    >
                                    > Personally I don't think he deserves a HUGE bump unless he stays
                                    > playing well againast LA. Reggie Miller and Kittles is different
                                    > than the Lakers team and Kobe Bryant. Props if he can stay at the
                                    > same level in the NBA finals.....I dont think he will though (and im
                                    > not saying this based on the first half, I sort of expected this to
                                    > some extent) Actually I figure Billups will be the main scorer....I
                                    > could be wrong though.
                                    >
                                    > So where would you place Rip if he plays OK against LA? Still leave
                                    > him at the lower tier of the Top 10?
                                    >
                                    > Also what is your take on Ginobili? Is he underratted by most? Im
                                    > willing to bet not many others would put him in the Top 10-15 in SG's
                                    > on this forum or in general. As I said most consider him an energy
                                    > guy who can do a lot of things on the floor -- but not much else no?
                                  • nickouli5
                                    I agree that Manu is a good player, and underused. However most feel hes just a solid bench man after his semi-demotion to the bench favoring Hedo Turkoglu.
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I agree that Manu is a good player, and underused. However most feel
                                      hes just a solid bench man after his semi-demotion to the bench
                                      favoring Hedo Turkoglu. Heck I bet most on this forum probably say
                                      hes somewhere between 14-20 in the SG rankings despite his solid
                                      efficiency overall (PER).

                                      The sad thing is Hedo didn't even earn the starters positon, he was
                                      playing horrible off the bench and Pop coddled him and gave him the
                                      role hoping he would do better as a starter. The idea was to make
                                      Manu the energizer off the bench like last season. But in the end it
                                      bit them in the but anyway (Hedo struggled in the playoffs, and Manu
                                      actually did well in 29mpg vs the Lakers).

                                      I think Pop made a slight mistake. Hedo has always been fragile
                                      mentally -- it would have been better to let him play well off the
                                      bench and let him earn his confidence back -- maybe that would have
                                      been better.

                                      I can't quite figure out if Manu is a more efficient starter -- or if
                                      he really is best fit as a 30 minute guy. But maybe thats just Pop
                                      deeming him to that role.

                                      I think Manu's lack of pure shooting is why Pop gave Hedo a chance --
                                      cause Manu is more suited towards up-tempo game and more of a motion
                                      type of offense. Manu still finished games, but Pop trying him at the
                                      PG spot and demoting him couldn't have done much for his confidence.

                                      I wonder what Manu's PER was early in the season, maybe it wasn't as
                                      high -- but he was doing everything well exept shooting a good % (he
                                      got to the free throw line a lot to make up for it though). The
                                      offensive help he had also wasn't there with Duncan and Tp injured
                                      and Rasho/Hedo not really playing good basketball either. Also the
                                      Spurs tend to always improve their offense anyway as the season
                                      progresses.

                                      Anyone know if Manu was high on the SG Per chart early in the year?

                                      Either way Manu is tough to figure out. He does have an all around
                                      game, but will Pop use him effectively? Will he become a starter?
                                      Will the Spurs use his overall game, or do they just want a shooter
                                      such as Brent Barry to come in and let Manu go?

                                      I am not sure about this one. But I do think Manu is a better player
                                      than the general perception of him. I think he could do pretty well
                                      in a Denver Nuggets type up-tempo game. But do the Spurs want to
                                      keep him? Does he fit their offense?
                                    • mrintp2000
                                      ... anybody with any playing style. I don t know what you mean by pure shooter but Ginobili shot an effective .428 on jumpers, that s decent for a 2.
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ---I think he's a stud and he could/should start for just about
                                        anybody with any playing style. I don't know what you mean by "pure
                                        shooter" but Ginobili shot an effective .428 on jumpers, that's decent
                                        for a 2. Popovitch just doesnt realize what he has.

                                        In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
                                        > I agree that Manu is a good player, and underused. However most feel
                                        > hes just a solid bench man after his semi-demotion to the bench
                                        > favoring Hedo Turkoglu. Heck I bet most on this forum probably say
                                        > hes somewhere between 14-20 in the SG rankings despite his solid
                                        > efficiency overall (PER).
                                        >
                                        > The sad thing is Hedo didn't even earn the starters positon, he was
                                        > playing horrible off the bench and Pop coddled him and gave him the
                                        > role hoping he would do better as a starter. The idea was to make
                                        > Manu the energizer off the bench like last season. But in the end it
                                        > bit them in the but anyway (Hedo struggled in the playoffs, and Manu
                                        > actually did well in 29mpg vs the Lakers).
                                        >
                                        > I think Pop made a slight mistake. Hedo has always been fragile
                                        > mentally -- it would have been better to let him play well off the
                                        > bench and let him earn his confidence back -- maybe that would have
                                        > been better.
                                        >
                                        > I can't quite figure out if Manu is a more efficient starter -- or if
                                        > he really is best fit as a 30 minute guy. But maybe thats just Pop
                                        > deeming him to that role.
                                        >
                                        > I think Manu's lack of pure shooting is why Pop gave Hedo a chance --
                                        > cause Manu is more suited towards up-tempo game and more of a motion
                                        > type of offense. Manu still finished games, but Pop trying him at the
                                        > PG spot and demoting him couldn't have done much for his confidence.
                                        >
                                        > I wonder what Manu's PER was early in the season, maybe it wasn't as
                                        > high -- but he was doing everything well exept shooting a good % (he
                                        > got to the free throw line a lot to make up for it though). The
                                        > offensive help he had also wasn't there with Duncan and Tp injured
                                        > and Rasho/Hedo not really playing good basketball either. Also the
                                        > Spurs tend to always improve their offense anyway as the season
                                        > progresses.
                                        >
                                        > Anyone know if Manu was high on the SG Per chart early in the year?
                                        >
                                        > Either way Manu is tough to figure out. He does have an all around
                                        > game, but will Pop use him effectively? Will he become a starter?
                                        > Will the Spurs use his overall game, or do they just want a shooter
                                        > such as Brent Barry to come in and let Manu go?
                                        >
                                        > I am not sure about this one. But I do think Manu is a better player
                                        > than the general perception of him. I think he could do pretty well
                                        > in a Denver Nuggets type up-tempo game. But do the Spurs want to
                                        > keep him? Does he fit their offense?
                                      • nickouli5
                                        What I mean is Manu is a streak shooter. He tends to jump sideways sometimes on his jumpshot instead of straight up (as Hollinger mentioned in his book). But
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          What I mean is Manu is a streak shooter.

                                          He tends to jump sideways sometimes on his jumpshot instead of
                                          straight up (as Hollinger mentioned in his book). But I agree with
                                          his accessment completely.

                                          He did shoot poorly in Game 6 vs LA, but in Games 1-5 he hit the
                                          three very well. Hes not as good as an open shooter as Hedo was
                                          during the regular season -- but Hedo eventually choked in the
                                          playoffs. Manu did solid all around against LA, again.

                                          Bottom line, Manus game isn't about the jump shot. Hes primarily a
                                          SLASHER, creator for himself and others. He is very good at that.
                                          One of the best slashing/passing 2s in the league.

                                          Only thing keeping him from being VERY GOOD, is his jump shot.

                                          But who knows, with more touches and a bigger role in the offense he
                                          can have a more consistent jumper and scoring outputs. Sometimes he
                                          is prone to shoot 1-7, 2-9 at times (even though he does get to the
                                          line to make up for his poor shooting games).

                                          I like his overall game, and I think hes a good player. But if I
                                          were to only see him a few times a year, I probably think he was just
                                          a solid player based on him being benched and all.

                                          But who knows? Maybe Manu can be more effective as a starter, with
                                          more shots. I think he can.

                                          Anyone else think he is a super-sub or is meant to be a starter in
                                          this league?
                                        • nickouli5
                                          Forgot to mention this, but what did you mean when you said shot effective .428 on jumpers? Where did you get that stat? I see the eFG on 82games for playoffs
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Jun 6, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Forgot to mention this, but what did you mean when you said shot
                                            effective .428 on jumpers? Where did you get that stat?

                                            I see the eFG on 82games for playoffs and reg season and didnt see
                                            that number for jumpers?

                                            Also how can inside shots have a eFG? how can they be adjusted when
                                            its impossible to take an INSIDE THREE POINT SHOT (the whole point of
                                            eFG or adjusted FG%)?
                                          • mrintp2000
                                            ... http://www.82games.com/03SAS8A.HTM ... when ... of ... They don t need to be adjusted.
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Jun 7, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...>
                                              wrote:
                                              > Forgot to mention this, but what did you mean when you said shot
                                              > effective .428 on jumpers? Where did you get that stat?
                                              >
                                              > I see the eFG on 82games for playoffs and reg season and didnt see
                                              > that number for jumpers?
                                              >
                                              http://www.82games.com/03SAS8A.HTM

                                              > Also how can inside shots have a eFG? how can they be adjusted
                                              when
                                              > its impossible to take an INSIDE THREE POINT SHOT (the whole point
                                              of
                                              > eFG or adjusted FG%)?

                                              They don't need to be adjusted.
                                            • methman05
                                              About Isiah Thomas, if you re curious, I ve looked at his statistics throughout his career using the MagicMetric formula (http://www.magicmetric.com) and
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Jun 7, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                About Isiah Thomas, if you're curious, I've looked at his statistics
                                                throughout his career using the MagicMetric formula
                                                (http://www.magicmetric.com) and adjusted for gamepace. It's not as
                                                accurate as the PER, but it's a lot easier for me to calculate.
                                                At any rate, Isiah's PER's were probably low the years he won titles
                                                with Detroit because he was past his prime at that point. His best
                                                offensive years came in the mid 80's; by 1989, his offensive game
                                                had declined a bit.
                                                While the magicmetric numbers for his regular seasons do not lend
                                                much credence to the conception of him being a great player, his
                                                playoffs numbers do. Isiah showed an ability to consistently
                                                outperform his regular season offensive contributions during the
                                                playoffs, and considering that most players decline from regular
                                                season to playoffs, his performances are especially impressive.

                                                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...>
                                                wrote:
                                                >> "I doubt Isiah was not in the top five of PG's PER ranks during
                                                >> his
                                                >> best years. But honestly I don't know that he was a true
                                                >> superstar."
                                                >
                                                > That's the thing, those who watch the game all the time or were
                                                > involved during the time probably perceived Isiah as a Top 5
                                                player
                                                > when the playoffs came around. A guy who raised his game several
                                                > notches and when he was in the zone could hang with anyone,
                                                including
                                                > the Jordan's, Magic, Bird's. Wasn't as good overall, but
                                                > if he had
                                                > the better supporting cast, he could beat Jordan's team pretty
                                                > easily. I just find it interesting that his PER wasn't solid the
                                                > years he won a title.
                                                >
                                              • nickouli5
                                                Another note about EFFICIENT bench players. 20.06 Williamson, Cor was 4th in SF in 2001-2002 -- does that mean based on his PER he would be a great starter?
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Jun 7, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Another note about EFFICIENT bench players.

                                                  20.06 Williamson, Cor was 4th in SF in 2001-2002 -- does that mean
                                                  based on his PER he would be a great starter?

                                                  Does this sort of apply with Manu? Maybe hes not a TRUE starter? Is
                                                  there a way to distinguish a true starter playing on the bench, and
                                                  an OVERACHEIEVING energy bench player?
                                                • mrintp2000
                                                  ... to his performance. I am skeptical of great numbers in limited minutes. ... Is ... and
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Jun 8, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- Manu played a lot of minutes, so much so that I have no doubt as
                                                    to his performance. I am skeptical of great numbers in limited
                                                    minutes.

                                                    In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...> wrote:
                                                    > Another note about EFFICIENT bench players.
                                                    >
                                                    > 20.06 Williamson, Cor was 4th in SF in 2001-2002 -- does that mean
                                                    > based on his PER he would be a great starter?
                                                    >
                                                    > Does this sort of apply with Manu? Maybe hes not a TRUE starter?
                                                    Is
                                                    > there a way to distinguish a true starter playing on the bench,
                                                    and
                                                    > an OVERACHEIEVING energy bench player?
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.