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

Re: Top Players of 2001

Expand Messages
  • msg_53@hotmail.com
    DeanO, I happen to know, the more stats you post, the more potshots people can take at you. Having warned you, I will wade in and take my share. Is this
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      DeanO, I happen to know, the more stats you post, the more potshots
      people can take at you. Having warned you, I will wade in and take
      my share.
      Is this really a ratings list? Nowitzki better than Shaq? DRob #3?
      Stock the best G in the land? Derek Anderson rates above Garnett?...
      I have been puzzling over the meaning of these columns of data, and I
      am about as unconvinced as possible that they tell me much. It looks
      as though high-percentage and low-turnovers guys are rated highly.
      The negative numbers in the NetPt column is also a mystery to me;
      would Dallas be better without Finley? Can they even field 5
      positive-rated players at once?
      I hate to think I am stuck with my own rating system, without
      anything to gain from others'. Maybe I am just in a bad mood today.

      --- In APBR_analysis, "Dean Oliver" wrote:
      > Other guys....
      >
      > plyr tm ScP Poss Fl% iORtg DRtg NetPt
      > 1 nowitzkidal 615 1170 0.526 117.2 99.0 213
      > 2 o'neal lal 824 1430 0.576 111.9 99.1 183
      > 3 robinso san 461 846 0.545 111.2 89.6 183
      > 4 stockto uta 450 815 0.552 119.4 99.9 158
      > 5 allen mil 622 1221 0.510 116.9 104.0 158
      > 6 iverson phi 854 1712 0.499 106.0 96.8 157
      > 7 carter tor 724 1383 0.524 113.5 102.4 154
      > 8 webber sac 721 1390 0.519 104.8 93.8 153
      > 9 marion pho 497 986 0.504 104.5 90.4 139
      > 10 duncan san 712 1403 0.507 101.2 91.4 137
      > 11 andersonsan 495 991 0.500 111.3 97.8 134
      > 12 malone uta 702 1329 0.528 108.3 98.4 131
      > 13 garnett min 750 1455 0.516 105.7 96.8 129
      > 14 wallace por 556 1067 0.522 109.0 97.0 128
      > 15 camby nyk 289 516 0.559 113.4 88.7 127
      > 16 francis hou 656 1304 0.503 111.4 101.8 125
      > 17 stojako sac 484 960 0.504 113.6 100.7 123
      > 18 bryant lal 825 1578 0.523 111.1 103.3 122
      > 19 mcgrady orl 799 1560 0.512 106.3 99.3 110
      > 20 mason mia 514 997 0.515 106.1 95.1 109
      > 21 miller ind 508 1022 0.497 114.9 104.2 109
      > 22 nash dal 453 862 0.525 117.1 105.3 102
      > 23 pierce bos 724 1475 0.491 106.4 99.9 96
      > 24 barry sea 219 416 0.528 126.3 104.4 91
      > 25 armstro orl 531 1112 0.478 109.4 101.6 86
      > 26 kidd pho 558 1171 0.476 102.3 95.0 85
      > 27 russell uta 341 676 0.505 113.1 100.5 85
      > 28 jones mia 437 932 0.469 103.9 94.8 85
      > 29 marshalluta 380 735 0.517 108.8 97.6 82
      > 30 grant mia 492 987 0.499 102.3 94.2 80
      > 31 thomas nyk 281 543 0.518 106.8 92.9 75
      > 32 daniels san 308 613 0.503 112.4 100.5 73
      > 33 lewis sea 396 803 0.493 111.7 102.9 70
      > 34 spoon cle 351 653 0.537 109.7 99.0 69
      > 35 outlaw orl 271 490 0.553 111.9 97.8 69
      > 36 smith por 399 786 0.507 112.6 104.1 67
      > 37 christiesac 366 790 0.463 105.1 97.2 62
      > 38 brandon min 531 1039 0.511 107.3 101.5 60
      > 39 cassell mil 584 1123 0.520 110.1 105.2 55
      > 40 ratliff phi 290 587 0.495 100.9 91.6 55
      > 41 grant lal 278 497 0.559 114.8 104.1 53
      > 42 mcdyess den 615 1183 0.520 105.0 100.5 53
      > 43 brown cha 289 574 0.503 104.8 95.6 53
      > 44 davis cha 500 1054 0.474 102.4 97.4 52
      > 45 divac sac 403 806 0.499 101.5 95.1 52
      > 46 payton sea 761 1500 0.507 108.4 105.1 51
      > 47 bradley dal 228 450 0.508 104.7 94.2 47
      > 48 hoiberg chi 216 444 0.486 115.2 104.7 47
      > 49 lafrentzden 354 696 0.509 107.6 101.0 46
      > 50 wells por 402 787 0.511 104.8 99.2 44
      > 51 mutombo atl 231 469 0.492 100.3 91.1 43
      > 52 davis por 238 450 0.530 107.6 98.8 40
      > 53 best ind 417 832 0.502 107.4 102.6 40
      > 54 piatkow lac 275 580 0.474 111.9 105.3 39
      > 55 mckie phi 391 822 0.475 102.1 97.4 38
      > 56 mcinnis lac 438 839 0.522 111.5 107.0 37
      > 57 wesley cha 538 1125 0.478 103.5 100.2 37
      > 58 marbury njn 743 1476 0.503 109.2 106.8 36
      > 59 olajuwonhou 258 510 0.506 101.7 94.6 36
      > 60 jackson tor 279 564 0.495 110.8 104.4 36
      > 61 houston nyk 528 1132 0.467 102.8 99.7 35
      > 62 lynch phi 289 587 0.492 101.9 96.5 32
      > 63 mobley hou 560 1144 0.489 106.7 103.9 31
      > 64 szczerb min 434 843 0.514 107.7 104.1 31
      > 65 mutombo phi 86 160 0.536 110.1 92.5 28
      > 66 davis tor 416 830 0.501 102.4 99.2 27
      > 67 hardawaymia 442 1031 0.429 101.5 98.9 27
      > 68 stith bos 280 605 0.463 107.9 103.5 26
      > 69 rice nyk 298 644 0.462 103.2 99.2 26
      > 70 elliott san 139 303 0.459 104.6 96.5 25
      > 71 miller cle 566 1117 0.507 105.5 103.4 24
      > 72 fortson gsw 48 73 0.648 132.0 100.4 23
      > 73 mashburncha 574 1246 0.461 99.9 98.2 20
      > 74 fisher lal 45 80 0.557 129.3 104.5 20
      > 75 battie bos 113 216 0.521 105.8 96.8 19
      > 76 fox lal 285 605 0.471 108.3 105.1 19
      > 77 pippen por 276 594 0.465 102.8 99.9 17
      > 78 snow phi 218 444 0.491 100.9 97.1 17
      > 79 abdur-r van 643 1291 0.498 103.4 102.1 17
      > 80 williamsnjn 354 706 0.501 103.0 100.8 16
      > 81 hunter mil 281 636 0.442 106.7 104.3 16
      > 82 thomas mil 348 746 0.466 105.1 103.0 15
      > 83 miller orl 302 670 0.451 105.5 103.4 14
      > 84 odom lac 534 1136 0.470 100.6 99.3 14
      > 85 campbellcha 384 817 0.469 94.5 92.9 13
      > 86 patters sea 418 818 0.511 103.6 102.3 11
      > 87 stackho det 875 1842 0.475 103.9 103.3 10
      > 88 hill phi 305 613 0.497 99.4 98.0 9
      > 89 wallace det 254 533 0.476 94.6 93.0 8
      > 90 o'neal ind 420 876 0.479 95.7 94.8 8
      > 91 vanexel den 571 1186 0.482 108.2 107.8 5
      > 92 ward nyk 164 384 0.428 98.8 97.5 5
      > 93 strickl por 31 55 0.571 116.4 109.2 4
      > 94 johnson nyk 275 620 0.444 98.1 97.5 4
      > 95 hill orl 30 61 0.498 100.5 95.3 3
      > 96 robinsonpho 519 1143 0.454 97.0 96.8 2
      > 97 hardawaypho 19 39 0.488 103.4 98.8 2
      > 98 billups min 284 606 0.468 105.3 105.1 1
      > 99 rose ind 556 1152 0.482 102.6 102.5 1
      > 100 stoudam por 442 949 0.466 101.8 101.7 1
      > 101 harring nyk 48 99 0.481 97.2 97.4 0
      > 102 davis was 64 132 0.485 111.6 112.1 -1
      > 103 miller chi 194 390 0.498 101.5 101.8 -1
      > 104 rogers pho 352 793 0.444 95.1 95.5 -3
      > 105 eisley dal 304 687 0.442 103.1 103.6 -3
      > 106 long van 169 346 0.488 100.8 101.9 -4
      > 107 jackson nyk 58 134 0.434 93.3 96.2 -4
      > 108 williamssac 296 676 0.439 100.7 101.3 -4
      > 109 strickl was 223 453 0.493 102.1 103.1 -5
      > 110 howard dal 101 210 0.482 98.4 100.8 -5
      > 111 bowen mia 216 528 0.409 96.8 98.0 -6
      > 112 smith det 328 673 0.486 99.6 100.5 -6
      > 113 knight cle 9 26 0.362 76.4 101.7 -7
      > 114 sprewellnyk 528 1152 0.458 96.3 96.9 -7
      > 115 feick njn 13 33 0.403 80.2 100.3 -7
      > 116 delk pho 366 799 0.458 97.6 98.5 -7
      > 117 harper lal 148 313 0.473 101.1 103.4 -7
      > 118 ilgausk cle 131 279 0.468 94.0 96.6 -7
      > 119 finley dal 661 1362 0.485 102.8 103.4 -9
      > 120 williamstor 316 661 0.478 101.2 102.5 -9
      > 121 robinsonmil 633 1312 0.482 101.7 102.6 -12
      > 122 jackson gsw 283 570 0.497 102.6 104.7 -12
      > 123 maloney atl 130 303 0.431 99.1 103.5 -13
      > 124 posey den 232 517 0.448 100.9 103.5 -14
      > 125 whitney was 247 558 0.442 105.7 108.1 -14
      > 126 nesby lac 46 115 0.401 89.2 101.2 -14
      > 127 childs nyk 150 348 0.430 94.8 98.7 -14
      > 128 brand chi 581 1167 0.498 100.7 102.0 -15
      > 129 davis dal 142 331 0.430 101.6 106.2 -15
      > 130 terry atl 628 1327 0.473 103.3 104.6 -17
      > 131 harpringcle 217 448 0.484 100.5 104.3 -17
      > 132 andersonhou 276 598 0.461 99.7 102.6 -17
      > 133 andersonbos 129 287 0.448 97.0 103.1 -18
      > 134 mills gsw 78 182 0.430 91.2 101.9 -20
      > 135 childs tor 39 106 0.365 80.5 99.9 -21
      > 136 harris njn 237 514 0.462 100.4 105.1 -24
      > 137 peeler min 291 670 0.435 99.3 103.1 -25
      > 138 jackson atl 110 261 0.419 92.9 103.9 -29
      > 139 lenard den 337 766 0.440 103.4 107.2 -29
      > 140 blaylockgsw 359 784 0.457 99.8 103.5 -29
      > 141 knight atl 152 341 0.444 92.0 100.5 -29
      > 142 newman njn 306 662 0.462 101.8 106.3 -29
      > 143 richmondwas 251 551 0.455 101.3 106.6 -30
      > 144 vanhorn njn 266 585 0.454 100.4 105.9 -32
      > 145 wright atl 355 759 0.467 94.8 99.1 -33
      > 146 mcleod atl 154 345 0.446 91.9 101.8 -34
      > 147 taylor hou 394 816 0.482 98.0 103.0 -41
      > 148 bibby van 570 1212 0.470 102.4 106.0 -44
      > 149 starks uta 248 573 0.433 95.5 103.3 -45
      > 150 miles lac 291 633 0.459 91.8 99.0 -46
      > 151 mccloud den 268 613 0.437 98.8 106.7 -49
      > 152 oakley tor 324 733 0.442 92.9 99.7 -50
      > 153 dampier gsw 114 272 0.419 82.7 102.3 -53
      > 154 walker bos 685 1594 0.430 96.5 99.9 -54
      > 155 harring van 219 483 0.453 92.2 103.5 -55
      > 156 gill njn 143 359 0.399 82.3 99.5 -62
      > 157 nesby was 154 376 0.409 91.7 108.1 -62
      > 158 drew chi 143 359 0.399 90.0 107.5 -63
      > 159 henders atl 326 690 0.472 94.5 103.9 -65
      > 160 jamison gsw 720 1475 0.488 100.9 105.5 -67
      > 161 ewing sea 307 695 0.441 89.9 99.6 -67
      > 162 atkins det 357 837 0.427 96.7 105.2 -71
      > 163 howard was 456 949 0.481 98.0 105.6 -72
      > 164 murray cle 348 797 0.437 93.2 103.6 -83
      > 165 martin njn 389 870 0.447 90.2 99.7 -83
      > 166 jackson cle 190 452 0.421 87.6 106.6 -86
      > 167 artest chi 332 767 0.433 91.3 103.1 -90
      > 168 baker sea 402 883 0.456 92.9 104.7 -104
      > 169 sura gsw 284 675 0.420 91.0 107.2 -109
      > 170 hughes gsw 400 908 0.441 91.3 103.5 -110
      > 171 dickers van 454 1023 0.443 96.1 107.0 -111
      > 172 mercer chi 494 1050 0.471 97.2 108.4 -117
      > 173 hamiltonwas 486 1067 0.456 96.9 108.0 -118
      > 174 olowoka lac 280 683 0.409 82.3 100.6 -125
    • Dean Oliver
      ... #3? ... Garnett?... ... I ... looks ... today. Not a bad mood. I make no claims that these rate players. These are effective measurements of offensive
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., msg_53@h... wrote:
        >
        > DeanO, I happen to know, the more stats you post, the more potshots
        > people can take at you. Having warned you, I will wade in and take
        > my share.
        > Is this really a ratings list? Nowitzki better than Shaq? DRob
        #3?
        > Stock the best G in the land? Derek Anderson rates above
        Garnett?...
        > I have been puzzling over the meaning of these columns of data, and
        I
        > am about as unconvinced as possible that they tell me much. It
        looks
        > as though high-percentage and low-turnovers guys are rated highly.
        > The negative numbers in the NetPt column is also a mystery to me;
        > would Dallas be better without Finley? Can they even field 5
        > positive-rated players at once?
        > I hate to think I am stuck with my own rating system, without
        > anything to gain from others'. Maybe I am just in a bad mood
        today.

        Not a bad mood. I make no claims that these rate players. These are
        effective measurements of offensive and defensive ratings, then
        turned into "net points" -- a rather fake number in many ways, but
        one that always adds up right or close to right (it is not
        constrained to add up correctly). In other words, if you look at all
        the Mavericks, their individual net points will add up to the team
        net points. This is true for the season and games. Boston loses a
        lot and my numbers pin it not only on the bums who can't score, but
        on Walker. I'm comfortable with that. (OK. Boston is better this
        year and some part of that is Walker improving. His numbers were
        atrocious before. Most of it is Pierce, though.)

        If you want to call them ratings, you do risk looking "different".
        As I say, they are not ratings. They are very very good
        representations of the present and individual contributions. They
        don't account for the fact that some players' shooting helps their
        teammates.

        Not a single NBA or college team I've talked with cares about getting
        rating systems from me. They all have something pretty similar to
        what you have -- a linear weights method. Maybe they also account
        for quality of opponents (when evaluating college players or, like
        you, in the playoffs).

        Finley's net negative points, by the way, doesn't mean that Dallas
        would be better without him because you have to find someone to
        replace him with a net point total > 0. Subs generally have negative
        point totals, so you'd have to replace his negative number with a
        much worse negative total.

        As I said, these are "measurements of offensive and defensive
        ratings, then turned into 'net points'." Though I'm comfortable with
        the ratings, there is no theoretically good way to come up with "net
        points" for individuals. I've chosen 1 way. If I choose another way
        [(pts produced - def rtg*avgPossPerG/240*min/100)], the net points
        still add up to team totals, but your guys who shoot a lot but not
        very well start looking better. Maybe it is a better "rating", but I
        just don't have much use for these, not knowing how they
        theoretically can be used. I could go on and on about why overall
        ratings are useless (for a coach's purpose -- my general goal), but
        that's not necessary.

        plyr tm Min iORtg PtsProd iDRtg NetPt
        1 stackhouse,jerr det 2763 103.6 1961 103.4 847
        2 iverson,allen phi 2661 105.9 1845 96.5 845
        3 bryant,kobe lal 2622 111.1 1753 103.3 697
        4 o'neal,shaquill lal 2508 111.3 1650 98.9 684
        5 webber,chris sac 2329 104.2 1509 93.9 657
        6 mcgrady,tracy orl 2692 106.5 1686 99.1 647
        7 carter,vince tor 2512 113.4 1629 102.4 627
        8 pierce,paul bos 2653 107.0 1639 100.1 605
        9 marbury,stephon njn 2550 108.8 1646 106.9 584
        10 malone,karl uta 2506 108.6 1488 98.6 525
        11 payton,gary sea 2856 108.7 1669 105.0 500
        12 garnett,kevin min 2803 105.7 1556 96.7 500
        13 duncan,tim san 2773 101.9 1479 91.5 490
        14 walker,antoine bos 2869 96.4 1578 100.0 461
        15 nowitzki,dirk dal 2656 117.3 1422 99.0 397
        16 francis,steve hou 2754 111.3 1486 101.8 393
        17 allen,ray mil 2689 117.0 1470 103.9 382
        18 robinson,glenn mil 2459 101.3 1362 102.7 378
        19 jamison,antawn gsw 2914 101.5 1555 105.2 360
        20 mcdyess,antonio den 2443 105.4 1300 100.8 341
        21 cassell,sam mil 2354 109.6 1280 105.2 315
        22 mashburn,jamal cha 2571 99.2 1278 98.4 292
        23 terry,jason atl 2731 103.3 1406 104.9 290
        24 finley,michael dal 2936 103.3 1462 103.4 279
        25 kidd,jason pho 2555 102.8 1222 94.9 278
        26 rose,jalen ind 2463 102.9 1231 102.4 248
        27 miller,andre cle 2421 106.2 1224 103.6 247
        28 brand,elton chi 2443 100.8 1216 102.0 246
        29 abdur-rahim,sha van 2833 103.6 1361 102.2 233
        30 robinson,cliff pho 2363 97.1 1124 96.9 232
        31 robinson,david san 2110 111.5 968 89.8 230
        32 vanexel,nick den 2577 108.2 1310 108.0 226
        33 odom,lamar lac 2490 100.8 1186 99.4 222
        34 nash,steve dal 2013 116.5 1041 105.2 217
        35 mobley,cuttino hou 2574 106.7 1251 104.0 209
        36 wallace,rasheed por 2589 109.0 1181 97.1 201
        37 houston,allan nyk 2568 102.9 1199 99.8 200
        38 hardaway,tim mia 2309 102.2 1093 99.4 199
        39 marion,shawn pho 2426 104.7 1053 90.4 199
        40 armstrong,darre orl 2608 109.1 1229 101.5 198
        41 stockton,john uta 2068 119.0 995 100.4 186
        42 brandon,terrell min 2436 107.9 1147 101.4 184
        43 hamilton,richar was 2130 97.5 1083 108.4 184
        44 stojakovic,pred sac 2405 113.1 1126 100.7 182
        45 jones,eddie mia 2136 103.9 969 94.8 180
        46 anderson,derek san 2493 111.1 1125 97.9 175
        47 sprewell,latrel nyk 2577 95.9 1144 97.1 170
        48 grant,brian mia 2422 102.3 1030 94.5 138
        49 patterson,ruben sea 1888 104.5 882 102.2 131
        50 wesley,david cha 2735 103.8 1200 100.4 130
        51 wells,bonzi por 1840 105.0 835 99.4 123
        52 howard,juwan was 1981 98.0 930 105.6 115
        53 marshall,donyel uta 1940 108.5 844 97.9 104
        54 bibby,mike van 2804 102.4 1254 106.1 95
        55 rogers,rodney pho 1801 95.1 758 95.6 88
        56 miller,reggie ind 2772 114.7 1211 104.2 85
        57 hughes,larry gsw 1846 91.3 829 103.5 85
        58 divac,vlade sac 2041 101.0 840 95.1 84
        59 campbell,elden cha 2016 95.1 805 93.1 73
        60 stoudamire,damo por 2267 101.6 970 101.7 72
        61 kukoc,toni atl 512 115.7 288 113.1 63
        62 thomas,tim mil 1870 104.9 804 102.7 55
        63 richmond,mitch was 1216 101.3 558 106.6 53
        64 strickland,rod was 1020 102.1 463 103.1 53
        65 wright,lorenzen atl 1783 95.6 743 99.4 53
        66 smith,joe det 1630 99.0 690 100.5 52
        67 mason,anthony mia 2810 106.5 1094 95.5 49
        68 olajuwon,hakeem hou 1317 101.7 530 94.7 44
        69 davis,baron cha 2782 101.7 1099 97.6 40
        70 mercer,ron chi 2451 97.6 1072 108.6 35
        71 taylor,maurice hou 1948 98.2 816 103.1 34
        72 ilgauskas,zydru cle 616 94.0 263 96.6 31
        73 delk,tony pho 1957 97.5 781 98.6 29
        74 baker,vin sea 1993 92.8 837 104.4 27
        75 o'neal,jermaine ind 2278 96.5 867 94.8 26
        76 best,travis ind 2191 107.1 900 102.5 26
        77 smith,steve por 2166 112.9 903 104.1 25
        78 vanhorn,keith njn 1374 100.2 590 106.1 22
        79 jackson,jimmy atl 550 92.9 243 103.9 20
        80 fortson,danny gsw 203 132.0 97 100.4 17
        81 hill,grant orl 133 100.5 61 95.3 12
        82 mckie,aaron phi 2233 102.0 857 97.2 11
        83 howard,juwan dal 543 95.9 224 100.9 10
        84 jackson,marc gsw 1410 102.6 584 104.7 9
        85 atkins,chucky det 1992 96.6 825 105.2 9
        86 henderson,alan atl 1631 94.1 668 104.2 5
        87 kukoc,toni phi 979 101.3 377 97.4 5
        88 mutombo,dikembe phi 529 110.7 191 92.0 1
        89 hunter,lindsey mil 1700 105.5 690 104.2 0
        90 dickerson,micha van 2401 96.4 1001 107.1 0
        91 strickland,rod por 178 119.2 73 108.4 -2
        92 murray,lamond cle 1903 93.5 767 103.7 -2
        93 fisher,derek lal 301 120.2 119 103.4 -2
        94 hardaway,anfern pho 112 103.4 41 98.8 -2
        95 rice,glen nyk 1839 104.2 697 99.4 -15
        96 billups,chaunce min 1625 105.7 649 105.0 -16
        97 knight,brevin cle 93 76.4 20 101.7 -17
        98 thomas,kurt nyk 1735 106.9 612 93.1 -18
        99 daniels,antonio san 1833 112.3 700 100.5 -18
        100 davis,antonio tor 2339 102.0 877 99.0 -25
        101 harrington,othe nyk 336 99.2 101 98.5 -28
        102 camby,marcus nyk 1858 112.2 615 88.9 -28
        103 nesby,tyrone lac 333 89.2 102 101.2 -29
        104 mills,chris gsw 493 91.2 166 101.9 -29
        105 feick,jamie njn 149 80.2 26 100.3 -32
        106 childs,chris tor 310 80.1 87 100.9 -35
        107 russell,bryon uta 2073 112.7 779 101.1 -37
        108 jackson,mark nyk 461 92.1 136 97.4 -39
        109 davis,hubert was 431 111.7 151 113.6 -40
        110 mcleod,roshown atl 907 91.9 317 101.8 -43
        111 harpring,matt cle 1264 100.6 472 104.7 -44
        112 snow,eric phi 1337 101.0 458 96.8 -46
        113 ratliff,theo phi 1800 100.9 592 91.6 -50
        114 gill,kendall njn 892 82.3 295 99.5 -50
        115 lewis,rashard sea 2399 111.6 909 102.7 -51
        116 pippen,scottie por 1727 102.6 618 100.0 -55
        117 lafrentz,raef den 2085 108.1 766 101.1 -56
        118 newman,johnny njn 1814 102.4 696 106.5 -56
        119 whitney,chris was 1532 105.7 589 108.1 -56
        120 ward,charlie nyk 1195 97.9 394 97.6 -61
        121 miller,brad chi 1203 102.1 417 102.1 -61
        122 anderson,kenny bos 849 97.0 278 103.1 -63
        123 jackson,jimmy cle 1106 87.6 396 106.6 -64
        124 dampier,erick gsw 761 83.4 238 101.9 -64
        125 mcinnis,jeff lac 2465 111.3 965 107.2 -65
        126 harrington,othe van 1267 92.2 446 103.5 -65
        127 elliott,sean san 1040 104.4 326 96.5 -66
        128 battie,tony bos 786 105.8 229 96.8 -68
        129 williams,jason sac 1956 100.6 704 101.3 -68
        130 artest,ron chi 1974 91.5 724 103.0 -68
        131 szczerbiak,wall min 2471 108.0 924 104.1 -77
        132 christie,doug sac 2480 105.4 861 97.3 -79
        133 lenard,voshon den 2106 103.5 802 107.4 -80
        134 mccloud,george den 1703 98.6 629 107.0 -81
        135 sura,bob gsw 1684 91.0 615 107.2 -89
        136 miller,mike orl 2008 105.7 718 103.3 -89
        137 blaylock,mookie gsw 2249 99.2 813 103.1 -90
        138 williams,aaron njn 2107 102.8 738 100.9 -90
        139 ewing,patrick sea 1883 90.2 637 99.4 -92
        140 barry,brent sea 1570 126.6 546 104.4 -92
        141 williams,alvin tor 1994 102.1 700 102.4 -95
        142 martin,kenyon njn 2274 90.2 785 99.7 -99
        143 piatkowski,eric lac 1837 111.6 654 105.4 -100
        144 peeler,anthony min 1910 99.3 665 103.1 -102
        145 knight,brevin atl 1087 92.1 326 101.3 -103
        146 miles,darius lac 1828 92.2 602 99.1 -103
        147 jackson,mark tor 1802 110.8 625 104.4 -108
        148 fox,rick lal 1935 108.9 683 105.0 -108
        149 nesby,tyrone was 1106 91.7 345 108.1 -121
        150 johnson,larry nyk 1953 98.2 617 97.7 -127
        151 mutombo,dikembe atl 1716 100.3 470 91.1 -139
        152 harper,ron lal 1139 101.1 317 103.4 -142
        153 olowokandi,mich lac 1828 82.1 572 100.8 -145
        154 bradley,shawn dal 1742 105.3 489 94.1 -150
        155 maloney,matt atl 1173 100.3 320 104.1 -155
        156 eisley,howard dal 2163 102.2 712 103.7 -162
        157 starks,john uta 1821 96.1 573 103.7 -163
        158 hill,tyrone phi 2055 99.3 617 97.8 -166
        159 weatherspoon,cl cle 2352 109.6 738 99.3 -172
        160 childs,chris nyk 1309 94.8 330 98.7 -174
        161 davis,hubert dal 1261 101.6 336 106.2 -186
        162 harris,lucious njn 1752 100.3 524 105.2 -194
        163 hoiberg,fred chi 1803 115.9 528 104.8 -208
        164 drew,bryce chi 1305 89.8 332 107.9 -216
        165 posey,james den 1904 101.3 551 103.6 -218
        166 davis,dale por 1840 107.6 487 98.8 -222
        167 anderson,shando hou 2099 99.0 612 102.6 -227
        168 stith,bryant bos 2243 108.0 673 103.6 -232
        169 oakley,charles tor 2417 93.0 698 99.6 -240
        170 lynch,george phi 2283 101.6 605 96.3 -251
        171 grant,horace lal 2078 113.9 587 104.0 -254
        172 outlaw,charles orl 2168 111.5 553 97.6 -271
        173 brown,p.j. cha 2463 104.9 621 95.7 -298
        174 wallace,ben det 2322 94.6 504 93.0 -337
        175 bowen,bruce mia 2291 97.2 525 98.2 -351

        (These are approx because I didn't take time to account for
        individual team pace. >= 24 min/game)

        Dean Oliver
        Journal of Basketball Studies
      • Dean Oliver
        ... With respect to your own rating system, how do you evaluate rating systems? What do you hope to gain by looking at others? You re not just saying, Well,
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., msg_53@h... wrote:

          > I hate to think I am stuck with my own rating system, without
          > anything to gain from others'. Maybe I am just in a bad mood today.

          With respect to your own rating system, how do you evaluate rating
          systems? What do you hope to gain by looking at others? You're
          not just saying, "Well, I don't agree that Mutombo is better than
          Ratliff, so it couldn't be right," right? What is "accuracy" for a
          rating system? I usually say accuracy is roughly determined by
          applying the system to teams and seeing whether it reproduces the team
          ranks by winning percentages. Most linear weights methods don't do a
          very good job. I'm not sure we can do this with your system and its
          scaling. Without some measure of accuracy (how well does it predict
          winning?), it just becomes a basic argument over whether an overall
          rating is useful. Or I suppose it could be an argument over whether
          the theory behind the formulas are better. With 4th roots in your
          method, I don't think you want to be arguing theory.

          Dean Oliver
          Journal of Basketball Studies
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.