APBRmetrics

I assume they will update the top 50 done in 1996, when 2021 rolls around. This isn't a burning topic for me but it could be suitable a summer-time topic of interest to some.

I found these top 100 lists to give some context.

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.co ... story.html

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showth ... p?t=282470

25 more will make the bigger list, at least 25 guys with support won't.

A couple of bad lists there.
One has Karl Malone at #17, the other at 19.
Infested with the usual hype.

wow - more player rankings that show isaiah thomas and steve nash above maurice cheeks and dominique wilkins (or even chris webber) above larry nance...

unreal...

There are better lists out there. I am not endorsing these; they were just the first ones I saw. The hof thread here and the elo ratings at b-r are also available to look at.

I would assume and hope that they wouldn't feel obliged to retain their previous 50 and add 25. Some of those guys were pretty marginal, and a lot more great players come around with an expanded talent pool from the whole world.

They could also take it too far and try to include too many countries: Yao Ming? He might have had one of the great NBA careers, and he might still have one of the top 75 peaks; so it's rather an arbitrary process of decisions.

'Greatness' can be defined to include inspiration. Whoever invented the jump shot inspired a lot of improvement in the game. Whoever refined ambidextrous dribbling would have a case.

wow - more player rankings that show isaiah thomas and steve nash above maurice cheeks and dominique wilkins (or even chris webber) above larry nance...

I rank Isiah (#42) and Nash (60) over Cheeks (125).
Also rank 'Nique (57) and Webber (37) over Nance (75).
Others would seemingly agree:
http://bkref.com/tiny/pR3Iv
http://bkref.com/tiny/s1geU

these top 50-100 lists undervalue man defense outside of steals and blocked shots, and also undervalues steals and blocks as game impacting plays. also defensive win shares (if these lists even use them) considers man defense outside of steals and blocked shots as pretty much the same for every player on a team normalized to minutes played, so that too does not truly measure individual man defense...

players that get steals and/or block shots that are also very good to excellent man defenders greatly influence game outcomes. even players who get both steals and block shots but are not very good to excellent man defenders (average or just worse than average) greatly influence game outcomes...

conversely, players who are high scorers but that are not good man defenders, who also get few steals and block few shots, negatively impact game outcomes, unless their offensive efficiency (pts/0ptposs) is quite good...

I rank Isiah (#42) and Nash (60) over Cheeks (125). Others would seemingly agree:

i'll re-post a rebuttal from a few years ago:

---------------------------------------------

You're surprised that a 4 time all-star who never made all-NBA didn't crack the top 100?

no, just the cheeks vs. nash comparison, since the list had nash rated so high...

Care to expound?

---g------min--ScFG%---ast-----st------to----player
1101---34845--56.2---7392---2310--2268---cheeks
1073---33606--59.7---9055---0813--3038---nash

each has played 15 years, close to the same number of minutes. nash has 1663 more assists, cheeks had 1497 more steals with 770 less turnovers, or 2267 more zero point team possessions. each team possession is worth approximately 1 point, so that's 2267 less team possession points for nash. from a team perspective an assist is certainly not worth anywhere near a point...

nash may have scored more but when cheeks did not score does not mean his team did not score. but a zero point team possession costs your team a possession/point, and cheeks is up on nash 2267 team zero point possessions, or about 2.1 per game over their entire careers...

this not to mention that outside of steals, blocked shots, and def rebs cheeks was the vastly superior defender (4 times all-D 1st team, 1 time all-D 2nd team), and this was during the days of great defensive guards like dennis johnson, michael cooper, and t.r. dunn in their prime...

for the 8 year period of 78-79 to 85-86, the 76ers were the league's 2nd best defensive team (lowest pts/poss allowed, milwaukee was 1st), and cheeks played 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes (2nd most minutes to erving). i'd say he was a key reason why they were so dominant defensively for so long...

nash was in the league for 8 seasons (96-97 to 03-04, ages 22-30) before he won his first mvp. how many people would consider him an all-time great based on what he did his first 8 years in the league?...

also he got a ton of votes for mvp from 04-05 to 07-08. but from 08-09 to 10-11 he got few. yet his stats for both 3 year stretchs were virtually identical...

---------------------------------------------

Also rank 'Nique (57) and Webber (37) over Nance (75). Others would seemingly agree:

there were very few SF/PFs (nance played alot of SF early in his career) that were better overall defenders than nance in the 80s and early 90s. if you throw out his rookie and finals seasons (when he played his fewest minutes), you have a long stretch of 11 years (82-83 to 92-93) where he played 35 min/g, scored 18.3 pts/g, shot overall a high 58.0% ScFG% (2s, 3s, and FTs), yet committed just 1.9 TO/g. his offense was extremely efficient, he was the league's best shot blocker for a non-C (and only mark eaton, manute bol, and haleem olajuwon blocked more shots), and he was one of the league's top man defenders among forwards...

if someone was to make up an all-star team from the 80s and early 90s, the only forwards i would pick before nance would be larry bird and perhaps charles barkley and/or karl malone...

james worthy is on both of these lists - his career timeline pretty much matches that of nance. yet from 82-83 to 92-93 they scored the same (18.3 pts/g) playing almost the same time (35 vs. 34 min/g) but nance shot significantly better (58.0% vs. 55.8% ScFG%) and was more efficient on offense, all while being the better overall defender. plus nance did not have the fortune of playing with magic johnson, but had primarily jay humphries, kyle macy, and rod foster as PGs...

plus one list had alex english and the other chris mullin. but i did not see bobby jones on either list. what coach would take either english or mullin over jones in their primes? jones was all-defensive 1st team 10 straight years (2 in the aba), and his first 9 years in the nba (77-78 to 85-86) he was one of the league's very best overall shooting forwards (59.1% ScFG%), was considered the best man defender among forwards during that time, and was 4th in total steals and 6th in total blocked shots among forwards yet ranked just 21st among forwards in total minutes played...

great defense and efficient offense generates wins at high rates...

from 78-79 to 85-86 (8 years) the 76ers averaged a W-L record of 57-25 (2nd best among all teams, only boston was better at 58-24). during that time they ranked just 8th in offensive efficiency (106.2 pts/100poss), but - as mentioned above - 2nd in defensive efficiency (102.0 pts/100poss allowed), so they won primarily because of their defense. and during that 8 year stretch maurice cheeks was 2nd on the team in total minutes played and bobby jones was 3rd (julius erving was 1st) - they were the best defenders on a team that won big over a long period of time due to their defense, and both were very efficient on offense...

Bob, would I be correct in supposing that you simply reject the xRAPM estimates of player contributions, as related in http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/, a priori?

If not, how does your Nash vs. Cheeks (reposted) commentary stand? And if not, how do you reconcile the estimated defensive contributions of Chris Paul with your corresponding regard for Maurice Cheeks?

would I be correct in supposing that you simply reject the xRAPM estimates of player contributions?

why? what does it show for cheeks, thomas, and nash? nance, webber, and wilkins? english, mullin, and bobby jones?...

And if not, how do you reconcile the estimated defensive contributions of Chris Paul with your corresponding regard for Maurice Cheeks?

in 13-14 i have chris paul rated as a very good to excellent man defender, and on top of that his steal rate was one of the best among PGs. so i have his contribution at that end of the floor among PGs last season as one of the best...

what does xRAPM show?...

Let's begin (and perhaps end) with a look at how Paul's record might inform our views of Cheeks' value on the defensive end (and by inference the relative overall value of Cheeks vs. Nash) through the prism of xRAPM, with particular focus on the expected contribution of the "zero point possession" defensive stat: steals.

Of course, Cheeks barely shows up in the annual (quarter-based) xRAPM record. Noted only are the last three years of his career (1990-91 through 1991-93), and, again, I don't know what the prior is that contributes to the start of the series. For the record though, these Defensive Ratings are 0.4, -.3, and 0. And I only make note of that because he remained a formidable stealer until the end, his corresponding per 100 possession rating (per B-V) being: 3.0, 3.7, and 3.2 - an average approximating his career average of 3.2.

Now, a defensive rating of about 0 is, to my understanding, well above-average for a point guard (and, I expect, for a small one especially) so this is nothing to sneeze at, especially at the end of one's career. (Though as a final, possible contextual note, at the end of his career, Cheeks' offensive responsibilities diminished, so perhaps one should think that his energies were relatively more focused on defense.)

But now we turn to Paul, whose defensive "persona" (I would like to think we might agree) might be considered to be quite similar to that of a young Cheeks. In the first nine career years, Paul has four 1st Team All-Defensive NBA and two 2nds whereas Cheeks had four and one. Paul's steals per 100 possessions has averaged 3.5, whereas Cheeks' averaged 3.4. And then the other defensive box score stats are a bit of a wash, Paul being the better defensive rebounder (2.1 more per 100 possessions) and Cheeks being marginally better at blocks (+0.4) and not fouling (-0.1).

So, what does xRAPM say about Paul's defense? On (a straight yearly) average, it shows a rating of 0.4 - again, what is well above-average in a point guard context.

Given this, is there a compelling reason to believe that Cheeks' analogous career years would have yielded a much different defensive +/- rating? If so, what is that reason?

And if not, is there any reason to believe that in comparing Nash to Cheeks, that the comparative offensive ratings wouldn't be determinative, as to their relative values?

Of course, Cheeks barely shows up in the annual (quarter-based) xRAPM record. Noted only are the last three years of his career (1990-91 through 1991-93)...

cheeks was the ages of 34-36 those 3 seasons. i would not presuppose that a player's stats in that age range would be indicative of what he did earlier in his career...

So, what does xRAPM say about Paul's defense?

you tell me - the link to the website you provided shows a 2013-14 xRAPM "Defense per 100" number of 1.2 for chris paul, and 1.3 for nate wolters. what do those numbers tell us? paul last season averaged 213 st/3000min, wolters 80 st/3000min...

Given this, is there a compelling reason to believe that Cheeks' analogous career years would have yielded a much different defensive +/- rating?

i am not the developer of, nor the calculator of, any +/- ratings or it's various iterations. so please tell us...

And if not, is there any reason to believe that in comparing Nash to Cheeks, that the comparative offensive ratings wouldn't be determinative, as to their relative values?

are you seriously trying to suggest that the differences in the values of these two players to generate wins can be solely determined by their offensive contributions?...

bchaikin wrote:Of course, Cheeks barely shows up in the annual (quarter-based) xRAPM record. Noted only are the last three years of his career (1990-91 through 1991-93)...

cheeks was the ages of 34-36 those 3 seasons. i would not presuppose that a player's stats in that age range would be indicative of what he did earlier in his career...

My understanding of your worldview is that zero-point possessions are zero-point possessions and they are key determinants of defensive value, hence the mention of the rough constancy of Cheeks' z-pps throughout his career. The unsatisfactorily (?) low rating at the end of Cheeks' career should then perhaps be explained by the age-related deterioration in his on-ball defense, uncompensated for by veteran wiliness? Perhaps.

bchaikin wrote:So, what does xRAPM say about Paul's defense?

you tell me - the link to the website you provided shows a 2013-14 xRAPM "Defense per 100" number of 1.2 for chris paul, and 1.3 for nate wolters. what do those numbers tell us? paul last season averaged 213 st/3000min, wolters 80 st/3000min...

Ha. I did tell you. And in sufficient detail, reflecting nine years of play. And the relevance of Nate Wolters' defensive estimate of last year is...?

bchaikin wrote:Given this, is there a compelling reason to believe that Cheeks' analogous career years would have yielded a much different defensive +/- rating?

i am not the developer of, nor the calculator of, any +/- ratings or it's various iterations. so please tell us...

I take this to be confirmation of the conjecture that, a priori, you are unwilling to accept xRAPM estimates. Perhaps other readers will be disinclined to share this inference.

bchaikin wrote:And if not, is there any reason to believe that in comparing Nash to Cheeks, that the comparative offensive ratings wouldn't be determinative, as to their relative values?

are you seriously trying to suggest that the differences in the values of these two players to generate wins can be solely determined by their offensive contributions?...

Hmmm. Did I use the word "solely" or imply that defensive contributions were not to be part of the comparison? I thought the inference was clear: that Nash's known defensive liabilities would be outweighed by his relative offensive excellence. But perhaps that's not true.

Checking the xRAPM tables, Nash's career (excluding the last) shows averages for defense, offense, and total of -2.2, +4.4, and +2.1. Taking his 15 best (to line up with Cheeks' longevity) they are -2.1, +5.0, and +2.9. Finally, looking at the best, continuous 10 year stretch, we have: -2.1, +6.3, and +4.3.

So, the argument in full is: if Cheeks, on defense, was indeed Paul-like in the first nine years of his career, and indeed Cheeks-like at the end, you're looking at a +0.4 defender, or thereabouts. And this implies that for him to have been on Nash's overall equal (relative to the standards of the day) on per possession basis, he would have to have been between a +1.7 and about +3.9 on offense, depending on your framing of the comparison. So, there's the +/- reason to believe...

The unsatisfactorily (?) low rating at the end of Cheeks' career

why is his rating low? compared to what?...

Ha. I did tell you. And in sufficient detail, reflecting nine years of play.

you said...

So, what does xRAPM say about Paul's defense? On (a straight yearly) average, it shows a rating of 0.4 - again, what is well above-average in a point guard context.

this is sufficient detail? how do you know this is well above average for a PG?...

is there a listing someplace of PGs on a yearly basis to compare this to? by career? in any age range? the website you linked to only shows yearly lists of what looks like all players regardless of position. how do you filter out PGs? is there a list someplace of this by player? by position?...

how do you know 0.4 is well above average for a PG? doing a spot check of "Defense per 100"from 04-05 to 11-12 nash averages -2.0, jason kidd +2.2. from 05-06 to 12-13 jose calderon averaged -2.5, chris paul +0.4. what does this mean? that nash is as poor of a defender as calderon? what is low and what is high for a PG?...

plus these lists show chauncey billups from 02-03 to 07-08 at an average "Defense per 100" of -1.2. these 6 seasons detroit was the league's 2nd best team defensively (100.1 pts/100poss allowed, only san antonio was better with 98.4 pts/100poss allowed), was 3rd best on defense in lowest eFG% allowed (46.5%), and billups played 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes. he was clearly one of the league's top defensive PGs...

so is -1.2 an excellent defensive xRAPM number over a 6 year period for a PG that averaged playing 2655 minutes a season? if not then what is this number telling us for billups?...

And the relevance of Nate Wolters' defensive estimate of last year is...?

at +1.3 it is higher than chris paul's +1.2. what does that mean? is this "defensive estimate" trying to infer nate wolters was a better defender than chris paul was last season?...

I take this to be confirmation of the conjecture that, a priori, you are unwilling to accept xRAPM estimates.

you can take it however you like - all i see at that website is lists of players and numbers, nothing that shows what is average for each position, on a yearly basis or over any specific age range...

I thought the inference was clear: that Nash's known defensive liabilities would be outweighed by his relative offensive excellence. But perhaps that's not true.

correct - it is not true. from 79-80 to 86-87 (8 years) cheeks was one of the most offensively efficient PGs in the league. among the 68 PGs those 8 years that played at least 3000 total minutes, cheeks was the 3rd best overall shooter (57.9% ScFG%) and his pts/0ptposs (offensive efficiency) was 5th best. he was also all-D 1st team 4 times and all-D 2nd team once...

nash a worse than average to poor defender most of his career, and his offense in no way outweighs his defense such that he would be anywhere near the overall caliber player maurice cheeks was in terms of wins generated...

Checking the xRAPM tables, Nash's career (excluding the last) shows averages for defense

nash's "Defense per 100" -2.0 average over 8 seasons from 04-05 to 11-12 looks alot more like calderon's -2.5 than it does kidd's +2.2...

So, the argument in full is: if Cheeks, on defense, was indeed Paul-like in the first nine years of his career, and indeed Cheeks-like at the end, you're looking at a +0.4 defender, or thereabouts.

chris paul's 0.4 "Defense per 100" appears to be between kidd and calderon. i don't see how this is well above average...

but since this "Defense per 100" also shows chauncey billups at -1.2 over 6 years when he was clearly one of the league's top defensive PGs, i have no idea what this "Defense per 100" number is supposed to indicate...

And this implies that for him to have been on Nash's overall equal (relative to the standards of the day) on per possession basis, he would have to have been between a +1.7 and about +3.9 on offense, depending on your framing of the comparison. So, there's the +/- reason to believe...

xRAPM shows one of the league's best defensive PGs chauncey billups over a long 6 year time stretch at -1.2 "Defense per 100". if you want to believe than billups' defense those 6 years was closer to the defense of jose calderon than that of jason kidd, be my guest...

Billups got to play with Ben Wallace. The problem with how you present things Bchai is you form an opinion and apply the data to fit that narrative.

If xRAPM claims one thing, then it claims one thing. It claims Billups was in fact a below-average defender. It's not as though xRAPM has an opinion or wants a player to be good or bad, it simply is.

You can choose to accept these numbers or not, but debunking the stat because you thought a player was good at defense (when xRAPM "thinks" he is not) sounds like a bad approach to me.

Billups got to play with Ben Wallace.

wallace was a great defender. but he only played 4 of those 6 seasons - 02-03 to 05-06, when detroit was 2nd best in the league in defense (98.9 pts/100poss allowed). in 06-07 and 07-08 combined, without wallace, detroit was still 4th best in the league in defense (102.3 pts/100poss allowed), and those 2 seasons billups played 1/8 of the team's total minutes played...

The problem with how you present things Bchai is you form an opinion and apply the data to fit that narrative.

here's the narrative - from 02-03 to 07-08 detroit was the 2nd best defensive team in the league (100.1 pts/100poss allowed). somebody - make that alot of somebodies - on that team was playing great defense, both from 02-03 to 05-06 with wallace, and from 06-07 to 07-08 without wallace. no one great defensive player is going to make your team best or 2nd best or top 4 in the league over this stretch of time, you have to have a number of very good to excellent defenders playing major minutes...

If xRAPM claims one thing, then it claims one thing. It claims Billups was in fact a below-average defender.

if in fact that number of -1.2 "Defense per 100" over 6 years claims billups "...was in fact a below average defender...", then explain to me how a team has 1/8 to 1/7 of it's total minutes played over a 6 year stretch by a player that was a below average defender but be 2nd best in the league in defense (or 4th from 06-07 to 07-08)...

here's "Defense per 100" numbers for the 04-05 pistons players that played the most minutes:

+0.7 t.prince 3039
-1.2 r.hamilton 2926
-1.0 c.billups 2866
+3.9 r.wallace 2687
+7.8 b.wallace 2671
+0.5 mcdyess 1797
-0.3 l.hunter 1144

if -1.2 and -1.0 means players were below average defenders, and i'm assuming +0.7 is just an above average defender, then explain to me how a team has close to 1/2 of the team's total minutes played (8831/19955 or 44%, prince / hamilton / billups) by average to below average defenders finish 3rd in the league in overall defense (100.0 pts/100poss allowed, only san antonio and chicago were better that season)...

the wallace's combined played just 1/4 (5358/19955 or 27%) of the team's total minutes played. for a team to have close to 1/2 of it's minutes played by average to below average defenders finish 3rd in the league in defense, all of it's remaining players would have to have been outstanding defenders. and that's not the case here, considering others on that team included antonio mcdyess (0.5), lindsey hunter (-0.3), carlos arroyo (-4.0), ronald dupree (-1.8), and carlos delfino (-1.8)...

so if what you are saying is true, that a 1-2. or a +0.7 is an average to below average defender, then adding up the minutes of billups, hamilton, prince, mcdyess, hunter, arroyo, dupree, and delfino is 13409/19955 or 2/3 of the team's minutes were played by "average" defenders. yet the team still finished 3rd in team defense? i don't think so...

the fact is that in 04-05 both prince and billups were very good to excellent man defenders - they were far better than "average" defenders - and combined they played 30% of the team's total minutes...

You can choose to accept these numbers or not, but debunking the stat because you thought a player was good at defense (when xRAPM "thinks" he is not) sounds like a bad approach to me.

from 03-04 to 07-08 billups got more votes for the all-D team than any PG but jason kidd. that same time frame tayshaun prince got more votes for the all-D team than all SFs except bruce bowen, andrei kirilenko, and ron artest. so not just i but alot of people thought they were very good defenders...

you can choose to accept these defensive numbers if you wish, but until i see a listing of their numbers normalized to players' minutes played and somehow "added up" to equate to the team's defensive rankings, they simply don't mean a whole lot...

claiming chauncey billups and tayshaun prince were below average to average defenders playing major minutes on a team that was one of the very best defensive teams in the league over a long stretch of time and that many publicly considered very good to excellent defenders simply doesn't pass the "laugh test"...

and from your statement - debunking the stat because you thought a player was good at defense sounds like a bad approach to me - i have to assume you are young and never saw both billups and prince play in their prime. because if you had this wouldn't even be a discussion - you would have known from watching them that they were two of the best defenders at their positions over that 6 year stretch...

bchaikin wrote:
if in fact that number of -1.2 "Defense per 100" over 6 years claims billups "...was in fact a below average defender...", then explain to me how a team has 1/8 to 1/7 of it's total minutes played over a 6 year stretch by a player that was a below average defender but be 2nd best in the league in defense (or 4th from 06-07 to 07-08)...

I dunno, the Bulls with Carlos Boozer have managed to do that pretty effectively too. It's very possible (and happens quite often) bad individual defenders get hidden on good defensive teams. Good individual defenders can sometimes not stand out on bad defensive teams, as well.

I don't really have a horse in this race either way, but I do think Billups has been (historically) overvalued defensively, while at the same time being under-appreciated offensively.